HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS117 City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
December 14, 1998 INDEX i
13 verified protests out of 36 businesses, in the Bayside area there were 12
a protests out of 38 businesses and in the Marine Avenue area there were 22
protests out of 88 businesses.
Assistant City Manager Wood stated the changes to the resolution would
need to be made if the motion carries. She mentioned that the title would
need to read: "A resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
renewing the Marine Avenue Business Improvement District, confirming the
annual report and levying the assessments at a modified rate for the 1999
calendar year".
Assistant City Manager Wood suggested that the first three recitals would FILE C U T
not need to be changed, but that a new recital should be added to state:
"whereas the City Council has determined that the boundaries should not be
expanded at this.time", and the words "and expanded" should be removed
from the fourth recital. She stated that the fifth and sixth recital should be
deleted.
Assistant City Manager%Wood stated that Section 1 should have the words
"and expansion" deleted, land that throughout the resolution the BID should
be renamed the Marine Avenue BID. She stated that Sections 3 and 4
should also be deleted.
1
Mayor Pro Tem Thomson accepted the changes to the resolution in his
motion.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
:,It
Ayes: Glover, Thomson,Debay,Adams,Ridgeway,Mayor O'Neil
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: Noyes
28. NEWPORT BEACH RESTAURANT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Res 98-82
ANNUAL RENEWAL. t Newport Beach
Restaurant
Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing. °L BID (27)
4y
There being no public testimony,Mayor O'Neil closed the public hearing.
Council Member Ridgeway asked who the President of the 'BID was, and
Senior Planner Teague responded that it was David Salisbury of the
Newport Landing Restaurant. t
Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Resolution No.198-82,
renewing the Newport Beach Restaurant Improvement District confirming
the Annual Report and levying the BID assessment for calendar year 1996
Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation.
29. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF IMH/ICH DOVE Ord 98-28
STREET (APPLICANT) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98- Res 98-83
1(B), PC AMENDMENT NO. 877, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 117 AND GPA 98.1(B)/
Volume 52-Page 249
r
City of Newport Beach ' 7
City Council Minutes t
December 14, 1998 INDEX
Council Member Ridgeway asked Ms. Kelly about the number of businesses
in each of the three areas. She responded that,in round numbers, there are
85 businesses on Marine Avenue, 30 on Agate/South Bay Front and 65 on
ay
Side,.for a total of 180 businesses.
Kelly confirmed for Council Member Ridgeway that she was aware that
the hopping center on Bayside already belonged to a merchants association,
but t t one of the main goals of the BID for the upcoming year was to deal
with t parking problem in the area. She indicated that many of the
visitors o Balboa Island park in the shopping center's lot. Ms.Kelly further
POT
ou\thal the Balboa Island bridge retrofit project will impact both the
Island andayside/Marine Avenue intersection.
Ms. Kellyfed Council Member Ridgeway to Senior Planner Teague
regarding the not cation to The Irvine Company.
There being no nher public testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the public
hearing.
Mayor O'Neil reminded he City Council of the computations requested at
the beginning of the mee ing. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he
quickly totaled the number m opposition in the Bay Front area to be 14, and
with only 30 businesses in the area,this represents nearly 60%.
Council Member Ridgeway stati'� that he is in full support of the BID for
Marine Avenue, but that he is co cerned about the process used to include
the Agate, Bay Front and Bayside a as.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Tho son to adopt Resolution No. 98.81
renewing the Business Improvement Diskrict, confirming the Annual Report
and levying the BID assessment for calendar year 1999.
Council Member Adams asked if the BID could bring the new areas in mid-
year, if they chose to. Assistant City Attorney'Yauson stated that there are
provisions in the BID laws that provide for changes'during the year.
Council Member Adams asked about the metered arking on Bayside that
was mentioned in the staff report. Senior Planner Tegue answered that the
BID has been working with the City on possibly haven' tered parking on
one side of the street.
Council Member Ridgeway reiterated that he is not opposed�to including the
new areas in the BID, but that with the information be0e him, he has
difficulty voting for their inclusion at this meeting. He mentioned the letters
of protests and the lack of information on how the new areag had been
outreached.
k�
Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that due process has been followed.
Mayor O'Neil stated that the City Council seems to be concerned about the
lack of involvement the new areas had in the process, even thouglijthe
technical notices may have been sent.
Senior Planner Teague stated that in the Agate/Bay Front area there were
Volume 52-Page 248
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
December 14, 1998 INDEX
MODIFICATION NO. 4731 11401 DOVE STREET] — A REQUEST TO Newport Place
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 26,122 SQUARE Planned
FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING BUILT OVER A Community
PARTIALLY SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LOT. THE PROJECT (45)
INVOLVES THE APPROVAL OF:A)A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND PC AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
ENTITLEMENT IN BLOCK E OF NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED
COMMUNITY; B) A MODIFICATION TO PERMIT REDUCTION OF
THE PARKING REQUIREMENT RATIO FROM 1 SPACE FOR EACH
225 SQUARE FEET TO 1 SPACE FOR EACH 250 SQUARE FEET OF
NET FLOOR AREA;AND C)A TRAFFIC STUDY.
Assistant City Manager Wood stated that this item would provide for an
amendment to the general plan that would increase the amount of
entitlement to this block by approximately 26,000 square feet. She stated
that the Planning Commission has recommended approval. Assistant City
Manager Wood pointed out that the Planning Commission approved one
parking space for each 231 square feet of net floor area, not for each 250
square feet as stated in the staff report.
Council Member Debay commented that she was pleased to see the shifts in
employee work hours so that their commutes didn't fall during the peak
travel periods.
Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing.
Craig Cooper, representative of the Impact Company, stated that his
company is trying to consolidate their business from three locations to one
site. He also added that in addition to the shift in work hours, the company
has an active rideshare program.
