Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO041_FASHION ISLAND TP0041 1 , 0 SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW E.CLEMENT SHUTE,JR. 396 HAYE5 STREET TERRELLJ.WATT, AICP MARK I.WEINBERGER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 URBAN PLANNER MARC B.MIHALY, P.C. (415) 552-7272 DANIEL S.MILLER ALLETTA D'A.BELIN ENVIRONMENTAL FELLOW FRAN M.LAYfON RACHEL B.HOOPER June 10, 1698 \�` b R plan nfVED 1 `"tm' JUVT 198 ! £ NE1YP4,o� e Rrfu. CgUF aC6. FEDERAL EXPRESS !f ti N Patricia Temple Environmental Review Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Construction of Parking Structure in Fashion Island Dear Ms. Temple: Our client, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) , has brought to our attention the fact that a parking structure is being built in Fashion Island prior to the adoption of GPA 85-1(B) and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for same. We are aware that the City' s Code exempts parking structures from allowable square footage on a parcel. However, we are not aware of any exemption for parking structures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Newport Center EIR does not make it clear whether this structure is ancillary to the 66, 000 square feet of allowable retail space in Fashion Island, or part of GPA 85-1(B) project. For example, the EIR states that " [p]arking structure(s) will be required to provide sufficient Barking for the 128,000 square feet of additional development ' proposed for Fashion Island under GPA 85-1(B) . EIR at 155 . Yet, the EIR also reveals that "a parking structure is presently under construction" in Fashion Patricia Temple June 10 , 1986 Page 2 Island.11 EIR at 338 . How large is the parking structure under construction? Is it intended to serve the 66, 000 square feet of additional retail space presently under construction? If so, how do the number of spaces in the parking structure relate to the demand created by the approved 66,000 square feet of retail space? The Newport Center EIR also makes it clear that "parking structures have been a source of community concern from both a public safety and aesthetic standpoint, " and that the Fashion Island parking structure "has the potential for impacts if not properly mitigated." Was a prior EIR prepared for the parking structure under construction? If so, please describe required mitigation measures . If not, why was the parking structure allowed to be built prior to the certification of the Newport Center EIR and adoption of GPA 85-1(B) ? As you are aware, CEQA does not allow projects to be segmented. Please indicate why the construction of this parking structure does not constitute segmenting of the true project as it is described in the EIR for GPA 85-1(B) . We believe that parking structures have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on air quality, noise, traffic, aesthetics and drainage, and should all be the subject of an EIR. In particular, we are concerned about the cumulative impacts associated with the unknown number of parking structures proposed for Newport Center. In addition, we believe the City' s Code is dangerously flawed in not accounting for parking structures in calculating allowable square footage on a parcel. 1 . It is notable that this single disclosure was in the "pedestrian section" of the EIR. Patricia Temple June 10, 1986 Page 3 We bring these concerns to your attention in hopes that you will consider them and respond accordingly. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER �j" twc�— TERRY WATT Urban Planner TW:lb 029/sp2 cc: Bob Burnham, City Attorney Jean Watt • Sy • THE IRVINE COMPANY two February 19, 1986 do \�• Mr. Bob Burnham , FF.$ c\� �e°� City Attorney Z a�cP��F qll City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California SUBJECT: Fashion Island Development Transfer Agreement Dear Bob: Attached for your review and approval is a draft agreement regarding transfer of development rights to Fashion Island from Newport Village and Civic Plaza as required by the City Council action of October 28, 1985. Please let me or Marney Buchanan know of the results of your review. We are desirous of City Council consideration at the next available hearing date. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, & 'Q' David Dmohowski Manager Government Relations cc:�P. Temple- ,Planning D'ept.! M. Buchanan - TIC Attachment 550 Newport Center Drive,PO.Box I,Newport Beach,California 92658-8904•(714)720-2000 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: (Space above this line for Recorder's use only) AGREEMENT This Agreement (Agreement) is entered into this day of , 1986, by and between The Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation (TIC) , and the City of Newport Beach, a California municipal corporation (City) . RECITALS ' A. TIC is the owner of certain real property located in Newport Center, including that certain real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and referred to herein as Newport Village and Civic Plaza, and that certain real property described on Exhibit B attached hereto and referred to herein as Fashion Island. B. On December 20, 1978 City passed Resolution No. 9485 adopting General Plan Amendment 78-2 which provides in Paragraph l(b) for the ability to transfer development allocations in Newport Center, provided that an analysis demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan. C. On October 28, 1985, City passed Resolution No. 85-84, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, authorizing the transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island in Newport Center, in accordance with the requirements of General Plan Amendment 78-2 . D. The purpose of this Agreement is to satisfy the condition to the transfer set forth in Resolution No. 85-84. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, and for the purposes stated above, City and TIC hereby agree as follows: 1. The parties acknowledge, agree and accept that the transfer of development rights referred to in Paragraph C above results in there being no current right to develop retail development at Civic Plaza and Newport Village. Further, TIC waives any claim for compensation or damages in the event development rights for retail development at Civic Plaza or Newport Village are not granted by the City subsequent to the date of this Agreement. 2. TIC acknowledges that by approval of Resolution No. 85-84, the City has not prejudiced its ability to take independent action on proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) . 3 . City acknowledges that the transfer of development rights referred to in Paragraph C above was accomplished in Resolution 85-84 and is' separate and apart from the development entitlements being considered pursuant to General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THE IRVINE COMPANY By: By: Title: Title: By: By: Title: Title: Approved as to form and content: Bob Burnham City Attorney • 0 O��FWPOR CITY OF-NEWPORT"BEACH U S P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 C,944FOR �P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 June 11, 1986 Ms. Terrell J. Watt, AICP Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Attorneys at Law 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Construction of Parking Structure in Fashion Island Dear Ms. Watt: This is written in response to your letter of June 10, 1986, regarding the environmental document for the parking structure now under con- struction in the Fashio* Island parking lot. It appears you have a concern pertaining to the relationship of this project to the General Plan Amendment currently being considered for Newport Center. The project under construction is a separate project utilizing entitlement accommodated by the existing general plan limits in Newport Center. The following is provided for your information. On October 28, 1985, the City Council, by a unanimous vote, adopted Resolution No. 85-84 approving a transfer of allowed development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island. This approval allowed development of an additional 66,000 sq.ft. of retail commer- cial use with a related parking structure. The approval also included acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant to Section 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and an environmental document. The action took place at a duly noticed public hearing. The development allowed by this action is not part of General Plan Amendment 85-l(B) , and has not been analyzed as part of the project in the EIR prepared for the GPA. The parking structure discussion referenced in your letter addresses an additional parking structure which will be needed if the General Plan Amendment is approved. The parking structure currently under construction is a two-level struc- ture designed to provide additional 243 parking spaces solely to support the 66,000 sq.ft. addition. The 66,000 sq.ft. of development is required to provide parking at one parking space for every 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area, or 264 spaces. The twenty-one parking spaces not provided by the parking structure is made up by the small surplus which resulted from the Atrium Court development, which reduced the gross floor area of the old J.C. Penney building. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Ms. Terrell J. Wato • June 11, 1986 Page 2 The approval of the transfer of development rights and traffic study included the acceptance of a Negative Declaration for the project. The initial study prepared in support of the Negative Declaration indicated that a parking structure would be constructed in conjunction with the increased floor area. Specific mitigation measures were applied related to the construction of the parking structure, notably in the areas of grading, parking lot lighting and cultural resource protection. The concern you express regarding the aesthetic impact of the structure was considered insignificant since the proposal involved a low profile structure with the lower level depressed. The top level of the structure is at the same approximate elevation of the at-grade parking it replaces. A Notice of Determination was filed by the City for the project subsequent to approval. The notice was posted at the County Clerk's office for thirty calendar days as required by Section 21152(c) of the Public Resources Code. Your comments in regards to the exclusion of parking structures in the City's calculation of allowable floor area has been noted. This is an issue which has been raised periodically by the Planning Commission, but has never result °d in any changes ro the zoning Code. I don't know exactly what you mean by the comment "dangerously flawed," since many zoning codes are written with the same exclusions. I can comment that it is most important to control the amount and intensity of functional floor area in regulating land uses. Parking is usually provided as a support facility to land uses. Parking in an area like Fashion Island, does not, by itself, generate most of the adverse impacts listed in your letter (air quality, noise, traffic) , but the impacts result from the use. In other words, no one would come to the parking if the uses were not there. The main areas of the City where this would not apply are the beach areas where the availability of parking is one of the constraints which affect beach ,usage, and increased parking could result in additional beach use at peak times, with the resultant increased traffic generation. I hope this information adequately addresses your questions regarding the project and its processing. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at the above number. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director AAdt-a--) xc2a."& PATRICIA L. TEMPLE I Environmental Coordinator PLT3/jm Attachment: Mitigation Measures for Fashion Island Transfer MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the .approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading. shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of, a soil engineer and an engi- njering geologist �Osecguent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall;be furnishedlto the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. - 2 - 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public +Works Departments. at 15. T £ire vehicle Iabcesh, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualifiedlarchaeologist for paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices 'for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. SR11 - 3 - . F850.124.3 • County Of V7ange MUD""M' O Dec. 16, 1985 DATE. TO- Patricia Temple, Enviornmental Coordinato&PT,'DiST: City of Newport Beach, P-lanning Dent. FROM: COUNTY CLERK PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION PHONE NO.: 834-2710, COURTHOUSE, 700 CIVIC CENTER DR. , RM. D-1 , SANTA ANA SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS - AMENDMENT OF "PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE" SEC. 21152(c) EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1985. were ` r THE ATTACHED NOTICEsy4At4tECEIVED, FILED, AND A COPY POSTED 11/12/1985 IT REMAINED POSTED FOR 30 (THIRTY) CALENDAR DAYS. - GARY L. GRANVILLE tb County Clerk and Clerk of the Superior Court of the State C ' oPCalifor =intbO County of Orange. By pu y. `p arrinP� �0 OLD -ry c\ )r 121152 PUBLIC RESOURCES E c'• (c) All notices Akd pursuant to this nation shall be available for public ie,pection,and shall be N S�p,w as a weekly basis in the office of the county dark Each aotke shad remain posted for s period iys•and gispeafter .t1se clerk shall return to dw kxal agency the mum with a notaboo of die penoa N teas pasted.Ilse local agency shall retain the notice for not less tun aim months. An""Lau 19"ch 370 i t.cb 1757;1 i :• �OTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ^ Office of Planning and Research FROM: 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sacramento, CA 95814 PLANNING DEPARTMENT County Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard ® Public Services Division P.O.Box 1768 P.O. BOX Services Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 38 Santa Ana, CA 92702 STED SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination-in compliance with SectionP219 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. ' NOV 12 1985 ' PROJECT TITLE: Fashion Island Renaissance GARY L GRANVILLE, County Cle6 All DEPUT PROJECT LOCATION: Fashion Island, Newport_Center, Newport Beach, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 66,00(,q . addition to Newport Center Retail ent r and r �p�arkinq struct' re. r. 5 % NOV 12 1985 GARY L. GRANVILLE,*County Cler C411V BY ld u DEPOT CONTACT PERSON: Patricia Temple ' TELEPHONE NO. (714)' 644-3225 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER This A s to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. ® will not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Pak Environmental Cnnrdinatnr Date November 7. 1085 Notice of Determination 4. Mitigation measures _were,. X were not made a condition of approval of this project. 5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations _was X was not adopted for this project. 6. The Final Environmental Document and the record of the project approval may be examined at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915, 714-644-3225. . 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 92658-8915 County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Box 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Fashion Island Renaissance PROJECT LOCATION: Fashion Island, Newport Center, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 66,000 sq.ft. addition to Newport Center Retail Center FILED OCT 41985 GAHY L. GRA V L , only Clerk My FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council (Policy 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. iJ: MITIGATION MEASURES: see attached Initial Stu s POSTED b Depart ' '7t 9 Nov OCT - ¢ 1965 ^'rnt IV Ct10 ryor98�t� krk C gC BY INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach FIN­ITIALSTUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: " Environmental Coordinator Date: • October 2, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM' (To Be Completed By Lead, Agency) I. Background I. Name of Proponent TNF- IKVIMF- COWMk-I 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 550 N 5wFop-r eENTC2->-., 70. 