Assistant City Manager Wood responded to Council Member Ridgeway's
question about the improvement that will take place at MacArthur Blvd. and
Jamboree Road by stating that a free right turn lane will be added from
northbound MacArthur to northbound Jamboree. Public Works Director
Webb stated that the details of the improvements will be worked out at a
later date.
Council Member Ridgeway again requested that the entire circulation plan
in the Bristol area be reviewed in light of potential future development.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that substantial fairshare fees will be
needed to make the required levels of improvements in the area.
There being no further public testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the public
hearing.
Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Resolution No. 98-83
approving General Plan Amendment 98-1(B); introduce Ordinance No. 98-28,
an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community, and pass to second
reading on January 11, 1999; and sustain the action of the Planning
Commission and approve the applications related to the General Plan and
Zoning Amendments, subject to the findings, mitigation measures and
conditions as modified by the Planning Commission: 1) the acceptance of a
Volume 52-Page 250
City of Newport Beach •
City Council Minutes 1`
December 14, 1998 INDEX 1
Negative Declaration;2)Modification No.4731;and 3)Traffic Study No. 1-17.
Council Member Adams stated that he felt this particular project is not
guilty, but that what they're doing is something a developer could do to
expand their property beyond the entitlements of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance (TPO), without tripping-the TPO. Council Member Adams stated
that this issue was discussed in the TPO committee, but not addressed. He
added that he agrees with Council Member Ridgeway that the larger issue of
traffic in.the area needs to be considered.
Council Member Ridgeway confirmed with Assistant City Manager Wood
that a business still has to pay mitigation fees even when the TPO is not
tripped.
City Attorney Burnham responded to Council Member Glover's question
about the problem presented by Council Member Adams by stating that the
accumulation of all the projects in a twelve-month period are looked at.
Mayor O'Neil suggested that when the TPO is looked at again, maybe the
accumulation length reported should be increased.
Council Member Glover asked to meet with City Attorney Burnham
regarding the concept.
Mayor Pro Tem Thomson feels that the issue does need to be addressed and
that too many projects are being considered.
Without objection,the motion carried by acclamation.
30. RESOLUTION NO. 98-84 ORDERING THE VACATION AND Res 98-84
ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY Vacation and
AI,OhlG THE EASTERLY SIDE OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND THE Abandonment/
NORTHERLY SIDE OF FORD ROAD ADJACENT TO THE Right-of-way/
FORD/LOREVELOPMENT. Jamboree Rd./
Ford Road
Council Member kdams confirmed with Public Works Director Webb that (90)
the developer is do the roadway work for the median closure and the
sidewalk and curb and tter extension.
Mayor O'Neil opened the pub 0. earing.
There being no public testimony,Ma O'Neil closed the,public hearing.
Motion b Council Member Glover to ado t Res lution No 98. 4 ordering M v o 8 r ermg
the vacation and abandonment of portions of used right-of-way along the
easterly side of Jamboree Road and themortherl� of Ford Road adjacent to
the Ford/Loral development, and direct the City Cler .,,to have the resolution
recorded by the Orange County Recorder.
Without objection,the motion carriedby acclamation.
31. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FY 1999-2000 CO_ T_TY CDBG
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION AND Application/
REVIEW OF 1997-98 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT. Performance
Volume 52-Page 251
k
rEwaoaT CITY OF N*ORT BEACH Hearing December 14, 1998
o � COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.:
f= PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Marc Myers
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658
(949) 644-3210
(949)644.3200;FAX(949)644-3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: 1401 Dove Street
IMHACH Dove Street (applicant)
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: A request to permit the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot
commercial office building built over a partially subterranean parking lot.
The proposed site encompasses approximately 3.8 acres of land area and is
currently developed with a six-story office building and related on-site
parking. The new office building will be located to the west of the existing
building towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot .
currently exists. The project involves the approval of:
• a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the square
footage entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned Community.
The current limit of 834,762 square feet will be increased to 860,884
square feet to accommodate the construction of the new commercial
office building, and
• a Modification to permit reduction of the parking requirement ratio from
1 space for each 225 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet of
net floor area, and
• a Traffic Study.
ACTION: 1. Conduct public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 98-_, approving General Plan
Amendment 98-1 (B); and
3. Introduce Ordinance No. 98- an amendment to the Newport
Place Planned Community, and pass to second reading on January
11, 1999; and
3. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the
applications related to the General Plan and Zoning Amendments,
subject to the Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions as
modified by the Planning Commission:
• The acceptance of a Negative Declaration
• Modification No. 4731
• Traffic Study No. 117
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1, Book 40, Page 32 of Orange County Parcel
Maps
ZONE: PC(Planned Community)
OWNER: RYMCH Dove Street LLC,Santa Ana Heights
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of November 19, 1998, the Planning Commission voted (6 ayes, 1 absent) to
recommend approval of the applications related to the proposed new office building. An excerpt of
the draft Planning Commission minutes, with the recommended mitigation measures,findings, and
conditions of approval, and the Planning Commission staff report are attached for the information
of the City Council.
The key issue discussed by the Planning Commission was the incremental growth associated with
small entitlement increases of this nature. The primary concern in this regard was the potential for
such projects to adversely affect the ability of other property owners to exercise their existing
entitlements while meeting the criteria of City regulations, particularly the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. In making its recommendation for approval, the Commission felt that the small scale of
the project would not be a significant deterrent to the exercise of the development rights of other
property owners in the airport area.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
SHARON Z.WOOD PATRICIA'L.TEMPLE
Assistant City Manager Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Ordinance
3. Excerpt of draft November 19, 1998 Planning Commission minutes
4. November 19, 1998 Planning Commission staff report
5. Plans and elevations
GPA No.98-1(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO.98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWED
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED
COMMUNITY [General Plan Amendment No. 98-1(B)]
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy B, since the proposed increase in office development will not result in
significant changes to the long range traffic service levels with the contribution to an identified
improvement; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect
public views nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy L, because additional office space is supportive of the prosperity of the
Newport Place area; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment 98-1 (B) at
which time this amendment to the Land Use Element was discussed and determined to be
consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General plan and, therefore, recommended for
approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial
Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the Initial Study, it
has been determined that if proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not
have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and
accepted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted.