1�-;a 1 r- wPnw-r IsAciF', - I&SB-290q (-Ilg) 120-2335 C%x cr : Dmn DMo nyc �--4 3. Date of Checklist Submitted )D-1- $5 4. Agency, Requiring Checklist (f IT4 Or- I II WPo2T BF-Ar-W 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable -F1,,,r+10t4 16LAND 15NAL2sA>+c-F- ll. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes". and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? )( c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification 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? x Yes Maybe No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar. hazards? SC 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: - a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,. either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result. in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- ' rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ! X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? >C d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge- into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? k f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water k supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- k ►ated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Yes Maybe No 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, -ax rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal x 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 organisms or insects)? x b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new -species of animals into an area, or result in p barrier to the x migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife x habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? k b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub, stantial alteration of the present or planned X land use of on area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate- of use of any natural x resources? Yes Maw No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 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? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation X plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal! affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional I 1 ; vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? x d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air x traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 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: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X _ c. Schools? X Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? f. Other governmental services? x 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? k b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the x 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: I a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? k d. Sewer or septic tanks? \X e. , Storm water drai 1 age} x 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 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 X to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? x c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 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 periodsl of California history or prehistory? I ' �( b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental `goals? (A short- 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 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.) k d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? )C Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation- IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) III. Environmental Evaluation 1.b. The proposed project will require the construction of one or more parking structures which may involve excavation. Standard City mitigation measures in regards to grading will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 7. The construction of new retail and restaurant space, and parking structures will produce new light and glare. Standard City measures in regards to required lighting plans will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 13. The additional commercial development will gener- ate additional vehicular traffic, demand for new parking and will impact existing transportation systems. A Traffic Study has been prepared which assesses the Circulation System impacts and defines an intersection improvement, which will reduce traffic impacts tb an insignificant level. 20.b.Grading an excavation may uncover cultural re- sources. Standard City measures will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. • 5 . On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 effect �X 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 environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. OCR Iit� �� e86 yAcc2�Ji/b�e_- Date Signature For XzF i i MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsecjuent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. S. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 2 - 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13.. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle abcesL, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices 'for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. SR11 - 3 - o 19 RESOLUTION NO. 85-84 N A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A TRANSFER OF ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT FROM NEWPORT VILLAGE AND CIVIC PLAZA TO FASHION ISLAND IN NEWPORT CENTER; AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, in General Plan Amendment 78-2 (Resolution No. 9435) , the City established the ability to transfer development allocations in Newport Center; and WHEREAS, said transfers may be approved so long as the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation, as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods, does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan; and WHEREAS, a Traffic Study was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Study shows that the project as conditioned will not result in adverse impact to the traffic system, and that the capacity of ., major intersections is not exceeded or made worse by the project; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, based, upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project, as mitigated, will not result in any significant environmental effect; and WHEREAS, all measures necessary to mitigate potential environmental effects to an insignificant level have been incorporated into the project; and WHEREAS, the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been considered in the decision on this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, that the transfer of development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island be approved, subject to the following: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of -which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85-l(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Negative Declaration prepared is adequate for the proposed project. ADOPTED this 28th day of October , 1985. L2A A19 (2A A A MAYOR 7" ATTEST: L goa�ITY CLERK 2 - PLT/kk CC15 &Y OF NEWPORT BPACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \rAL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. ROLL DATE: October 28, 1985 INDEX Present x x x x x x A. R CALL. Absent x Motion x B. The reading o he Minutes of the All Ayes Adjourned Meetin f September 30, and the Regular Meeting October 15, 1985, was waived, approved a ritten and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordin ces All Ayes and resolutions under consideration as waived, and the City Clerk was directs to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing The Irvine and City Council review on requests of Co. The IRVINE COMPANY, Newport Beach, to GPA 78-2 TRANSFER ALLOWED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT from (45) NEWPOItT VITLAGE_an�"CIVTC_PLAZA to FASHION ISLAND within Newport Center so Zs to allow construction of 66,000 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island. This proposal requires a determination by the City Council that said transfer of allowed development is consistent with the Land-Use Element of the General Plan as provided under Resolution No. 9435, the approval of a_. related TRAFFIC STUDY, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Manager, in summary, stated that GPA 78-2 contained a provision concerning the allowable uses to Newport Center permitting the transfer of densities, provided the study shows that it will not adversely affect the circulation system during critical peak periods, and that traffic generated as it affects major intersections, does not exceed the capacity provided. On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the transfer of development rights in Newport Center and approved the related Traffic Study, subject to the Findings and Conditions as listed in the staff report. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council, stating that he would be available for questions of the Council. Volume 39 - Page 399 OTY OF NEWPORT BOACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \rA1 October 28, 1985INDEX ROLL Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 85-84 All Ayes 85-8k,aetermin ng t e requested transfeY of-development rights within Newport Centerto_be consistent with the provisions-'of the Newport Beach General P1an,-approve-the-reguest, and accept the Environmental Document; and sustain the ac on of tTie""Planning Commission rega rcI ng the'1'rafYrc SEu&y. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing Vacation/ regarding VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF AN Alley Aband ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN EDGEWATER PLACE Edgewtr- AND EAST BAY AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET AND E.Bay-Adams- ALM STREET (BALBOA AREA),. Palm (90) R ort from Public Works, was presented. The ity Manager explained that several mont ago when the City Council appro d Resubdivision 797, known as the Edgewat r Project, one of the conditions of appro al was that the subject alley be vacate . Hearing no ne wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was ma to adopt Resolution No. Res 85-85 All Ayes 85-85 vacating nd abandoning an alley located between dgewater Place and East Bay Avenue and A ma Street and Palm Street (Balboa are ); and direct the City Clerk to have he resolution recorded by the Oran a County Recorder upon satisfactory re l cation of existing City water and sewer cilities. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT •CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as All Ayes indicated, except for those items re oved: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: Schedule for public hearing on Nov e ber 12, 1985 - (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 85-30, Ord 85-30 being, Bldg & Cnstretn/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF Trfc Phsg NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER Zoning (26/94) Volume 39 - Page 400 G' City Council Meeting October 28, 1985 Agenda Item No. D-1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Consistency Determination Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 78-9. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Traffic Study Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion • Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015, known as Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: 'C-O-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as Applicant Applications The applications under consideration will, if approved, allow construction of 66,000 sq.ft, of retail and restaurant uses in the Fashion Island retail center. The General Plan does not currently include an allocation for additional development in Fashion Island. A transfer of commercial retail development allocation from Civic Plaza and Newport Village is requested pursuant to the provisions of General Plan Amendment 78-2. Approval of a Traffic Study is also requested for the project. Traffic Study procedures are • contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, a) Adopt Resolution No. , determining the requested transfer of development rights within Newport Center to be consistent with the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan, and approve the request; and accept the environmental document; and TO: City Council - 2. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission regarding the Traffic Study. • OR b) Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the tequested transfer of development rights in Newport Center and the related Traffic Study. Planning Commission Action On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the above described items and voted (all ayes) to recommend approval of the transfer of development rights in Newport Center and approved the related Traffic Study, subject to the following Findings and Conditions: 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 decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 1 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be • submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. TO: City Council - 3. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and • phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the ldhd8daping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public, Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. i 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Planning Department. • 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. • 18. 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. TO: City Council - 4. B. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TRANSFER Findings: • 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78-2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development. within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. i 5. That the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of which is • acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. C. TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the 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 project-generated traffic will • be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical intersection which has an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street. TO: City Council - 5. Condition: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation • system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been constructed. The required improvement may be modified if subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Attached for the information and review of the City Council is an excerpt of the draft Planning Commission minutes and a copy of the Planning Commission staff report, which describes the request in detail. i Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by . patIlla-i z Q R f2Y • PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/kk CC14 Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of October 10, 1985 2) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 10, 1985 • Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1985 • Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Consistency Determination (Discussion) Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion island within Newport Center as permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 78-2. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND • B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015 known as Fash- ion island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C-O-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The applications under consideration will, if approved, allow con- struction of 66,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses in the • Fashion Island Retail Center. The General Plan does not currently include an allocation for additional development in Fashion Island. A transfer of commercial retail development allocation from Civic Plaza and Newport Village is requested pursuant to the provisions of General Plan Amendment 78-2. Approval of a Traffic Study is also requested for the project. Traffic Study procedures are contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 2. • 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 project. Based upon the informa- tion Contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project as mitigated will not create a significant adverse environ- mental effect and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached to this report. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use, which allows retail sales, personal and professional services, hotels and motels, and commercial recreation. The proposed uses are consistent with this land use category. Additionally, the Land Use Element sets forth specific intensity limitations for each area of Newport Center. Currently, Fashion Island does not have any additional development allocation. Commercial allocations do exist in Civic Plaza (8,000 sw.ft.) and Newport Village (58,750 sq.ft.) . The Land Use Element does allow "transfer" of development allocation, subject to approval • of the City (see attached GPA 78-2 Resolution) . The Irvine Company has requested a transfer of commercial development allocation pursuant to this provision. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is currently occupied by the existing Fashion Island Retail center and related parking facilities and landscaping. The site is surrounded by Newport Center, which is developed with low, mid and high rise structures providing space for corporate and busi- ness and professional offices, ,restaurants, hotels, retail, theaters, and residential uses. Fashion Island is within the Newport Center Drive circle. Analysis General Plan Amendment 78-2 established specific total development limitations for Newport Center and also established the concept of development allocation "transfers" in Newport Center, as follows: " (b) Changes to the types and location of uses may be made • provided that an analysis of both location and intensity demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street development plan." The Irvine Company has requested this transfer in order to allow construction of additional retail and restaurant uses prior to action on the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites General Plan Amendment. Overall to Newport Center, however, the request will not result in additional development beyond that requested in the GPA, but allow use r� TO: PlannnIng Commission - 3. • existing allocations to proceed with some improvements in Fashion Island. If this request is approved and the GPA is not approved, some • commercial sites in Newport Center will have no development rights. Staff has, therefore, included a requirement that The Irvine Company enter into an agreement which acknowledges that the transfer may result in commercial sites with no allowed development if General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) is not approved. Traffic Study A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in confor- mance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1986. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1987. The City Traffic Engineer identified thirty-four (34) 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. 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 Intersection 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 six intersections. An ICU Analysis was conducted for each of the six intersections, with inter- section capacity utilization ratios as follows: ICU SUMMARY - 1987 Fashion Island Renaissance Existing 1985 Existing +Regional Existing +Regional +Committed Intersection ICU +Committed +Project Coast Hwy/Tustin 0.7155 0.8194 0.8242 Coast Hwy/Newpt.Ctr. 0.7331 0.8329 0.8347 Jamboree/S.J.Hills 0.6867 0.7619 0.7659 Jamboree/E.Bluff 0.7194 0.8155 0.8223 • MacArthur/SanMiguel 0.8198 0.9237 0.9237 MacArthur/SanJoaquin 0.8347 0.9738 0.9831 The projected ICU ratio for four of the critical intersections iden- tified does not exceed 0.90. One intersection is already over 0.90, but the project does not add traffic to any critical movement and, therefore does not make worse an existing ICU over 0.90. One inter- section, at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, is also S TO: Planning Commission - 4. • over 0.90 and the ICU is worsened by the proposed project. This intersection requires mitigation. • An intersection improvement has been identified which will reduce the ICU ratio at the impacted intersection below the existing 1987 level. This will require the addition of one northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. Upon completion of the improvement, the ICU with the proposed project will be 0.9524, and the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance will be met. It should be noted that The Irvine Company has requested an amendment to the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which would affect roadway configura#on in the vicinity of the required improvement. Staff has worded the suggested approval condition to allow for alternate improvements should amendments to the Circulation Element be approved. Conclusion and Recommendation General Plan Amendment 78-2 established the ability to transfer development rights within Newport Center. The request of The Irvine Company is consistent with this provision, in that the Traffic Study prepared shows that the circulation system, with required improve- ments, will not be adversely affected by the project. in order to approve a Traffic Study, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsat- isfactory level of traffic service on any major, primary-modified or primary street. The project traffic exceeded 1% of projected traffic on six intersections. Four had ICU ratios below 0.90. One inter- section exceeded 0.90, but the project did not make worse the ICU ratio. one intersection exceeding 0.90 will be improved to result in an ICU less than the existing 1987 ICU. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the requested transfer of commercial development. Also recommended is approval of the Traffic Study. Findings and Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit "A". • �Lt TO: P1annInq Commission - 5. • PLANNING DEPARTMENT . JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By A/AQ Ski PATRICIA L. TEFIPLW Environmental Coordinator PLT:jm SR11 Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A". 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Resolution 9485 - GPA 98-2. 4. Traffic Study. 5. Negative Declaration. • COMMISSIONERS Aber 10, 1985 MINUTES A X A A 9 DRAFT A mom > T m City of Newport Beach c z 0 a C 0 0 z a z x z n m a L 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. A. General Plan Consistency Determination (Discussion) Item No.7 Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail General development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Plan Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by Consistency General Plan Amendment No. 78-2. Determina- INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach tion Traffic AND Study B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Approved • Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow construction of 66,000 sq.ft, of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015 known as Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C-0-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: ` Same as applicant In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the mitigation measure of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, Mr. Webb replied that MacArthur Boulevard northbound has two lanes of traffic and a . single left turn lane. He said that in order to add a third northbound lane the City has indicated to the' applicant that it will be necessary to widen the road on the westerly side and to move the median islands over. Mr. Webb commented that a final determination regarding the intersection will be in accordance with the results of the Newport Center General Plan. He said that the MacArthur Boulevard widening will be from 600 feet to 1,000 feet going into the San Joaquin Hills Road intersection to about 1,000 feet going out of the -19- COMMISSIONERS O&er 10, 1985 0 MINUTES xx c o f + a v . m A m z m > ° T City of Newport Beach z a z 9 z a CALL INDEX T intersection. In reply to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the Circulation Element Master Plan, Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company has requested an amendment to the Circulation Element which would eliminate the one-way couplet concept and would continue two-way traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. In response to Chairman. Person's inquiry stating that the application is a request to transfer existing development rights within Newport Center from one location to another, Mr. Hewicker replied that this is permitted by General Plan amendment No. 78-2 which allows the City to approve such a transfer if a finding can be made that it is not going to result in any adverse traffic. Mr. Hewicker confirmed that if approved, Chairman Person's statement that there would be no development rights relating to commercial or retail left on the Newport Village site and only residential, would be correct. • Chairman Person recommended that Condition No. 1 of the General Plan Consistency Determination be modified to read: "Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute an agreement, etc.". Mr. Burnham suggested that the Condition be amended to state that the property owner would, in that agreement, acknowledge that they would have no claim or right to compensations assuming there are no additional development rights granted on the property from which the development rights have been transferred and any other language- necessary in that agreement to protect the City against some future liability and also a provision that the agreement be recorded. Mr. Dave Dmohowski stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, as amended. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Webb • discussed the proposed design of the San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Chairman Person explained to Mr. Nichols what the transfer of allowed retail development within Newport Village contains. Ms. Temple advised that The Irvine Company's request to transfer into Fashion Island is not increasing the total build out of Fashion Island proposed in General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) . She -20- COMMISSIONERS Aber 10, 1985 • MINUTES ;Kx c o = f y 9 v m z c m s m z 9 s 9 z r m City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX said that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the additional development in Fashion island will be reduced by 66,000 square feet from 180,000 square feet to 114,000 square feet. Mr. Nichols opined that the traffic pattern should be discussed before the General Plan. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve the findings and conditions of the Environmental Document, General Plan 'Consistency, and Traffic study including amended Condition No. B1. She cited that the reasons for this motion are that these development rights for this commercial have been granted to the applicant under General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, and this request is only moving the right commercial rights from one location to another, and she opined that when the • General Plan Amendment is reviewed on Newport Center that the applicant will be addressing traffic considerations as the primary part of the General Plan Amendment. Ayes x x x x x x Motion was voted on to approve the findings and conditions of General Plan Consistency Determination and Traffic Study, including Condition No. 1B as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 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. -21- COMMISSIONERS Isober lo, 1985 MINUTES xx 111 C 0 n a v 9 y z z 9 z 9 Z T m City of Newport Beach C Z 0 a r o 0 9 LL CALL INDEX Mitigation Measures 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from i silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. • 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review • of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. -22- COMMISSIONERS *ber 10, 1985 • MINUTES x X n 11 C O = v m z c m y m z 9 Z 9 = T m City of Newport Beach L CALL INDEX Now 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall 'be regu- larly tritmed and kept in a healthy condition. i 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by . the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project • lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. -23- L i CO.MMISSIONERS Ober 10, 1985- • MINUTES A r O n E C v v m z m s m z D = 9 = m City of Newport Beach L CALL a INDEX NEW B. General Plan Consistency - commercial Development Transfer Findings: 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78-2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. • 5. That the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim • or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. -24- Ik COMMISSIONERS Bober 10, 1985 MINUTES xx f zv x y m W S M a2 Am = z m m City of Newport Beach cmz a LL CALL INDEX C. Traffic Study I Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the 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 six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical inter- section which has an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. • 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been construct- ed. The required improvement may be modified if subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City • Traffic Engineer. -25- /4Z_ EXHIBIT "A" • FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 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 conten" 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. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be .subject to the • approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. • 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of • weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by • the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. - 2 0 ! 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the • site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the. incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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. B. General Plan Consistency - Commercial Development Transfer . Findings: 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78-2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. 5. That the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Conditions: 1. The applicant shall execute and agreement, the form and content of" which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also 3 _ a acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent . action on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. C. Traffic Study Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the 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 six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical inter- section which has an Intersection Capacity • utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, i including circulation system improvements will neither cause .nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service On any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been construct- ed. The required improvement may be modified if • subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. SR11 _ 4 _ a/ VICINITY MAP TRAFFIC $TUDY Fashion Island Renaissance li m '�� S�"'.11 �•J rr+'�r /il 0A, h :C I ;; • I ,•. /, 11 is �, ' c� J +;h� ' ,I` 1 >. �n•._'4`{'+ev 'I �.�, r.. 1 \ a\ S,k.`e SIN Q, y`1�i,H II l� �.: it I•.