GPA No.98-1(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 3
NOW, THE,REVORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach does hereby amend the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4 (NP Block E)
Block E, and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area 14 Table of the General Plan to read as
follows:
Newport Center(Statistical Area Li)
2-5. NP Block E. Block E is bounded by Westerly Place, Dove Street and Quail Street. The site
is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is
allocated 834,762 sq. ft.
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4
Residential(in dtfs) Commercial(in sq.ft.)
Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected
l/1/87 Projection Growth l/l/87 Projection Growth
1-I.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0-
1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- -0- 1,060,998 1,060,898 -0-
1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0-
1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 250,176 -0-
1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 27,150 32,500 5,350
1-6.KCN OS F -0- -0- '0- 31,816 34,300 2,484
1-7.KCN OS G -0- -0- -0- 81,372 81,372 -0-
1-8.KCN OS I -0- -0- -0- 377,520 442,775 65,255
1-9.KCN RS 1 -0- -0- -0- 52,086 102,110 50,024
I-10.CourtHouse -0- -0- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744
2-1NP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 380,362 31,362
2-2.NPBLKB -0- -0- -0- 10,150 11,950 1,800
2-3.NP BLK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393
2-4.NP BLK D -0- -0- -0- 274,300 288,264 13,964
2-5.NP BLK E -0- -0- -0- 834,762 860,884 26,122
2-6.NP BLK F -0- -0- -0- 192,675 201,180 8,505
2-7.NP BLK G&H -0- -0- -0- 255,001 295,952 40,951
2-8.NP BLK I -0- -0- -0- 160,578 160,578 -0-
2-9.NP$LK I -0- -0- -0- 190,500 228,530 38,030
3. Campus Drive -0- -0- -0- 885,202 1,261,727 376,525
TOTAL -0- -0- -0- 6,922,916 7,850,425 927,509,
Population -0- -0- -0-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development authorized by this
action is allocated to 1401 Dove Street,Newport Beach.
GPA No.98.1(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 4
ADOPTED this_day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City�Clerk
GPA No.98-1(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 5
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BE, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE PERMITTED GROSS
FLOOR AREA FOR PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES
SITE 1 &r 2 AT 860,884 SQUARE FEET
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 877)
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1998, Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment, and recommended approval to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1998, the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and
Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment upon implementation of the mitigation
measures set forth in the Negative Declaration prepared for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Newport
Place Planned Community District, to increase the pemutted amount of development, will apply
only to.the property at 1401 Dove Street and not to any other site in Newport Place.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The permitted level of development for Professional & Business
Offices Site 1 & 2 of the Newport Place Planned Community is established at 860,884 gross
square feet. The additional development authorized by this action shall be limited to new
construction at 1401 Dove Street,NewportBeach.
GPA No.98.1(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 6
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City,
and the same shall become effective thirty(30) days after the date of its adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on December 14, 1998, and adopted on the 11th day of January, 1999, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
GPA No.98d(B)
Amendment No.877
Modification No.4731
Traffic Study No.117
Page 7
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
J. This use permit o alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance
with the terms of this chap all expire within 12 months from the date of
approvatunless a license has be ued or transferred by the California
State Department of Alcoholic Beverag trol prior to the expiration
date.
SUBJECT: 1401 Dove Street Item No.4
IMH/ICH Dove Street(applicant) GPA 98.1 (B)
• General Plan Amendment No. 98-1(B), with the Negative Declaration
acceptance of a Negative Decloration A 877
• AmendmentNo..877 M.4731
• Modification No.4731 TS 117
• Traffic Study No. 117
A request to permit the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot Recommended for
commercial office building built over a partially subterranean parking lot. The approval
proposed site encompasses approximately 18 acres of land area and is
currently developed with a six-story office building and related on-site parking.
The new office building will be located to the west of the existing building
towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists.
The project involves the approval of:
• a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the
square footage entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned
Community.The current limit of 834,762 square feet will be increased to
860,884 square feet to accommodate the construction of the new
commercial office building,and
• a Modification to permit reduction of the parking requirement ratio from
1 space for each225 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet of
net floor area,and
• the approval of a Traffic Study.
Associate Planner Mark Myers noted the following:
• Subject,property is currently developed with a six-story, 74,000 square foot
office building.
• The proposed office building will be located on site where a portion of the
surface parking lot currently exists.
• Since the Land Use Element of the General Plan does not provide for further
growth in this particular area of Newport Place Planned Community, a
General Plan Amendment is required.
• Amendments to the General Plan may be approved with the findings that
the amendmentis consistentwith the policies of the General Plan.
18
c
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
• While consistencywith the General Plan can be made in this case,it should
be noted that the General Plan provides a focused and limited amount of
policy criteria by which a project can be analyzed.
• The intent of the General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B) allows for growth
provided traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City.
• The subject property is only able to achieve consistency with policy B of the
General Plan with a proportional contribution to an identified intersection
improvement.
• The traffic analysis shows the additional office space would result in an
increase in the level of service at one intersection without the intersection
improvement.
Concluding,he noted that on page 5 of the staff report in the third paragraph
under the subheading Modification, there is a typographical error. The last
sentence should read a surplus of 44 spaces,not 69.
At Commission inquiry,staff noted that the total number of spaces provided on
site is 430.