•s"C'`=i , 1 � �`,I1 ��ir'� di1 `- 1''^} i`•�� , iwii jai '29� � 'fen I a.0 ��. �. !/-♦♦ k... '�j ,� . l ♦�♦-ri/✓�4A1�'7. .1 � \I�t`? °� ' Ce.n • bpi�dl n .1;, h • 4 I �er1 G `` . ry� �� ROB• ,\`" V �Si`j. p 1� 51r uv °gsroe 4 0 IZ•' ! COAST „+ COUNTRV Ce-416 n 13£ a �<P li \ FAR�LIO by �% y `I '�'\: $ s��• w '�.'� PEBBLE C 4i {.r In ��''•r.. Y P4 R O SaDJPIF �• e O ° i lis ;1 �'I"•aT1TT7 AYs/O "�.. 0.� °� - `F [�F��, n�i C� /(1 •� i RESOLUTION NO. 9$S 5 ��crr o.T.1(J a,T o,-O �StGVf^�L,y • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ���,_ •' OF NE34PORT BEACH'ACCEPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. •78-2) • WHEREAS; Section 707 0£ the Charter of, the City of Newport Beach provides that the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Cohniss0n, may amend the General Plan or any part thereofi and WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach contains the Land Use,- Residential Growth, and Recreation and . Open Space Elemements which will serve as it guide for the future . planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public • hearing at which it considered an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements and adopted Resolution No. 1021, recommending to 'the City. Council.certain changes in said elements; and WHEREAS, the•City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and desires to accept a Negative Declaration prepared for said General Plan Amendment, s NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby accepts the Negative Declaration on General Plan Amendment No. 78-2.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following described "amendment to the General Plan be adopted as follows: 78-2: An, amendment to the Land Use and • .Residential Growth Elements as follows: 1. NE4PORT CENTER (a) Amend General Plan for Newport Center to provide • that total development shall not exceed the following limits for each category of development: (1) Office/Medical 3,750,000 sq. ft. (2) Comm/Retail & Rest. 1,250,000 sq. ft. ' (3) Theater 4,400 seats (4) Hotel 377 rooms (5) Residential 538 Dw s (6) Civic/Cultural 106,100 sq. ft. • (7) Automotive 5 acres (8) Golf Club 18 holes (9) Tennis Club 24 courts (b) Changes to •the types and location of uses may be made provided that an analysis of both location and intensity • demonstrates that the traffic system is not adversely affected and that traffic generation as it affects the major intersections during critical peak periods does not exceed the capacities provided in the approved street .development plan. • 2. CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 100 dwellings on approximately 20 acres of the site. (b) Recreation and Marine Commercial would remain on approximately 5 acres of the site adjacent to Dover and Coast'Highway.:,. • (c) Design shall make provision for public access" consistent with,Cbastal'Act policies and ordinances of . the City. ,Y -2- (d) EIR for any proposed development shall examine • alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieve adverse impacts. 3. BAYVIEW LANDING SITE (a) Amend General Plan to provide for alternate use of Medium Density Residential or a combination of Medium Density Residential and Recreational and Marine Commercial. Maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 85. (b) Design'shall make provisions for public access consistent with Coastal Act policies and ordinances of the City. (c) EIR for any proposed development shall examine • alternative land uses and clearly set forth impacts of those uses and possible mitigation measures to relieva' adverse impacts. 4, SAN DIEGO CREEK SITES No change to General Plan at this time. S. 24ACARTHUR BOULEVARD/JAMBOREE SITE No change to General Plan at this time. " • 6. WESTBAY Reduce allowable dwellings from 426 to 348. i 7. NEWPORTER NORTH Reduce allowable dwellings from 704' to 440. B. FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST • Limit maximum number dwellings to 100. 9. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS No change to General Plan at this time. _3_ may: .'�'�• a� 10. CALTRANS 14EST • Amend designation from Multiple-Family Residential • -to Recreational and Environmental Open Space with the intent that this property be acquired for public open space. • 11. BEECO PROPERTY I No. change to General Plan at this time. '12. ROGER'S GARDENS AND RESIDENTIAL TRIANGLE No change to General Plan. 13. CASTAWAYS RESIDENTIAL SITE (40 a.) Reduce allowable dwellings from 320 to 225. 14. NEWPORT CENTER CONDOS SITE Reduce allowable dwellings from 315 to 245 (reflected in•Newport Center above) . • 15. EASTBLUFF REMNANT , Reduce allowable dwellings from 84.to 42. 16. BIG CANYON Reduce allowable dwellings from 338 to 260. Applies to total remaining development of Big Canyon. 17.-BAYWOOD EXPANSION Limit maximum number of dwellings to 140. 'ADOPTED this 2r 0th day of December , 1978. • Mayor ATTEST: City clerk RRC/kb 1/8/79 /-4_ 1 , Report on: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR 66 ,000 SQUARE FEET OF FASHION ISLAND RENAISSANCE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Preapared for: MS. PATRICIA TEMPLE MR. RICHARD EDMONSTON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Prepared by: • JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 111 ALDER STREET BREA, CALIFORNIA 92621 (714) 671 -0226 SEPTEMBER 41 1985 OUR FILE F285 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 THEPROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 - Site Pian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 IMPACTANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Procedure Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Impacted Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, Ambient Traffic - 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 • Table 1 - Trip Generation Forecast . . . . . 6 ICUAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 - Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4 - Project Traffic-Peak 2 1 /2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 -Figure Project Traffic-Peak 9 2 1 /2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 - Project Trip Distribution Peak 2 1 /2 Hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2 - Summary of ICU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MITIGATIONMEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11' APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. • INTRODUCTION The Irvine Company has submitted a proposal to add 66 ,000 square feet of commercial-retail space in the existing Fashion Island Shopping Center in Newport Beach (see Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1 , Page 2). This report summarizes an assessment of the impact that project will have on the adjacent street network; specifically along Coast Highway,; Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street. i THE PROJECT This project, Figure 2 Page 3, will add 43,300 square feet of general retail uses to several locations within the existing Fashion Island; viz., adjacent to the Broadway , Neiman Marcus, and J. W. Robinson. An addition of 22,700 square feet of restaurant uses has also been proposed in the area generally between Bullocks Wilshire and Buffums. This project is the initial phase of a proposed expansion plan for Fashion Island and is to be completed in 1986 and in use by early 1987. SETTING Proposed construction will take place in the Fashion Island Shopping Center of Newport Beach. The site is served by a ' circumferential street, Newport Center Drive, which distributes traffic to seven radial streets, which, in turn, feed Jamboree Road , San Joaquin Hills Road, Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard,and Coast Highway (Sate Route' 1 ) . Access to the site is generally as follows: To or from the - NORTH :Jamboree Road or Mac Arthur Boulevard, both of which connect with the Route 73 (Corona del, Mar) Freeway, and with the Route 405 (San Diego) Freeway. • EAST :San Joaquin Hills Road. SOUTHEAST:Coast Highway (State Route 1 ) . NORTHWEST:Coast Highway. JUSTIN F. FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. I� ' I�'� -..,r'LMC. t rA A+ �'� •rd .f//,• C, ��J`''f .r T j $TA nrr!r� •• 'r1�, d d 4 � A,� \ � r STATI r�OS�A1. di ��Y � `r "• A • R^' � ?Q'��N �����0"� ',� '� IfIRV/ �\; ' MESA--,ff '' ,t'1 . ' r Cr•�f.w_`j�AA'I�7 Y ` =N /\♦` � � :"��"' wvm •.4 r y�y. �. -1 i ���,j(l YM If NtW,ORT SAY C-`/ .V .- �nH �- 'T A�'-A I IllpppQQQII,[[[AAA•'����%N �- -1^��1 �\ ' J •�- ... r/.. 0'+",yr ,,'��•+;lyr�q` i�'' ' r � `entRvt �il d�+o-' ,'n�{�`�',":r".r''�°* 3 ti ��;, .*;v.., ' na .��I�lt o �u.?, •,la,, d�1�°j.R: i r7 �`"sue •'',• °"R`" ;c "." �r / t �- ALt, Bonita ; " i BEACH f/. / Yf o� ' Rrvrrc•r�ir yG�,4 y . !_d` , �r4�r�V' \ cam-- �.d i\y•A'1��> irk rue ws ' .� a�����r a,% � �`•s" ��.� r ,. 'i` d• I�. ron"�nT ry n wr�a.� 1- •• y— n•• �• yy11'' p AV\ ••/ a•*p,� .Z' e,v.� c ,r., �' .y n ram,,.;. \:A•7r3' W^ .�:� r.y � i J:. a..�� ra rn R,.., 3Wia. Cry roi,�— -wrn r n +i�w.yr .d �r�r,r�'R���,1 S ' aavr.v ^ t• y (���+a �/��i rov u�,"'`_ °au n! }jr nox fora :rrlwN �`�. I r1i ra ,s{ I` w• �`'ivr +T'r�icu 'aye/ ."�« •i----; .ram .,�,'s�Wi�.. � 4„ , ,"1�(��I�.j��,,'�,� ,, �. 523w.t ` res ISLE r �!� 4 r l(��' •R.rr-ram d r /J 1� � �Iy��Y®� T1i�h,�%r"'°rr�N �I , l�,�y,Z � I IwI0aC4M0_", C J �� �• � S'.I�♦j� �`���, ��"'1��r4��`/Yt�O���,�\\Y ar r WE i � ri`y^'S�JUyTa Wir � `III..,9�,R `t Aw A • � � T I re■,rar ♦ W/�EI� 4� 'ten . `�"�I MAP SOURCE: AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA C I SITE VICINITY MAP r JUSTIN F. FARMER 2 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. zzz ell Is AN All T J, • ••R�i?�WT�°\? - '� {� � •u::c:r_s7�'w:urWNM: Ile el • r..w+Y Rw.o. Ac~" nrw —Mcow—" FIG SITE PLAN 2 vita-irmw VADUVV 3 TvAN%pnRTATInN FNGINEERS.INC. IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED • The city of Newport Beach has adopted a very specific prbcedure for assessing 'traffic impacts from proposed developments within the city. Very briefly, that procedure is as follows: 1 . The applicant determines the exact nature of the project and the year , of completion and full occupancy. 2. The City Traffic Engineer selects the intersections which will be impacted by the project. 3. Current traffic count data at the impacted, intersections is made available from city files. 4. The number of trips at each impacted intersection, which will result from approved but not fully occupied projects, is made available by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. The consultant calculates the increase in traffic volume due to regional growth based upon city furnished data and factors. 6. A summation is made of all ambient traffic which • can be expected at each intersection at full build- out of the project. This includes 1985 volumes , traffic from specific approved projects , and traffic increases due to regional growth. 7. A forecast is then made of the number of trips that will be generated by the project and which will arrive at each intersection during the peak 2 1 /2 hour period of the day. 8. If the project generated traffic is less than 1% of the ambient traffic (No. 6 above) , no further analysis is performed. If the project generated traffic is greater than 1% of the ambient traffic, a capacity analysis (ICU) is made. 9. If the capacity analysis indicates an ICU of 0.9000 or less, no further analysis is necessary. If the ICU is 0.9001 or greater, mitigation measures are required to reduce the ICU to 0.9000 or less, unless the project itself does not affect the ICU. IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS • A total of 34 possibly impacted intersections have been selected by the City Traffic Engineer. Those intersections are: Bristol Street 4 locations Coast Highway 14 locations Jamboree Road 10 locations MacArthur Boulevard 6 locations TOTAL 34 JUSTIN F.FARMER 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 3� • A Copy of the city's 1% Traffic Volume Analysis, Form 1 , for each intersection is enclosed as an Appendix to this report. AMBIENT TRAFFIC - 1987 Total traffic volumes for the peak 2 1 /2 hour afternoon period was estimated at all 34 intersections, using the following procedure: A. 1985 Ambient traffic (non-project, normal traffic) volumes have been collected and were supplied by the City Traffic Engineer. Those volumes are listed on the second column of Form 1 , which forms are included in the Appendix to this report. B. A 2.3% regional growth factor was applied to the • regional traffic at each intersection. Regional traffic constitutes only a portion of the ambient traffic. That portion is listed both as a percentage and as a raw number in the third column : of Form 1 , for each intersection. C. Traffic to be generated by approved but incomplete projects has also been supplied by the City Traffic Engineer, and is shown in the fourth column of Form 1 . D. The summation of A, B. and C, above, represents the amount of ambient traffic anticipated in 1987 and is summarized in the fifth column Form 1 . That volume, however, does not include project traffic. PROJECT TRAFFIC • Project traffic at each of the 34 intersections was determined by first forecasting the total trips to be generated by the project. That forecast is summarized on Table 1 . It will be noted that a 15% correction has been applied to the gross trip generation to reflect those trips which were made primarily by persons walking to the subject site from another primary destination. These trips are considered "Internal Trips" on Table 1 . JUSTIN F. FARMER 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEFRS,INC. 03 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION FORECAST AM AM PM PM • DAILY IN OUT IN OUT RESTAURANT ITE 74 .9 0 .85 0.46 2.74 1 .69 22i700 S.F. #831 1700 20 10 60 40 GENERAL RETAIL ITE 37 .2 0 .38 0.23 1 .59 . 1 .65 43,300 S.F. #826 1610 15 10 70 70 SUBTOTAL 3310 35 20 130 110 LESS 15% INTERNAL (-)500 (-)5 (-)5 ( -)20 (-) 15 ----- PROJECT TOTAL 2810 30 15 110 95 TRIPS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST 10 FOR DAILY AND NEAREST 5 FOR PEAK HOUR. ( 1 ) TOP NUMBER IS RATE; BOTTOM NUMBER IS TRIP FORECAST. ( 2) ITE = INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' RATES. Project trips were distributed to the adjacent street • network, using a percentage pattern determined from a previous study prepared by Weston Pringle. The percentages as well as the daily, the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour project traffic is graphically illustrated on Figure 3 , Page 7. It should be noted, on Figure 3, that the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes shown are for a 60 minute peak; and not the 2 1 /2 hour peak period used in the 1% analysis. It has been determined by City staff and previous studies, that the peak 2 1 /2 hour period during an average week day. is equal to exactly twice the evening peak 60 minute period. Therefore, Figures 4, 5,and 61 Pages 81 9, and 10 , represents the peak 2 1 /2 hour traffic distribution onto the major street network, specifically at the 34 intersections, which are to be assessed under the 1 % procedure. ICU ANALYSIS • From the results of the analysis of the total 34 intersections tested under the 1 % analysis, six were, determined to have project traffic exceeding 1% of the future ambient volume on one or more approach legs of the intersection. Those locations are: 1 . Coast Highway & Tustin Avenue. 2. Coast Highway & Newport Center Drive. 3. Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road. JUSTIN F. FARMER 6 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. ��' l � �i� i/ 94.+ L MAR NS ' Q• w +. ar• �.u�r+ LEGEND AM PH �? a v '1 y�''/ �►0 Of PK PK a '•\� - i - _ �. Og r:s:::.... :.a OR F DAILY ,✓',`\ ,:'•: :'•+.>..'• 'r •• PERIOD TRIPS �EALAYYi '• 1 '� ' BIG AM PK HR I ' 1 +••� eh J. ';.'..�•..... . s ENTER - 30 ' " f a A o� ! ' .4 .,• y i Gy EXIT — 15 r,•:..;. :• ti~ �'� ` + �1l PM PK HR ENTER - 110 S F �4 r+ :. •• • '�'�N t '� ,;;•:•.�`��� / EXIT - 95 h �� ✓ 1p .', ���t DAILY �' oa Q. G' ,� i;;• :';:' :;, :•.,:. ENTER - 1405 -EXIT»••., ..,., 1405 OV ,r^r! � .:i. :=t• \I��,\ �G� .� pA •ww)r, �• SHEl1�M 'L ' It r •f'• 7 .