Chairperson Selich noted his confusion with this site that is proposing to add
26,000 square feet and does not trip the TPO and another proposed expansion
project (also subject to the General Plan Amendment) had to cut 10,000
square feet so that it would not trip the TPO. It is confusing as to what can
happen with incremental square footage being added. There is additional
developmentthat the General Plan allows that has not been built yet. The TPO
will effect the property owner's ability to use that square footage. By approving
this project, what will we do to their ability to use their property to their full
advantage? Here, we are going over and above the square footage that is
presently allowed in the General Plan on this site. It becomes confusing
because it seems you could go through and incrementally do these little
projects behind the.various office buildings and before you know it,you have a
lot of additional square feet without actually tripping TPO.
Commissioner Adams stated this was not unique to this application or site. The
argument can be made citywide and has been going on for the last 15 years.
This is one of the issues being addressed in the TPO Committee.
Discussion continued on:
• discussing the hotel site on the original Fletcher Jones site,the office project
and this application together;
• this project not factored into the TPO study
• challenges of deciding the base line for the TPO
• regional growth factors
• distribution and peak hour characteristics
• scale of projects
19
` x
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
Public commentwas opened.
Craig Cooper,representative of Impact Company noted the following:
• first proposal was for 32,000 square feet expansion
• through initial traffic study, made aware of impact on neighborhood
circulation necessitating a reduction to 26,000 square feet
• the original building purchased to house corporate facilities
• projected growth is to occupy the entire six story and future expansion
• three operation shifts starting at 6:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m.,7:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.
and 8:00 am.to 5:00 p.m.
Public commentwas closed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted his concerns about a general plan review and
perhaps a specific area plan for the airport. The Commission can then address
the many small changes to the general plan with these reviews. Continuing,he
stated that reducing the parking requirement to 1 for 250 suggests that
additional development may occur. He suggested the condition make the
requirementso that the parking surplus is 0.
Marc Myers noted that Condition 2 under the Heading of Modification No.
4721, could be changed to 231 square feet of net floor which would establish
the parking requirement at 429 spaces
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to recommend to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B), with the acceptance of a
Negative Declaration; Amendment No. 877, Modification No. 4731 with the
change to condition 2,and Traffic Study No. 117
Ayes: Fuller,Ashley,Selich, Gifford,Adams,.Kranzley
Noes: None
Absent: Ridgeway
Abstain : None
A. Mitiaated Negative Declaration:
Findings:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines,and Council Policy K-3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study,and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation
measures listed, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the
20
IA
• • it
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
environment.
3. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this
or other projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human
beings that would be caused by the proposed project.
b. The contents of the environmental document have been
considered in the various decisions on this project.
Mitiaation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the project will comply with the
erosion and siltration control measures of the City's grading
ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes
and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation
and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04 or applicable
sections).
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the
Planning and Building Department for review and approval.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction traffic control plan which includes the
haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic
flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage to the
Planning and Traffic Department for review and approval.
4. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National'
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be
subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to
determine compliance.
5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that
the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term
(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: ,
a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust
palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)
maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c)
phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize
21
if
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
project-related emissions.
6. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that
the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance),to
reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall
contribute its proportionate pro-rata fair share traffic impact
fees required for improvements at the intersection of
MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road as recommended '
in the traffic study dated September 3, 1998, prepared .by
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. and determined by the City Traffic
Engineer.
8. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the
provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise
Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise
restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of
construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
9. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations
regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities
are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of
facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the
appropriate public agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building
Department a letter from the City Utilities Department
confirming availability of water and wastewater services to
and from the site.
11. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or
altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent
properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department
that the exterior lighting system has been designed and
directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and
to minimize light spillage and•glare to the adjacent properties.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the
lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical
22
f ^
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
specifications, including photometric information to determine
the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated.
This information shall be made a part of the building set of
plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of
the certificate of use and occupancy or final of building
permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by
the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and
glare specified by this mitigation measure.
12. A qualified archeologist shall be present during grading
activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If
significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archeologist
shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert
construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the
significance of the find.
Standard Reauirements:
1. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access
requirements.
2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of
any required public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a
grading or building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
4. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown
of the grading and building site plans.
5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department and the Planning Department that
adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project.
Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange
County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department.
6. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside
the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L.
7. The on-site .parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic
Engineer.
23
I"
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
.November 19, 1998 INDEX
B. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B): Adopt Resolution No.
1482(Attached) recommending to the City Council the adoption of
General Plan Amendment No.98-1 (B).
C. Amendment No. 877: Adopt Resolution No. 1483, recommending to the
City Council adoption of Amendment No.877.
D. Modification No.4721
Findings
1. The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan as amended by this application.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declarqtion, including the mitigation
measures listed, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the
environment.
3. The granting of a modification to establish a parking
requirement of 1 space for each 250 square feet of net floor
area will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as
approved are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code because this parking ratio .
has proven to be adequate for most general office
developmentsin the City.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be insubstantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations,except as noted
below.
2. That one parking space for each= 231 sq. ft.of net floor area
shall be provided on-site.
Standard Requirements:
1. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of
the Municipal Code.
24
I��
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
2. That the proposed office building and related parking structure
shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
3. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access
requirements.
4. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject.to further review by the City Traffic
Engineer.
5. That this Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the date of approval as specified in Section
20.80.090Aof the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
E. Traffic Study 117
Findings
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the
impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic
Engineer and found in compliance with the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic
will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of
traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,'or'primary'street at any
of the nine intersections selected for evaluation by City staff and
based on the characteristicsof the proposed development.
4. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic
will not be greaterthan one percent of the existing traffic during
the 2.5 hour peak period on eight of the nine study intersections
and that the ICU analysis for one of the nine intersections
indicates that the ICU value does not increase.
s*»
25
dEW�qr CITY OF NEART BEACH Hearing Date: November 19, 1998 -
o``/ COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 4
�I1 •� PLANNING DEPARTMENT
O�- t 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Marc Myers
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949) 644-3210
(949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3250 Appeal Period: 14 days
Wd
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: 1401 Dove Street
IMH/ICH Dove Street(applicant)
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: A request to permit the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot
commercial office building built over a partially subterranean parking lot.
The proposed site encompasses approximately 3.8 acres of land area and is
currently developed with a six-story office building and related on-site
parking. The new office building will be located to the west of the existing
building toward's the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot
currently exists. The project involves the approval of.
• a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the square
footage entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned Community.
The current limit of 834,762 square feet will be increased to 860,884
square feet to accommodate the construction of the new commercial
office building, and
• a Modification to permit reduction of the parking requirement ratio from,
1 space for each 225 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet of
net floor area, and
• the approval of a Traffic Study.
ACTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of:
• General Plait Antendinent No. 98-I(B), with the acceptance of a
Negative Declaration
• Auiendntent No. 877
• Modification No. 4731
• Traffic Study No. Ill
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1, Book 40, Page 32 of Orange County Parcel
Maps
ZONE: PC (Planned Community)
OWNER: IMHACH Dove Street LLC,Santa Ana Heights
I
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative,
Professional and Financial" commercial uses. Office use is permitted within this
designation. The Land Use Element currently allows 834,762 square feet of floor area in
Block E of Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project requires an
amendment to the Land Use Element to increase the entitlement in Block E by 26,122
square feet, which will allow for a total maximum limit of 860,884 square feet in Block E
of Newport Place Planned Community.
• Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act)
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based
upon the information contained in the Initial Study,it has been determined that if proposed
mitigation measures are incorporated,the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.A Mitigated Negative Declarationhas,therefore,been prepared for the project
and a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. The Negative
Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the
environment.It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and
supporting documents.The Negative Declaration is not to be construed as either approval or
denial by the City of the subject applications.The City encourages members of the general
public to review and comment on this documentation.Copies of the Negative Declaration
and supporting documents are attached to this report and are also available for public review
and inspection at the Planning Department.
• Modification procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.93 of the Municipal
Code.
• Traffic Study requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No.117
November 19,1998
Page 2
i
VICINITY MAP =
�K P-C
RC
PLC
+APFIn
« y
• •• 71 etiNo.139d � 11
■ w t
P-C
� ■ I I .i•, r � fLC
-awK--::— P'G 1
w r
r i tQW/L Sr.
r r r ACT i.
• A P r 1 �
• w 3 P- t
• w 7' 1 7•Yi
t e
DRlSTOL sme r NAM
� I CORONA Dtt I MAR fRlGW.tY
General Plan Amendment No. 98- 1 (B)i
1 SubiectSubiect Property Surroundin�Land UsesSurroundin�Land Uses
Current Development: Is a six-story, 74,000 square foot professional otTice building and related off-street
parking.
To the north: Are mid and high rise commercial office buildiugsand related off-streetparking.
Totheeast: Aremidandhigh rise professional office'b ildingsandrelatedoflstreetparking.
To the south: Are additional mid and high rise office buildings and related off-street parking.
To the west: Are also mid and high rise office buildings and related off-street parking,
GPA 98•I
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Tmllic Study No.117
Novcmbcr 19.1998
Page 3
. 9
Analysis
The project is a two-story office building over a partially subterranean parking garage. Each of the
two floors of the building contain approximately 13,061 square feet of floor area, and the partially
subterranean parking garage consists of approximately 31,716 square feet. Currently the site is
developed with a 74,000 square foot, six-story office building and related surface parking.
Various multi-story professional office buildings and financial institutions surround the site. The
new building is to be located to the west of the existing office building within the existing
parking lot.
General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments
The Land Use Element of the General Plan is a long range planning document setting forth the
City's policies for the use of land. The objective of the Land Use Element is to provide for an
orderly balance of residential and commercial uses with an emphasis on preserving the quality of
life found in the City.
The project is located in Statistical Area L4, Newport Place Block E of the Land Use Element
which does not provide for further growth at this time. However,amendments to the General Plan
may be approved with the finding that the amendment is consistent with th2 intent and policies of
the General Plan.The General Plan policies applicable to this proposal are discussed below.
General Plan Policy B allows for some modest growth provided that traffic does not exceed the
level of service desired by the City. In order to assess consistency with this policy,a General Plan
level traffic analysis was conducted. This analysis showed the proposed additional office
development would result in an increase in the predicted Level of Service at the intersection of
MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. However,an improvement to this intersection has been
identified which was not anticipated in the current Circulation Element. This is the same
improvement identified as part of the City's action on the Burger King Restaurant,which recently
was approved by the City. Implementation of the improvement will allow the intersection to stay
within the predicted Level of Service contained in the Circulation Element.Therefore,approval of
this amendment would be consistent with this policy, if the project makes a proportional
contributionto the improvement.
General Plan Policy D requires that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled
and regulated to preserve,to the extent practical,public views and unique natural resources. While
the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also committed to regulate the
placement of buildings in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources and environmentally sensitive
habitats.
The proposed location of the office building, Block E of Newport Place Planned Community,
contains a mixture of administrative and financial commercial uses, with the existing development
a combination of low and high rise office buildings. The proposed office building addition will
maintain an overall height of approximately 57 feet, which is less than many of the existing
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Trafc Study No: 117
November 19,1998
Page 4
�n
�II -
buildings in the area. The new office will be developed on the interior of the lot and block, and will
be integrated into the existing site development. The height and bulk of the new building are such
that it will be visible from many locations within and around the Newport Place area, and could be
visible from MacArthur'Boulevard at Newport Place Drive. The proposed architectural style,finish
and color will be similar to the existing development, and therefore, is in keeping with the general
character of the area. Additionally, the location of the new structure will not adversely affect natural
resources nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat since the site is currently fully
developed. The proposed amendment,therefore,meets the intent of General Plan Policy D.