�'I��tj✓b �s,�nl�.•,ft•iii. J._ NELIPORT Y J' '1 '/✓ '''�..CY p N^:n^S}t"''• O PU ISLAND %rAW •'J� LAGOON Gniy1 7fi-. '�5 :: .•)'',:�, 17 •S•M1O ,r f 1 �' ��✓ FAN'.Y• .•••IIVIRIMARRIOT� SA c .� •� ���. ` ! Coos}NOTE{;;. ISLANO M1�' ?+lo"W,{ �•l + .. :.'Country`' R �l < ?• � � SPIN I �# "%.f Club' �y ° u AS H V o :: s • r �� 4,. cretY. oq,-�,-� t pp •_' •�N�:.0• v r f pR � . pq �.r �a�OR YON ;ram'.. 1 •< i. AYSIpEE R S4� 0q,� � � j0 � CTR, r ENTf � .. N!•4 ;7 `:.�"..'wP ,ti r < � .>fi♦� -O � ■ S. s+ ELr S'RENaOF`a Zi "/ T2 got 9FpV �iF ✓�G i tHttu > y r D Y fa► l�rJ Q yN'N O"�y0,,� •F�'vA OI i iu f R 9 $ B ) . cg fS p� '.' s •. ` OWy �qq �M'f: � y �PE9eLE p � E��C a7oa 8 < < 0. > a vL GA 4 r >. EGG °`DR SV7 i wi, •Y r3 Y ,Q S �r•►f9✓y�7ily � '{Q" � pR k' IN�,),Vc pq FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 3 JUSTIN F.FARMER 7 TRANSPORTATION EN(iiNEERS,INC. Adlbk (o �s z . . d r 0, Co� 0 ro d ti ry/ of 0� r 1 a UNlYER51tY, l=' � Mt v 'd' FIG PROD . TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4 PEAK 2'h HOURS JUSTIN F.FARMER 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. �`� I 10 0 5 j� y 0 0 0 4_10 M O 20r, 30� FIG PROJ , TRIP DISTRIBUTION 5 PEAK 2� HOURS JUSTIN F. FARMER 9 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 37 `r I 3 I N t moo"�y� Ro \8 I ti ry s � + �r � +o Alk � � pGti MIGUt 30 Mil \V r O i FIG PROJ , TRIP DISTRIBUTION 6 'PEAK 2)1 HOURS JUSTIN F. FARMER 10 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 9� 4. Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road. 5. MacArthur Blvd. & San Miguel Drive. 6. MacArthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Road. • A capacity analysis was therefore made, using the ICU procedure. Three scenarios were considered, the results of which are listed in Table 2, below: TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ICU 1985 1987 1987 LOCATION AMBIENT AMBIENT +PROD. MITIGATED Coast Hwy/Tustin 0.7155 0.8194 0.8242 NA Coast Hwy/Newport Center 0.7331 0.8329 0.8347 NA Jamboree/S.J.Hills 0.6867 0.7619 0.7659 NA Jamboree/E.Bluff 0.7194 0.8155 0.8223 NA MacArthur/San Miguel 0.8198 0.9237 0.9237 NA MacArthur/San Joaquin 0.8347 0.9738 0.9831 0.8531 ICU CALCULATION WORKSHEETS, NEWPORT BEACH FORM II, FOR THE ABOVE SIX INTERSECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPENDIX OF THIS REPORT. • MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2 indicates that the ICU stays below 0.9000 at full build-out for four of the six intersections tested. The exception is the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard - San Miguel Road, and MacArthur Boulevard - San Joaquin Hills Road both of which exceed the 0.9000 threshold. It will be noted that the MacArthur - San Miguel intersection exceeds the 0.9000 threshold with 1987 ambient traffic. However, because the amount of project related traffic is minimal, and the fact that that traffic is added to the non-critical direction, the ICU is not effected. Therefore, although the ICU is over 0.9000, the level of service is unaffected. As a consequence, no mitigation measures are required. The ICU at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San , Joaquin Hills is expected to reach 0.9738 in 1987 without the project and 0.9831 with project traffic. Increasing • the available capacity for North-South traffic to the equivalent of three lanes each direction will reduce the ICU from 0.9831 to 0.8531 . This can be accomplished by adding a third northbound and a third southbound lane at this intersection or it can take the form of a change in the MacArthur - Avocado Complex, which is currently under study for the City of Newport Beach. At this point in time it is not possible to determine whether that study will result in two 2-way streets (Avocado and MacArthur) or a one-way couplet. In either case the •ICU will be reduced to below 0.9000. JUSTIN F.FARMER 11 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS,INC. 3 THOSE INTERSECTIONS WHICH ,TRIGGER THE 1% PROCESS 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection C04S4 Ww CZ 7444114 Ave . (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Average winter/Spring 19E ` Peak 24 Hour Approved i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected M of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2ms Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2§ Hour ! Peak 2), Hour ! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! I; Northbound 3 southbound Z SS l Eastbound �Zo fz , . gee 5 / 45 m Westbound S203 izd 9 9� /4s 6/ I &0 I' 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM If INTERSECTTIO CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS` Intersection aQ,:4 1-1w�, C.L 7L,,S4Ih Avg ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198S) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT. PROJECT Movement PK.NR. V/CRatio VolumGROWTe PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume L NT 0 NR / / 0 c ) SL 5 Z 0 v 3 ST /6 o0 D . 0563ior CD c 0 5 75� - SR - EL /boo $O , 0509 / s 05'38 0 4 ET 6�/L �3 ER /3 0 a WL _ —' — J O WT I b 0?Z-* 7Gs /o _ 1162 WR /G�O — _ J 1 /0 ooG3 YELLOWTIME �100•9 + STING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 77 1 7, 1 I i XISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.6.1 FIM ri EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I:C.U. Z�Z Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 • Description of system improvement: �sy/0A,1 /. SG� I%IL2 DATE: PROJECT + 'FORM II 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Coas- 1-14-41y 0 /VPwpo�t� Cevt4er b r (Existing Traffic V61—um-e-s-Ta—sed on Average Winterl5pring, 19Y5) Peak 2's Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2'y Hour Peak 24 Hour ' Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol we Volume Volume Northbound — Southbound Z7-7�/ O G / • 3 �1: Eastbound 3 9 6 'o / 5�'` so 90 5 CZ) 40 Westbound 3 2? j / pa Z ' „yg';f�' 3 7bC-> 9 7 L 11¢ 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE, . 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers �3 FORM I INTERSECTIOSAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coo= / u_)vA @( AlewfjorT 6?-, Pr br ( Existing Traffic Volumes Rases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19`�S) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT• PROJECT Movement PK,HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NT _. NR ' SL 3 Zoo 3 85 .1 Z03 4� ST — SR N,9 /0 q4 / 9 /7 20 , /000 "a EL 3200 5 O ET 3Zo0 5) z 8 /3za 5 991 ER WL WT 37-00 ///$ . 3110'� / o . 41616 - WR N, S, /07 _ 5 7 V LOWTIME , /0 0Q /0C)c1'!E ING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,•7 3 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. , 3Z9 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II L • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Jej.vs,�Lorpie &oj@ Sam Jodc2uit, (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring, 19ef) Peak 231 Hour Approved f Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peek 2is Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3 6 6 S ii r7 r i 2 0 3 southbound 500v- � •o% '>/� 9 q / d _ Eastbound 471 �� „5••+�.7 3 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23* Hour Traffic Volume: Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 145" FORM 1 -33 INTERSECTIOCAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS• Intersection Jak,,dor--(, 2c('' @ faa J4.1ec. i:, Y; Its zc/ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19LC) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMIITTED EXISTING PROPOSEDV/C V/CJRatio PROJECT' PROJECT ECTED ement PK.l. Ratio Volume PROJECT Lanes tap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volumeoject Volume Y/C Ratio NL /6'10 /0 Lf 0650 — % • o.� s, -- rb�'�+ NT cf0o0 J307 277F NR /600 /I ( o69c} — "2 ??/ SL 3Z9d �'Z , />0� — 3 / ' , Ze . /99/ ST 3 Zo 0 15 Z 3 , Y757 It / �c, Dui /3 SR /600 236 lq-7c ET ER .02D1. —wL �. 4Zd� ( — a� aZ t et WT 3 D / oL s wR /600 — 11 ;7 i LOWTIME 00.9I 1 1 P Y UTILIZATION � I i STIHG INTERSECTION CA ACIT �G7. 7 INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.PROPOSED G/ i EXISTING PLUS COFl4ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/ _ EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • ?`� ka 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: r/p jam= /`J Ss�'r�/ s' /✓C3 /L?- '�/v,r/ /SLCI,+/i> !� i J,,�Si�•l. DATE: PROJECT FORM II • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis / r Intersection Jo M for edl Pd Ea"t��u �'r 4)_ Aord � (Existing Traffic Volumes se on Average n er pring Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Paik 21y Hour Peak N Hour Peak 24 Hour I Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol me Volume � Volume 1 ��� p Northbound _j o2,0 Z' �?1 O Southbound 3 9 V5 ¢ 7 -D f Eastbound 6 9Z 700 7 �Q Westbound *-59 7 0 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I ..C.U.) Analysis is required. - Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers �7 FORM I INTERSECTIOCA))PACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS• Intersection �O�a ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19e—L") EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT• PROJECT vement PK. RV/Catio GROWTH PROJECT Lanes Lap. Lanes Cap. Vol.i. Ratio Volume Vol ume Vol Protect Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 320o 3/.6 . 69SN4 o NT g1t)o /671 .377? IF �G NR /ylf - SL 76 . 0 V75 -- o 0 ST /d F/ , 35 Z3-x / 17 ¢z ~s .-11r 50 SR /6,30 33 . OZ06 — o EL 1600 ET 1 3200 7� O 02 • — / ER Zia O /0 WL 1/4U,0 26G . 6733K 3 . 0 WT WR /609 0Z Za v- - LOWTIME ,/006�F , io�v ,/000 1 STING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION , ' / 'I� I 1 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. � Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: • /SL,9,7//J .2�.1.'.4/s.6.�N•« DATE: PROJECT FORM II tC • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 4a c hr 7�G r 81Vd S'a m i q kp 1 r (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 85 Peak 21 Hour Approved Approach? Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 2 J l�' 9, 7/'0 1 Zd, Z 3 Z G Southbound 3 1 15 e510 Eastbound J 'j 7f J1J 2 Westbound . -70.9 0 4 77y %r Project Traffic is estimated to. be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I ..C.U.) Analysi* is required. Fashion island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I INTERSECT.ICOAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • Intersection 144e 1-A u,, BAlict, !! -Sak M,JC4, Dr ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19_) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT , PROJECT Movement PK.NR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume WK /600 tf- ,OZ > 0-7-9# NT 3240 ? . ZSol z /6 \ , 307? NR V 1 /.5 Z J / /.S' / — - SL /600 I , ODDS - / OOr/b- - UUiS ST 1 3zo0 13 1 , '/5/61 SR ) IZ8 EL 3Zoo 'V0 / . 1253 145'` ET 3200 260 . 'I'f54X' — 67e; 17d 9 — 173.9 � ER IJ ao 4 WL /'600 /50 e0938 ,64�0 7.5 WT r 37_ /0 7 ? .0�72. i '� d �b9 —' O 409 WR t OWTIME , /000 �` 00d-)ETING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION a 6 lyeTING PLUS COMMITTEDPLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. , A 7 TING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ' if V 173 2 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Description of system improvement: DATE: PROJECT FORM II l 1%• Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection /cr t1/r7 Au.- &Va/ @ - aL. Joy u (Existing Traffic Volumes based on .Average Winter/spring 19S Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Puk'2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Northbound Z r 9� 8 y , / i z?4 f: I SouthbouM Eastbound O •�(J/ 8(� a i; Westbound . q f 6 a G� 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers s� FORM I INTERSECTI0CAPACITY UUTILIZATIION ANALYSIS • l Intersectio 62IJ@f4 Ji d ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/o Ratio PROJECT • PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. w/o Project Volume V/L Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume ` • NT 22o0 9o'a 1, .3159 �!J ¢ %''1 . 3?43 /Z . SAP Oc1 all NR ) 3) 1 — SL 37z00 4-7q e l'f 97 . -57/, / 3f . 1, 19 ,74/9 S7 3Zoo / 3oL . �f069 '/� 3 =JJ 41D3 G5' 47f l t1 SR ,VS. ( 9 3 EL 3Zo0 4GGV- /0 Z4�9 ET q(?00 it 93 , //O' ? I1 6 9 /0 , /?../� ER 77 /9 WL /600 /0 . 6063 WT y800 2-38 07/9 i0 O '793 Ile R/S ' WR / /0-7 _ LLOWTIME , 1000 I 1 � STING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .��N� I � _ EXISTING PLUS COIMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -. .3. � EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLU5 REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. '9�`�/ ❑ 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: mil":v le"I r I,i/ // y—E d� CC / CU Acid/✓�� �.,� .{/t3 ,..J-j C- ;::., be, /'c DATE: PROJECT FORM II THOSE INTERSECTIONS NOT TRIGGERING ,THE .1% •PROCESS , 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Bpi S401 Sr4. N, ? G M us ZIr v 1 h e (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring' 19 4'5 Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 21y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour i Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � I I Northbound I Z6 2-1 Southbound ` 1Z �i : %' J 5 i Eastbound Westbound 1,0176 ' U`J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization - (L,C.U.) Analysis is 'required. =' • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 5`� FORM I cry 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection &;S-al SV (o C'a,% u- I.?rvih p (Existing Traffic Volumes based on v�I`erage Winte pring a°_ Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected 1Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2)* Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume. Volume iNorthbound 12 /3 3 zc Southbound Z 3 7/ S o 8 9 Eastboundd 4, /3 37 /¢? Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers $S FORM I • = 1% Traffic Volume Analysis• Intersection Sr, bla O rC 4 S� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 �S Peak 2�1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Rroject 11 Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume- Volume Volume �? Northbound Southbound Z 7 Z Z Eastbound — d ¢ , / ,/►� Westbound -7 250 /�/o _al Project Traffic is estimated to be•less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Qr% . -1-o I r c J� (Existing Traffic Volumes based—on Average Winter `pring i9-,?-5-)— Peak 2y Hour Approved �l ! Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected If., of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour i Peak 2k Hour 1i Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound q Z 0 i I Southbound / ZOO I. Eastbound ,.• , Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project, Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. • Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • 1 Fashion Island Renaissance DATE• 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation-Engineers FORM I $�/ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection c p �Nw e N ST. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter/Spring 8s Peak 2y Hour Approved —'— Approacn Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected I I Project Direction Peek 2y Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound Sorthbound I 1-7 1 CJ ! I iEastbound i 3 ZGo i Westbound S(o7 /Z9' _ 2 97�! lolo Z 7 6 `r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of 'Projected Peak 2h 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. Fashion Island Renaissance 7I22/85 DATE PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I `7 r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' • Intersection Cod �� �cv� na i r- oQ c'�' f4 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on�erage�winter/Spring 19,ts }� r- Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction i Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 2� Hour 1- Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume f Volume !' INorthbound _ southbound 2p7G Op Il Eastbound 3 8 OI- li Westbound i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I ..C.U.) Analysis is required. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection COa� 7� //wy @ &. bad 11,Neer;or^ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winteriSpring NUT Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected ( Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21s Hour i Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume !; Northbound /7 7/ SouLhbound j Z7-7 i Eastbound J?�o7 /Zy 6 S-? s I ¢y 5 3 1 it i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21% 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. ' S Fashion Island Renaissance DATE- 7'/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers (0� FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection i!o4.S4 /14"f' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 19 _ iPeak 211 Hour Approved I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour I Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound I 60 �I Southbound 12 I j Eastbound ^ ; . 5��8 ,zoo i ��-i Westbound fez S © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 'l% of Projected Peak 2h, 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. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers (p/ FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection COAL4 14w Q bove-r pr �?aLf e,ie [7r (Existing Traffic Volumes se on -Average inter pringl Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 211 Hour Peek 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • � t Northbound 2 9?, '717 Southbound Z �3, G glto 29 /D i iEastbound1 . CDI b �/Z�o � D / � � d Westbound . SZ t92 3 3 4 el 3d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h 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. Fashion Island Renaissance 1/22/85 DATE: PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers �:�-- FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection COOT ' br (Existing Traffic Volumes based on• Average Winter/Spring rTET Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour j Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I' Northbound I 16 C 7 _ IS, Southbound I 2 G-,. jEastbound G 1 5� Westbound 74r 30 ; Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers &3 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Coa.S4 Nw @ JatkK/Ooro. e !2d (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring S Peak 211 Hour Approved f Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected , Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Pak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 93a 3 Z� 2 9 Southbound `f 26 40 9 3 • $ I Eastbound (( 7 90 17 / 9(0 G 74 g9 Westbound 57 4e bG"I- 6 ro 61;r . Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island-'Renaiss0c' a DATE '7 22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers �p FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coa-4 #w (P Avocar-'2 iA (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _ Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected ( Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 21, Hour j Peak 2k !lour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 7 90 southbound Eastbound 1 . Lf//Z ¢ ` •�' ~�7`• ,OL '-52,0 Q 7' Westbound 2892 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers (p FORM T " 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Coa:S74 //w /v�7 @ /� A t 9r7A (Ar eld (Existing Traffic volumes based on Average winter/spring ITT Peak 2k Hour Approved �• Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected I Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak'Zk Hour Peak 2)s Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour iVolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound Southbound Z CI O'Z 43 �� /�a a Eastbound 3771 °� ,,ri� r /Z i• Nestbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2is Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers V .^ FORM I i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Coa-. 4 in r o 1deKro,) 4v-e (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring UEST iPeak 2's Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project i Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2)s Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 211 Hour 1 j Volume Volume _ volume Volume Volume Volume � ! Northbound I ? 37 O /' Southbound 2 ram/ >1 ^ Z iEastbound Westbound V G�oV / Project Traffic is estimated J e ted to be less than 1% of Project ed Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2li Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 01 FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection roj :4 #Wu G+? 7ctP�:*.� (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average Inter pring Peak 2h Hour Approved I -� Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peek 2y Hour Growth Peak 23& Hour Peak 21* Hour Peak 2;; Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i' Northbound Southbound I; Eastbound `J 3 1/ 1 q / I Westbound s zI ZS c� 7Z Z /0 i �j Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization _ (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I /y�s 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Cocts�- ! W—a A Poaa, Poe- (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 1 ST i Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound i I 2Z5 Southbound 4$5 3 5 �i Eastbound J,C�: Sep 3 /�d p LWestbound 22LIg 25q Z4, YS/� 2 73 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k 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. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/8,5 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers &q FORM I , - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection l( e;Z Zt i -' .i RR r4lar, 6r (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1985 ! i Peak 2k Hour Approved Ti Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project j Direction Peak 21S Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour i Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound �. Southbound -47Z 4. 1.7 i Eastbound i Westbound Z OZS r��3 � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ; Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-11 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FOP.M 1 4 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jawboree Roar( (3 E1*9o;, 4vr-. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter[Spring ,5.c Peak 211 Hour Approved —i: Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 2y Hour j Peak 2� Hour 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I L+f 3 3 Southbound Eastbound 2 O 6 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23g Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i • • E Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/1185 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 71 FORM I -I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Ja vi,bOrp e ZC:as-A � lk l?4 br N (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19TFT Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ; Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2+6 Hour Peak 24 Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I S092 Z°o Q //I d P Southbound JC j 97 Z ¢ /l d Eastbound Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2'g Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' I Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers ✓!� FORM I 1�/ 1% TrafficVolume Analysis D 1 11 11 Intersection cJa`ndorae Raa� 6fi T?tl ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring Z S Peak 211 Hour Approved �— —ji Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 211 Hour Peek 2y Hour ; Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound I 5 /7,j Z Z Southbound Eastbound 0 I JC / / % !r r e� U Y 9 `5 6 �• I Westbound i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h, 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. ' Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 73 FORM I Irr 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection iay%126r24 P•d(� (�ri ) S41 Al.(Existing traffic Volumes l ea on verage inter pring 1�9—(�jr) Peek 2�1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 216 Hour Peak 2'S Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour � Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �• Northbound 6 y Southbound 52 7 0 e,y Eastbound ��nn +� 17 .Westbound C`/oSEcY 29¢ 79'� ✓ �6 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (L..C.U.) Analysis is required. V/ 1 .Ajp4 t✓ I-S Nc) T ,ems0Z>�D , /S yo 4 y"' 2z o o 9? / (;`70 ) } RA&3v /c crCo v j.).0 Z%z -W,2 VJ L. = 9 Z Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers '1 FORM I , 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection 10d rMt7t14r74kur �lv� (Existing TrafficVolumes based on Average Winter/Spring 5 T f Peak Hour Approved i Approach I Existing I Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected � Project i i� Direction Peek 2� Hour Growth Peek 2), Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour i Peak 2� Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound Southbound i' I 3 � 71 sI �� : 5 ¢ o I l it Eastbound ) '7 q I, westbound 3 053 s Y y zAo i L Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. � r Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 75' FORM I i-% 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Jambore-YO Pad @ &rcl S4 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 — I Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour i Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 2 6 Southbound 2 q / z Sq jEastbound rT't i Westbound i T Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k. 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. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers a�u FORM I w 1% Traffic Volume Analysis TT`` • Intersection Jars-bor-°e p6o •1 e CaX-P t. Ur (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 1 Peak 24 Hour Approved p Approach Existing I Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2� Hour I Growth Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound D O S / S s Southbound 2 -7 q"7 5 1- Eastbound Z 3 Z > 351 J� $ Z 7 u :�►. i. li Westbound f -7 Zq -5 4 r-� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected lJ Peak 2h 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 77 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Ae- qri-Aur 91id eO Ford P (Existing Traffic volumes based on Average winter/spring 19 5 Peak 21S Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 3536 e �1 southbound 5 9 05 Eastbound /0Z6 i O �G ! // Sl Westbound 116Y Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis / . Intersection Ind ( 4r- GA Ar 161v) Gb B+S o',^ Aya (Existing Traffic Volumesbased On Winter Spring 1TUF Peak 21S Hour Approved , Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project i Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour f; Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 4 q z'r Southbound T i (o718 :5 45� Eastbound /L ! �3 �GZ� i = i O i Westbound _. I a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h 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. Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers 7�l FORM I • • r II 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Mac �r rRur 91VJ 6b Gtrc- n S� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 Zs Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2ss Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume t' Northbound /q 6 6 2 9; ��� p Z � rf '• Southbound Z 5a� >;� Z ��J Z / i. t Eastbound r �AA� i Westbound . / �'�0 Q ^7-�'�' lr�'XJ /9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers g� FORM I (,'�' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection /r/a e jf r f hl ur f 1 d C Ca m4 tt D r (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WInter pring 19 e's*) Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project I� Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume iNorthbound 7- 7 97 z 3 -544 7 q 7 z � 1¢� Southbound l 3 ,, 590 L4V.5" fro " . �/ 17 II Eastbound /9 31 — /? /7 Westbound _ /� C' I Z 558 %5/' 3 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Er Peak 2-11 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. • Fashion Island Renaissance DATE: 7/22/85 PROJECT: J. Farmer, Transportation Engineers FORM I NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Q Secretary for Resources FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1416 Tenth Street CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 • County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Box 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Fashion Island Renaissance PROJECT LOCATION: Fashion Island, Newport Center, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 66,000 sq.ft. addition to Newport Center Retail Center �ING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy 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 IAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: $300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 'Environmental Coordinator• Date: October 2, 1985 IJ� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM' (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent TN£ 110INE COWAN\-1 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 550 N rwF0R-r �ENTC2 , 7 0 I�,c T rlF-Wrnz-r Y2F-ACWi Cb. 92(o5'9-dgoy (I14)"120-2335 C%rAcr • Dpon D Mo1+owsw 3. Date of Checklist Submitted to—I- $5 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 6IT4 nF MEWP0rzT EB=AcN 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable FA,,.fN0N4 le-,LAND T5,4A155AW-F- 11. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal e&sult in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displaceMents, compaction or overcovering of the soil? �( c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification 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? . �3 Yes Maybe No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, • mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? SC j 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration Of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,., either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result. in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface • runoff? i I X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X 1 d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface *ater quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? • h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- k lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 0 Yes Maybe No 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, X rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal X 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 organisms or insects)? X • b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X . rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in p barrier to the k migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife k habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? k 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce X new light or glare? 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 X resources? Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x • 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 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? k b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation k plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional hdusing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: • i a. Generation of substantial additionalI vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? k 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: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? c. Schools? x /_ Yes Mom No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X • e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? f. Other governmental services? x 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? k b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the k 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? X b. Communications systems? • c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. , Storm water drainl age? X 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 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? x • 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction"of a prehistoric or historic archoeologica) site? X • • l Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? • c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? x d. Will the proposal restrict existirig religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 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? i 4 X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental (goals? (A short- 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.) k 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 X impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 011. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation- IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D� • in. Environmental Evaluation i.b. The proposed project will require the construction of one or more parking structures which may involve excavation. Standard City mitigation measures in regards to grading will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 7. The construction of - new retail and restaurant space, and parking structures will produce new light and glare. Standard City measures in regards to required lighting plans will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 13. The additional commercial development will gener- ate additional vehicular traffic, demand for new parking and will impact existing transportation systems. A Traffic Study has been prepared which assesses the Circulation System impacts and • defines an intersection improvement, which will reduce traffic impacts to an insignificant level. 20.b.Grading an excavation may uncover cultural re- sources. Standard City measures will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. V/ On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 a significant effect X I 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 environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. —� Date Signature For . a 9 MITIGATION MEASURES • 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage • facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit 'shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public • Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 2 7 -- 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise • associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped.with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. • 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer • stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. SR11 - 3 - 1 AY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \r&L ROLL October 15, 1985 INDEX 7. That a 12-foot-wide sidewalk bikeway be provided on the ocean side of the Santa Ana River bridge. 8. That this project be coordinated with improvements to the Arches interchange. Coun 1 Member Hart stated, for the recor that "she would hope that Caltra keeps in mind that the City of Newport each is probably one of the moat bea iful residential Cities in California and as they look at noise walls, whic at their best are not attractive a all, that they realize the need for dequate landscaping and an overall much's fter' effect." All Ayes The motion was ted on and carried. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from Executi Assistant to theInter-Cnty City Manager regardin INTER-COUNTY Airport Auth AIRPORT AUTHORITY, was presented. Jt. Agmt (24) Motion x Motion was made to autho ize the Mayor and the City Clerk to exe ute Joint Powers Agreement to allow ity to participate in the Inter-Co my Airport Authority; and appoint Counc 1 Member Strauss as the City's Represe tative to the Governing Board of the IC , and appoint Council Member Heather s Alternate. Motion x Following consideration and discus ion, All Ayes Mayor Maurer withdrew the foregoing motion, and motion was made to autho ize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Joint Powers Agreement to allow the Ci y -2542 to participate in the Inter-County (38) Airport Authority, and to defer the appointments of the City's Representative and Alternate to the Governing Board of the ICAA to October 28, 1985. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Motion was made to schedule public Ehe Irvine All Ayes hearing onarequest of _The Irvine- o/Trfc Stdy Comny to consider traffic study to allow construction o_f 66,000 sg: ft.rof retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and t e acceptance of an ro Envinmental_Document to be heard Volume 39 - Page 397 CITY OF NEWPORT MACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �'� f < ROLL CAL s`f' �� �� October 15, 1985 INDEX Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to PCH Widng/ transmit comments to Caltrans concerning Route 55 EIS the City's review of the subject EIS. Tom Orlando, 15 Balboa Coves, epresenting West Newport Community A sociation, addressed the Council and a ted that he had not had an op ortunity to review the subject co ents, and just wanted to make sure the ity's comments reflected the feels ge of their Association. The Dir ctor of Public Works reviewed the comet nts as set forth below: 1. hat the drainage system etween Superior and Newport B ulevard be designed to mi imize the deposition of deb is into the West Newport Chan el, and that new drainage faci ties be placed under round. 2. That ac eptable geometries be provide to allow left turns out of B boa Coves. 3. That noise be mitigated through the installation of noise walls djacent to Balboa Coves, Lido nds, the West Newport Park 58th Street to Summit Street) on the southerly side f Coast Highway and on a northerly side between Wal ut Street and Colton Street and between Highland Street an the river. 4. That access problem in the Newport Shores area e reviewed and designs odified where practical to min mize inconvenience. 5. That loss of parking to e businesses in the area be ween 66th Street and the river e reviewed. 6. That street lighting along Coast Highway in Newport Beac and across the bridge be provided. Volume 39 - Page 396 C Y OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ' n tP A16 ti ti 9 ROLL CAL � October 15, 1985 INDEX concurrently with the General Plan Cona3stency Determination_public_heaxing scheduled_for October 28, 1985. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Volume 39 — Page 398 COMMISSIONERS .ober 10, 1985 isMINUTES xx 111 C o 0 x 2 C v > M m z C m a m Z p z _ m City of Newport Beach C 2 0 p r O O 9 ROLL CALL INDEX F+.z3'v"'v+i'tidy—ln ....F...+ � thep_woj - ec - d traffic will neith� aff�c cause nor make worse an unsatis evel otr on any 'major, ' 'primary-modified,' ornaYy street. A. General Plan Consistency Determination (Discussion) Item No.7 Request to consider a transfer of allowed retail General development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Plan Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by Consistency General Plan Amendment No. 78-2. Determina- INITIATED BY% The City of Newport Beach tion Traffic AND Study B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Approved Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Various locations within Tract No. 6015 known as Fashion Island, within Newport Center. ZONE: C-0-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company OWNER: Same as applicant In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding the mitigation measure of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, Mr. Webb replied that MacArthur Boulevard northbound has two lanes of traffic and a single left turn lane. He said that in order to add a third northbound lane the City has indicated to the applicant that it will be necessary to widen the road on the westerly side and to move the median islands over. Mr. Webb commented that a final determination regarding the intersection will be in accordance with the results of the Newport Center General Plan. He said that the MacArthur Boulevard widening will be from 600 feet to 1,000 feet going into the San Joaquin-Hills Road intersection to about 1,000 feet going out of the -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES lo, 1995 • MINUTES xx 111 c o 0 f C v 9 y m i m y m z z a z m z T ° City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX intersection. In reply to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the Circulation Element Master Plan, Mr. Webb stated that The Irvine Company has requested an amendment to the Circulation Element which would eliminate the one-way couplet concept and would continue two-way traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. In response to Chairman Person's inquiry stating that the application is a request to transfer existing development rights within Newport Center from one location to another, Mr. Hewicker replied that this is permitted by General Plan amendment No. 78-2 which allows the City to approve such a transfer if a finding can be made that it is not going to result in any adverse traffic. Mr. Hewicker confirmed that if approved, Chairman Person's statement that there would be no development rights relating to commercial or retail left on the Newport Village site and only residential, would be correct. Chairman Person recommended that Condition No. 1 of the General Plan Consistency Determination be modified to read: "Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute an agreement, etc.". Mr. Burnham suggested that the Condition be amended to state that the property owner would, in that agreement, acknowledge that they would have no claim or right to compensations assuming there are no additional development rights granted on the property from which the development rights have been transferred and any other language necessary in that agreement to protect the City against some future liability and also a provision that the agreement be recorded. Mr. Dave Dmohowski stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, as amended. Mr. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Webb discussed the proposed design of the San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard intersection. Chairman Person explained to Mr. Nichols what the transfer of allowed retail development within Newport Village contains. Ms. Temple advised that The Irvine Company's request to transfer into Fashion Island is not increasing the total build out of Fashion Island proposed in General Plan Amendment 85-l(B) . She -20- COMMISSIONERS CWber 10, 1985 MINUTES 7 F C O O x f y v > mvmisa m z A = x z City of Newport Beach a ROLL CALL INDEX said that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the additional development in Fashion Island will be reduced by 66,000 square feet from 180,000 square feet to 114,000 square feet. Mr. Nichols opined that the traffic pattern should be discussed before the General Plan. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Commissioner Koppelman made a motion to approve the findings and conditions of the Environmental Document, General Plan Consistency, and Traffic Study including amended Condition No. B1. She cited that the reasons for this motion are that these development rights for this commercial have been granted to the applicant under General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, and this request is only moving the right commercial rights from one location to another, and she opined that when the General Plan Amendment is reviewed on Newport Center that the applicant will be addressing traffic considerations as the primary part of the General Plan Amendment. Ayes x x x x x x Motion was voted on to approve the findings and conditions of General Plan Consistency Determination and Traffic Study, including Condition No. 1B as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 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. -21- COMMISSIONERS 00ober 10, 1985 • MINUTES x x 111 c o f y v r v m 9 0 M _ ° m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mitigation Measures 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities,, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 8. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. -22- COMMISSIONERS (&her 10, 1985 • MINUTES A x 111 C O i 9 � 'y m z,C m y m z m z A z m m City of Newport Beach O z N y r O O a ROLL CALL INDEX 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed k plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. That the lighting system shall be designed and 1 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. -23- • COMMISSIONERS (&ber 10, 1985 MINUTES xx c o 0 = v y m z C m a m = 9 = M = T m City of Newport Beach C 2 N p r 0 0 a ROLL CALL INDEX B. General Plan Consistency - Commercial Development Transfer Findings: 1. That the transfer of commercial development rights is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That GPA 78-2 specifically allowed transfer of commercial development within Newport Center subject to approval by the City. 3. That the transfer of commercial development will not adversely affect the traffic system. 4. That major intersections during critical peak periods are not adversely affected so long as the identified intersection improvement is made. 5. That the project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall execute and record an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the Newport Beach City Attorney, acknowledging that the transfer of development rights approved results in commercially designated land with no development rights, and that this is acceptable to the property owner. The property owner shall also acknowledge that the City, in taking this action, does not prejudice its ability to take independent action on General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) based upon the merits of the proposal. Additionally, the property owner shall, in the agreement, acknowledge they have no claim or right to compensation if no additional development rights are granted for the property from which the development rights have been transferred. -24- COMMISSIONERS debar 10, 1985 41 MINUTES x x c o A 9 = v p m z c m y m z a m o m > r ° City of Newport Beach z A z A z T m a ROLL CALL INDEX C. Traffic Study Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 0£ 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 six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one critical inter- section which has an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests a circulation system improvement which will improve the level of traffic service at the critical intersection. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or "primary" street. Condition: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the circulation system improvement contained in the Traffic Study, addition of a northbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, shall have been construct- ed. The required improvement may be modified if subsequent project approval requires modification thereto. The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. -25- A • NEGATIVE DECLARATION •" TO: Q Secretary for Resources FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1416 Tenth Street CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 © County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O.Box 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Fashion Island Renaissance PROJECT LOCATION: Fashion Island, Newport Center, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 66,000 sq.ft. addition to Newport Center Retail Center E L E D OCT 41985 GAftY L. GRA V! L , o0nbj Clerk tt FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council IPolicy 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. j MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Stu _ POSTED f Plarru�r.0 b oVa,z `mot 9 PCVT - 4. 