General Plan Policy L provides for the City to promote the prosperity of its commercial districts
through the adoption of appropriate development regulations, so that those districts reflect and
compliment the high quality of its residential areas. As previously stated, the proposed amendment
will provide for additional professional and business office space. Professional and business office
uses are an integral part of an important commercial district in Newport Beach. It is the opinion of
staff that an additional office building will improve the prosperity of Newport Place and the overall
airport area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the area. Therefore, the
amendment meets the intent of General Plan Policy L.
The Newport Place Planned Community Text is intended to implement the policies and
development limitations of the General Plan. Should the Planning Commission determine that the
General Plan Amendment is appropriate in this case, the related PC text amendment would be the
implementation of the policies of the General Plan.
Modification
The Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations require the provision of parking for
office use at a ratio of 1 space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The regulations also
provide for the reduction of the ratio to 1 space for each 250 square feet, upon review and approval
of the Modifications Committee in each case. The applicant is requesting that the parking
requirement for the office building use be reduced in accordance with the PC Text Regulations.
The existing 6-story office building currently provides the required number of parking spaces on
site at a ratio of 1 space for each 225 square feet. However, with the new construction located in a
portion of the existing parking lot, the site, including the partially subterranean parking garage, is
unable to provide the required number of parking spaces on site at that ratio. With a parking
requirement of 1 space for each 225 square feet of net floor area, the project has a deficit of 10
parking spaces. However, by reducing the parking requirement to 1 space for each 250 square feet
of net floor area, there would.be a surplus of 69 spaces.
Most areas of the City have a parking requirement of 1 space for each 250 square feet of net floor
area for general office development. Additionally, several modifications to the parking requirement
have been approved in various parts of the Newport Place Planned'Community with no resulting
problems. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the reduction in the requirement ratio is consistent
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19,1998
Page 5
h�
with the intent of Title 20, and has no objection to the reduction in the parking requirement. A
condition of approval has been suggested which reflects this parking ratio.
Traffic Stud
A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak
hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and
Council Policy L-18. The City Traffic Engineer identified nine intersections which could be
affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified on Page 6 of the
attached traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified and, therefore, the
project complies with the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy.
A detailed discussion of the traffic study can be found in the appendix of this report.
Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation: The proposed partially subterranean parking structure
will provide the parking for the proposed building. The ingress/egress to this parking structure is
provided through the existing surface parking lot from Dove Street. The site plan (Figure 2,
attached traffic study) calls for a 26 foot wide drive aisle with direct access to the parking structure
from Dove Street. Since there are two existing access points to the site from Dove Street, access
and circulation for the site are considered adequate.
Recommendations
The adoption and amendment of the General Plan is considered a legislative act on the part of the
City, and State Planning Law does not set forth any required findings for either approval or denial
of such requests. Zoning actions are required to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff is of the
opinion that the proposed additional office entitlement could be found consistent with General Plan
policies because adverse traffic impacts are not anticipated in association with the project, the
project will not affect public views or unique natural resources, and the additional office space will
add to the prosperity of Newport Place. Additionally, the project is located within a large regional
office center and therefore is physically compatible with the existing surrounding development.
Staff is also of the opinion that the granting of the modification to reduce the required parking to
1 space for each 250 square feet of net floor area will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood, and would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, since most office developments in the City provide
parking at that ratio with no resultant problems.
Additionally, based on the traffic analysis performed for this project, the ICU values during the
A.M. and P.M. did not increase with the project within the timeframes for this analysis specified by
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with that
ordinance.
GPA 98-t
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19, 1998
Page 6
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project, the actions, findings and
Y
conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit"A'are suggested.
Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial since the proposed use in this particular
case, conforms to all other requirements of the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations and does not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
However,should information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of
this application,the Planning Commission may wish to take such action.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE MARC W.MYERS
Planning Director Associate Planner
Attachments: Appendix
Exhibit"A"with Resolutions
Negative Declaration with Traffic Study attached
Site Plan,Landscape Plan and Elevations
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARE•D\I PLANCOM\1998\I 1-I9lGPA98-I RPT
GPA 98.1
PC Amcndmcnt No.877
Modification No 4731
Traft Study No.117
Novcmbcr 19, 1998
Page 7
APPENDIX "A"
LOCATION: 1401 Dove Street; Parcel 1, Book 40, Page 32 of Orange County Parcel
Maps
ZONE: PC (Planned Community)Newport Place Planned Community
APPLICANT: IMH/ICH Dove Street,Santa Ana Heights
OWNER: IMH/ICH Dove Street LLC, Santa Ana Heights
Expanded Traffic Study Analysis
The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing-Ordinance and
Council Policy L-18. The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 1, located on Page 4 of the
study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on
Page 1 or �he traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer identified nine intersections which could be
affected by the proposed project,which are listed on Page 6 of the study.
The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis,taking
into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any
intersection where,on any approach leg,project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of
the projected 2%2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity
Utilization(ICU)analysis is required.
As summarized in Table 3 on Page 10, only one of the nine intersections increased traffic at any
approach leg by 1% of the projected 2-%2 hour afternoon peak. This intersection is Campus Drive
and Dove Street.An ICU analysis was, therefore,conducted for this intersection.The result of this
analysis showed(Page 11)that the project did not increase the existing ICU of 0.90.
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19, 1998
Page 8
r3
• � Y.
EXHIBIT"A"
FINDINGS,MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MitigatedNegative Declaration
General Plan AmendmentNo. 98-1 (B)
AmendmentNo. 877
ModificationNo.4731 and
Traffic Study 117
A. MitleatedNeeativeDeclaration:
Findinss:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines,and Council Policy K-3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration,including the mitigation measures listed,the proposed project does not
have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the
project.
4. No cumulative-impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various
decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and
siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local
and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City
Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.04 or applicable sections).
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall submit a comprehensive
geotechnical investigation to the Planning and Building Department for review and
approval.
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. It 7
November 19,1998
Page 9
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a construction
traffic control plan which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations,
construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage to the
Planning and Traffic Department for review and approval.
4. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department to determine compliance.
5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following
measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality
impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular
watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining
equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction
activities to minimize project-related emissions.
6. During construction:ctivities,the applicant shall ensure that the project will amply
with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from
construction activities.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall contribute its
proportionate pro-rata fair share traffic impact fees required for improvements at
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road as recommended in
the traffic study dated September 3, 1998, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates,
Inc. and determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
8. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the
City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code
pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of
construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on
Sundays and holidays.
9. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate
with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to
ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation
of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public
agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department
confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site.
GPA 98.1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19,1998
Page 10
!�5
11. Tight sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate
light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that
the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to
conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent
properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light
fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric
information to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be
anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for
issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of use and
occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening
inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare
specified.by this mitigation measure.
12. A qualified archeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the
underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are
uncovered, the archeologist sha:1 have the authority to stop or temporarily divert
construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the
find.
Standard Requirements:
1. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of any required public improvements, if it is
desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
4. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown of the grading and
building site plans.
5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning
Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such
demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation
District and the City's Utilities Department.
6. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance
planes as described in City Standard 110-L.
GPA 98-1
PC AmendmcntNo.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No.117
Novcmbcr 19,1998
Page 11
7. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be
subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B): Adopt ResolutionNo. (Attached)
recommending to the City Council the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B).
C. Amendment No. 877: Adopt ResolutionNo. , recommending to the City Council
adoption of Amendment No. 877.
D. ModificationNo.4721
Findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan as amended by this application.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration,including the mitigation measures listed,the proposed project does not
have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
3. The granting of a modification to establish a parking requirement of 1 space for
each 250 square feet of net floor area will not be detrimental to persons,property or
improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as approved are consistent
with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because
this parking ratio has proven to be adequate for most general office developments in
the City.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,
floor plan and elevations,except as noted below.
2. That one parking space for each 250 sq.ft.of net floor area shall be provided on-site.
Standard Requirements:
1. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal
Code.
2. That the proposed office building and related parking structure shall conform to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
3. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19, 1993
Page 12
s1
4. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be
subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer.
5. That this Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
E. Traffic Study 117
Findines:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed
project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter
15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-I 8.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found in
compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause
nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of,traffic on any'major;'primary-modified,'
or 'primary' street at any of the nine intersections selected for evaluation by City
staff and based on the characteristics of the proposed development.
4. That the Traffic'Study indicates that the project-generatedtraffic will not be greater
than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on eight of
the nine study intersections and that the ICU analysis for one of the nine
intersections indicates that the ICU value does not increase.
CPA 98.1
PC Amcndment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No.117
November 19,1998
Page 13
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT' BEACH
GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWED
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED
COMMUNITY [General Plan Amendment No. 98-1(B)]
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport
Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy B, since the proposed increase in office development will not result in
significant changes to the long range traffic service levels with the contribution to an identified
improvement; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect
public views nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent
with General Plan Policy L, because additional office space is supportive of the prosperity of the
Newport Place area; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment 98-1 (B) at
which time this amendment to the Land Use Element was discussed and determined to be
consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial
Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the.Initial Study,
it has been determined that if proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would
not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and
accepted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted.
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Tragic Study No. 117
November 19, 1998
Page 14
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach amend the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4 (NP Block E) Block E, and the
Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L4 Table of the General Plan to read as follows:
Newport Center(Statistical Area Ll)
2-5. NP BlockE. Block E is bounded by Westerly Place,Dove Street and Quail Street. The site
is designated for Administrative,Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is
allocated 834,762 sq. ft.
ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4
Residential (in du's) Commercial.(in sq.ft.)
Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected
l/l/87 Projection Growth l/l/87 Projection Growth
1-I.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0-
1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- -0- 1,060,898 1,060,898 -0-
1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0-
1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 250,176 -0-
1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 27,150 32,500 5,350
1-6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,300 2,484
1-7.KCN OS G -o- 0- -o- 81,372 81,372 -o-
1-8.KCN OS I -0- -0- -0- 377,520 442,775 65,255
1-9.KCN RS t -0- -0- -0- 52,086 102,110 50,024
I-10.Court House -0- -0- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744
2-1NP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 380,362 31,362
2-2.NPBLKB =0- -0- -0- 10,150 11,950 1,800
2-3.NP BLK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393
2-4.NP'BLK D -0- -0- -0- 274,300 288,264 13,964
2-5.NP BLK E -0- -0- -0- 834,762 860,884 26,122
2-6.NP BLK F -0- -0- -0- 192,675 201,180 8,505
2-7.NP BLK G R H -0- -0- -0- 255,001 295,952 40,951
2-8.NP BLK I -0- -0- -0- 160,578 160,578 -0-
2-9.NP BLK J -0- -0- -0- '190,500 228,530 38,030
3. Campus Drive -0- -0- -0- 885,202 1,261,727 376,525
TOTAL -0- -0- -0- 6,922,916 7,850,425 927,S09
Population -0- -0- -0-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development authorized by this
action is allocated to 1401 Dove Street,Newport Beach.