1965 NC ' 985 Oqt �'`"CN, BY l..l ply 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 2, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM' (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) 1. Background I. Name of Proponent TH£ I?,VINIE C0MPANk-1 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 560 N EWFoRT o. r� 1 * WNr ap-T - aF 4i (L. 9a(o5-S-S90'i (-114) 12n-2335 Coi rrper : DviD DMD)+aUsk4 3. Date of Checklist Submitted JD-1- $5 4. Agency, Requiring Checklist 174 Or- Nr=WPOP--T SEAcN S. Name of Proposal, if applicable FA,64; 4 I<,LA-ND T5RA155ANC-F- ll. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes". and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes - Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? �( c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? �C d. The destruction, covering or modification 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? x Yes Maybe No 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? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,. either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result. in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- ' rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? l 1 X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface Water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ( f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? >I/- h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water k supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- k lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? • • - Yes Maybe No 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 X plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal x 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 organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new -species of animals into on area, or result in a barrier to the x migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife k habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce X new light or glare? 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? X Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 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? �X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation X plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal- affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional' 1 vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? k d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air X traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? �C 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: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X _ c. Schools? X Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? k b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the x 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: t a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? k d. Sewer or septic tanks? \X/ e. , Storm water dra i i age 1 x 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 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 X to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or X historic archaeological site? Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 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? I 1 X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- 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.) k 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.) k d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation- IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 1 III. Environmental Evaluation 1.b. The proposed project will require the construction of one or more parking structures which may involve excavation. Standard City mitigation measures in regards to grading will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 7. The construction of new retail and restaurant space, and parking structures will produce new light and glare. Standard City measures in regards to required lighting plans will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. 13. The additional commercial development will gener- ate additional vehicular traffic, demand for new parking and will impact existing transportation systems. A Traffic Study has been prepared which assesses the Circulation System impacts and defines an intersection improvement, which will reduce traffic impacts to an insignificant level. 20.b.Grading an excavation may uncover cultural re- sources. Standard City measures will reduce any potential impact to an insignificant level. On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case �x 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 environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature ' For I l < MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a' licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan) . 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. S. The landscape plan shall include a - maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 9. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 2 10. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated to acceptable levels in receptor areas. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be ap- proved by the Planning Department. 11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 12. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 13. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 14. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 15. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 16. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of con- struction activities, and that all work on -the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 17. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices 'for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 18. 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 Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. SR11 - 3 - , Ea+Por PAN NIN ! E�A�TP NT r' ? (;1'I 1 aye . :` 7aL+E, 3300 Newport Boulevard P .O. Box 1768 Newport Beach , CA 92658-8915 Donald K. a ° 4000 Campus DidAsex co g Newport Beach, CAA7�q� RE Ell ED'1. A.P.-No. 427-131— Planning ° :ps ,rrlcnY IMPORTANT ©CT 6 1985 Public Hearinn, Nptice . pf �'f'GRI:JCACH, Q CAUFf City '+ llrft!„I,l,il:,fl,,,ilwull,i i W N �EwaoR PLANNING D ��Arl�' 4 E N, 2p''A 1�--.•_.;, _;-s.�-=_' : � C1 �. CMY Cq<IFOP 'WPort Boulevard bs.i oa P .;0. B o'X' $ Newporty BB ch , CA 92658-8915 4104 "I�4no n e Co. 9 " 0. Box 2655 ! U t ewport Beach. CA 92,663 442-091-12,14 rk •, ` DST � 1985 � -, IMPORTANT �FCN Public Hearing Notice ✓ r •� 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 The Irvine Company to consider a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of 66,000 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses in Fashion Island and also to consider a transfer of allowed retail development from Newport Village and Civic Plaza to Fashion Island within Newport Center as permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 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. Irvine Co. s Schmucker 6,Q7 N Central Fashion Island Mgt. Assoc. Glendale CA 91203 10 Newport Center • Barbara Roppolo, General Mgr Newport Beach, CA 92660 #62 Fashion Island 442-011-22 442-161-01 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine CO. Irvine Co. i Sea Island Community Assn Marriott Dr. P.O. Box 7995 Phil Wiltse, President Washington D.C., 20058 Newport Beach, CA 92660 19 Sea island Drive 442-0-1-41, 442-161-11 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Co. Irvine Co. Island Lagoon Association 550 Newport Center Dr. P.O. Box 8600 1 John Hartunian Newport Beach,_ CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 27 ocean vista 442-081-07 442-161-12 . Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine CO. I Irvine CO. Newport Center Association-, 607 N Central 550 Newport Center Karen Kennedy,, Managing 'Directo Glendale, CA 91203 Newport Beach, C A 92660 180 Newport Center Drive,:"#180 442-082-02 442-161-13 Newport Beach, .CA 92660.`.-' Irvine Co. Irvine Co. Irvine Terrace Comiriuni"" Assn 550 Newport Center 550 Newport Center San Van Landingham, Pres"t•;:.;:• Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1501 Santanella Terrace 444Newport 082-05 442-231-02 Corona ,del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine Co. Irvine Cc Broadmoor Hills II Comm. Assoc. 607 N Central 260 Newport Center #520 Dr. Bruce Walter, President Glendale, CA 91203 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2821 Bluewater 442-082-07 442-231-12 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ------_-- - — — Irvine- Co. i�— -_— Harbor View Broadmoor Comm Assn Irvine Co. Iry N Brand Bill Cunningham, Pres. _ P.O. Box 2655 1223 Goldenrod Glendale, CA 91209 Glen , Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 442-091-12,14 442-231-13 Irvine Co. Irvine Co• Harbor View Hills Comm. Assn 550 Newport Centex 550 Newport New Center Gary Pomeroy, President - Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 2907 Ebbtide 442-101-03 442-231-14 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Balboa Insurance Pacific Mutual Life Harbor View Hills Comm. ABsn P.O. Box 1770 P.O. Box 8580 c/o Management Services Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92658 17601 17th St. , Suite 218 442-101-04 442-262-01,03 Tustin, CA 92680 Jerry Morrison, Mgmt. Rep. Harbor View Comm. Assn _ Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn Irvine Co. Phil Glasgow President John Fisher, President 550 Newport Center 1842 Port Margate 2770 Hill view Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-101-05.06,07,12 - -- - -- ---�--- .. .. .- � ---- - _ - - Jasmine Creek Community Assn Mariott Corporation Christine McGraw, General Mgr 900 Newport Center Drive 110 Jasmine Creek Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Big Canyon Community Assn Bernie Samson, President ,t•'A - - - - , • i 3 Inverness Lane » •• Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Crest Community Assn 1 Sheila Walters, President 1 Cherry Hills Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 ..:�<'i` ".sue -h -d:'n:.•?;c•. S�sx- a::S= - 33_ +r o.,;:-ii.::t?^c5� ..',_.� - ' _. ._ - - - — - '�''• ' ` , -- ,ti:r. .�; ,. t......•.� ty>•,ZE .,.�w r,!';:�::-;.,.'.�:�:,.: "7 Canyon Crest Estates Homeowners Association Dennis O'Connor 5 Canyon Crest 7 Newport Beach, CA 92625 �., Canyon Hills Community Assn Canyon Island Community Assn >;.. • . _ Bill Baker President R. A. McKittrick, Pres. ' 3 Lockmoor Lane 11 Rue Fontaine 1- Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 - ' -Canyon Lakes. Community Assn Canyon Mesa Community Assn _ - ._!Howard Land, President. Betty Robinson, President , ,16 Rue Villars 5 Rue Montreaux Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 - ' • Canyon Point Community Assn Canyon View Community Assn ;San Yngve, President Jack L. Hanson, President 1-10 Rue Deauville 14 Rue Cahnes ;Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ':1i�'�x'Y`.'s< .r,:..._AY;...;.aS:::::i�w+sKli�•�i':� ,•y� jCorona del Mar' Community Assn Sea Pine Community Assn Richard Nichols, President c/o Villageway Management P. O. Box 516 P. O. Box 4708 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Irvine, CA 92716 Richard Grundy, President Promontory Bay Homeowners Assn Corona del Mar Chamber of Comm. Richard Bare, President Jean Kiqer, President 700 Harbor Island Drive P. O. Box 72 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 THE IRVINE COMPANY FROM THE DESK OF DAVE DMOHOWSKI T0: A L^ RE: DATE: 720-2335 • 011 { AMEq ,, • 9 First American Title Insurance Company 114 EAST FIFTH STREET, (P. O. BOX 267)SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702 • (714) 5583211 Affidavit on Property Ownership List Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Dr. 6th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Dave Dmohowski The Attached List represents the Names and Addresses of all property owners located within 300 feet of the Exterior Boundaries of Property located at Assessor Parcel No. 442-021-all Newport Beach as obtained from the latest Orange County Assesment Rolls. C /. v (Signature) Christopher J. Rouly Assistant Secretary Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 558-3211 Irvine Co. s Schmucker 607 N Central Newport Center Glendale, CA 91203 rt Beach, CA 92660 442-011-22 442-161-01 Irvine Co. Irvine Co. Marriott Dr. P.O. Box 7995 I Washington D.C., 20058 Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-0-1-41 i 442-161-11 Irvine Co. Irvine Co. ` 550 Newport Center Dr. P.O. Box 8600- Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-081-07 442-161-12 Irvine Co. Irvine Co. 607 N Central 550 Newport Center Glendale, CA 91203 Newport Beach, C A 92660 ' 442-082-02 442-161-13 Irvine Co. - - Irvine Co,. ac- 550 Newport Center 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-082-05 442-231-02 Irvine Co. Irvine Co l 607 N Central 260 Newport Center #520 Glendale, CA 91203 Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-082-07 442-231-12 Irvine Co. Irvine• Co. P.O. Box 2655 401 N Brand Newport Beach, CA 92663 Glendale, CA 91209 4421091-12,14 442-231-13 Irvine Co. Irvine Co. 550 Newport Center 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newoort Beach, CA 92660' 442-101-03 442-231-14 Balboa Insurance Pacific Mutual Life P.O. Box 1770 P.O. Box 8580 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92658 442-101-04 442-262-01,03 Irvine Co. 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 442-101-05,06,07,12 i NO 442- (08�2* 08 , 'y CENTER JIL •,,j .yo-[55!' bV• .• Yc ® P 1 ' !lI �, / Id P � '• B :♦ ° 3�, � �1 N P � pJ �c yz , p0 SUB Jp / 141, r_� y5 °' 96 Q MY PY 6•-2.i /6.P6/4C. OW �9 ,• C �//(,i(/E•� t 9 4r w IRVINE G .a tt. qa PAR OAR A 442-09 �2 y PAR t ♦' .•r ro' � 1942 A - O 4 PAPI PAR ! ; P• >a' .i• k PO/� O `') )�4fF9 P ' O / '`) - /f• < 9f 5 4 tzy. ` 20 y� a rc:jk02F P J ' c ;: P- W NwacS. )!•i ♦ . , V` am) ; $ ♦♦ .eP Q , \ G )•` F / t, y f .. O .Sy)r R?J_ Chi s.- , to 'R BLK. p91 93 P/-y2 y,' s ♦ r4 C 1 `\ f 0:., z° cr P 8.( P PRJ v ,Z; a �. ^\' ) .i6,% ♦ t� 68AC. P. At 60 - !6 �.6!! �[. P4O29650/C/ P4AP `\,'' ` 4 � ;lr .B P14C ' Lor/9 = PPFJ4C/4 ':/, .4J' LOT /B 5:�" ,ty . SUB. Y PAe 6M1 f.a>° 4 ° fP'' ")'J. 14R 6 !/•s .h 42- I �9 60/ 9 /R(i/ ' ' l P4qWE51 �� �p NE 61 POR. BLK. � aRORO .Y8 Y O Sine 14R./ S CENTfq. d,• fS , •R Py „+9 • Hi > P.4 9,3 61•S4C. O 6 .n,a' i °J'I9 O P4R p Py/J6 P ><>wa _ -� I DRIVE :'. NJ - R' q •�%, �9Bgg4 SOR )Www _ wcs' ¢�'1 � QQZ 0 : Py If'j91,r . ` ` a � '" `b - f> P 6 J5 y•+ 50 ORIV ,,,�r s• a •�` ce:rc� - a ' \ o tpj 1l U•°B° p.20 / .gym^>` - JE^p ppI !A �+ ! " 5 0a q CeNTE -� NEWPORT 32 IR 93 p V ' c 6015 d,-0' p ,®4 / to PAO AC •„ - 22 CENTER 5 Pc 1 06 ! U E \ dILL ,,; .�fEss l• �� .�. '� ' do/c� ♦,• 5 .`•V 1`r ac' ` ;_ P - p0µ ppUµ 2 , Jo < PM :6>T'"-2'l pAR eor '6O2IBB/4 G fC/ „ SUB ' r �,—.: ACT y6 �9 'o ` i 9�• alaaa. /1//(jUE`C •�.l'. -1 �� s 1RP - f e - d \�-51 51 r 9 r ,W pr{s IRVIlVE 0 i Ala � � PAR A iY • /B94G `♦♦ ,� j 442-09 ` PIR./ OU / BST/,` `♦,.< ' // �'~♦�J — 0 r 94Z e O 1 PO2 p/R i o P, >> alt A dp / / `�♦ ,r<_ES z `v V �• .> i C'' /)♦\• t+';//CV 1, • ,aa. Jy "" �nln N� 4y y" ` ? ai♦ '' OZI <' P ,! > t :.-.>, ( > P" fail100 aa.` • 'aP.r urs. - Q P 25-1 r C ' /Rftl'4GT� / \ / ♦ r` ,. 'd' y '4:� /$ 2 v.a Q . ` 6 y�'F /�' }�' �` „ H O ,i3 f� -aJ / � i a• /� o •r. BL K. 091 93 PM 2r_92 4q tiC ,y'� rr' `� ♦ /a♦' G ``2 '1 of �.� cr ar P R PAR I 60 - 36 PMB/-B Q M V a P4H i ,`i�'B `'>. ^` .^♦. O 1 P68AC. P. M. 1.6r! AC 4`` 4 ® ♦ i > ♦�.. ' 3 !. 000' `); y,� rB)i4C = -' •• - R.cov 4.1 l- t1 `, tot/9 zd6JACIC/ C,C /4 ;, ..;a •,". ��Q/V�+� for ly SUB. RMBFq tl••e4„ i h0. 60152 t—Ic ..�,.,7 Rs Be-!r Z6Z - /z4ldc/cr ��� > /,YV//V E 1, 161 /'OR BCK g W. '+a O S MN,/ W Cf/1, S •nl u' a - yt N Nw `• P.H. 6p' / Oa 't 6 �' TfR . 1• Pb 93. PdN - J6 I Sw�J Q .ta34<. / e 2B • 03 J j4 5 P,i PM/16.22 2/o/4c. � _ DRIVE , v e�� '.jA 3 as ��_ •oi Q��S L t i `°•$ �.,r. B4gB'Q'Q4 SUQ w 9+ 'a•,, e�Ra PnE �'al ENtEN ZRnr Wcs' ,O \IjN 1 p�—y" 1Y3a 1•j9 { ° P t>i o• ' 1 41p IP .Igl \ t ` •+ 16.lJ DR ,,,o°• a •\ ce,E, f' S ' \ ;�' -"•,• f5Y A 6'3JPfP1 - P ORIJE 442-23 p. aPSf y R ~-- P c 5 LENTE + SUB N£WPORT •� ' _ 76 !P _\ PPP P l • 1q ' f• `�f, ` E PNO ® � , ;•�.' ,� IRJIN \_1 A is w a 4 PPP f .. ,, g1.K 93 0 p�yQd S I a PPP a 5• ' l P_aAQ •Y e� J YA." (Ip� r @ I ) 4 •Pa e , A 9