GPA 98.1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No.117
November 19,1998
Page 15
n�
ADOPTED this 19" day of November, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Edward Selich, Chairman
BY
Richard Fuller, Secretary
GPA 98-1
PC Amendment No.877
Modifcation No 4731
Traffic Study No.It 7
November 19, 1998
Page 16
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE PERMITTED GROSS
FLOOR AREA FOR PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS
OFFICES SITE 1 & 2 AT 860,884 SQUARE FEET
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTNO. 877)
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach
General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared;and
WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides
that amendments to establish or amend a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved
by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations is consistent with the
General Plan;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November
19, 1998,at which time this amendment to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the "Administrative,
Professional and Financial Commercial"designation of the Newport Beach General Plan,since the
proposed amendment does not alter the industrial/office character of the subject property or the
Newport Place Planned Community District as a whole;and
WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for
the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport
Beach;and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment upon implementation of the mitigation
measures set forth in the Negative Declaration prepared for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines;and
GPA 9&1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No.117
November 19,1998
Page 17
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Newport
Place Planned Community District, to increase the permitted amount of development, wilt apply
only to the property at 1401 Dove Street and not to any other site in Newport Place.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No.
877 to establish the permitted level of development for Professional & Business Offices Site 1 &
2 of the Newport Place Planned Community at 860,884 gross square feet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the additional development authorized by
this action shall be limited to new constriction at 1401 Dove Street,Newport Beach.
ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 1998,by the following vote,to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Edward Selich,Chairman
BY
Richard Fuller,Secretary
OPA 98.1
PC Amendment No.877
Modification No 4731
Traffic Study No. 117
November 19, 1998
Page 18
h ^
CITWF NEWPORT BEAC10
330 ewport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915
(949) 644-3225
'NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
❑ Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Newport Beach,CA 92658.8915
Sacramento,CA 95814 (Orange County)
County Clerk,County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O.Box 238 Data received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
Santa Ana,CA 92702
Public review period: September 30, 1998 to October 29, 1998
Name of Project: 1401 Dove Street Office Building& Partially Subterranean Parking Structure.
Project Location: 1401 Dove Street,Newport Beach, CA
Located on Dove Street near the intersection with Newport Place Drive.
Project Description: The application is a request to permit the approvat of a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to
the Planned Community, a Traffic Study and a Modification. The project involves the construction of a two-story 26,122
square foot commercial office building built over a partially subterranean parking dot. The General Plan Amendment and PC
Amendment are required to increase the square footage entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned Community. The
current limit is 834,762 square feet which will be increased to 860,884 square feet to accommodate the construction of the new,
commercial office building. A modification is required to permit a reduction in the parking requirement ratio from I space per
225 square feet to I space per for each 250 square feet of net floor area. The proposed site is currently developed with a six-
story office building and related on-site parking. The new office building is located to the west of the existing building
towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists. The architectural treatment will be compatible to
that of the existing office building on-site and those professional buildings and financial institutions that surround the site. The
project is located on Dove Street in Newport Place near the intersection with Newport Place Drive. The project site
encompasses approximately 3.8 acres.
Binding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council 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 would not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning
Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental
impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public
hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or
exhibits relating to the proposed project.may be available for public review, If you would like to examine these materials,you
are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you
believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also
invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
If you-have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned at(949)644-3200.
Date 9.3� Fp
Marc Myers,As ' to Planner
I )Q
NICE OF PUBLIC HEARING •
and
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing
on the application of IMH/ICH Dove Street (Richard Martin, Architect) for General Plan Amendment
No 98-1(B) PC Amendment No. 877 Traffic Study No. 117 and Modification No. 4731 on property
located at 1401 Dove Street,Newport Beach, California.
The application is a request to permit the approval of a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the
Newport Place Planned Community, a Traffic Study and a Modification. The project involves the
construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot commercial office building built over a partially subterranean
parking lot The General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment are required to increase the square footage
entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned Community. The current limit is 834.762 square feet which
will be increased to 860.884 square feet to accommodate the construction of the new commercial office
building A Modification is required to permit a reduction in the parking requirement ratio from 1 space for
each 225 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. The proposed site is currently
developed with a six-story office building and related on-site parking The new office building is located to
the west of the existing building towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists.
The architectural treatment of the new building will be compatible to that of the existing office building on-
site and those professional buildings and financial institutions that surround the site. The proiect is located on
Dove Street near the intersection with Newport Place Drive The project site encompasses approximately 3.8
acres of land area.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative'Declaration has been
prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development as proposed, and with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, will not result in a significant effect on the
environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and supporting documents. This'is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject
application. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30-day public review period is September 30,
1998 to October 29, 1998. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on
this documentation. Copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated 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, 92659-1768, (949) 644-3200.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 19th day of November, 1998, at the
hour of 7:00 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. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,
or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644-3200.
Richard Fuller,Secretary,Planning Comrission,City of Newport Beach.
NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant.
�S
,.?0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: 1401 Dove Street Office Building & Partially Subterranean Parking
Structure,Newport Beach, California.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning/Building Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marc Myers,Associate Planner,Planning Department
(949) 644-3200
4. Project Location: 1401 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The site is located at 1401
Dove Street near the intersection with Newport Place Drive in Block E of Newport Place
Planned Community.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Burge Corporation, 981 Calle Negocia, Suite 200,
San Clemente, CA 92673
6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional &Financial Commercial
7. Zoning: PC—Newport Place Planned Community
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The application is a request to permit the approval of a General Plan Amendment, an
Amendment to the Planned Community, a Traffic Study and a Modification. The project
involves the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot commercial office building built
over a partially subterranean parking lot. The General Plan Amendment and PC
Amendment are required to increase the square footage entitlement in Block E of Newport
Place Planned Community. The current limit is 834,762 square feet which will be
increased to 860,884 square feet to accommodate the construction of the new commercial
office building. A modification is required to permit a reduction in the parking
requirement ratio from 1 space per 225 square feet to 1 space per for each 250 square feet
of net floor area. The proposed site is currently developed with a six-story office building
and related on-site parking. The new office building is located to the west of the existing
building towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists.
The architectural treatment will be compatible to that of the existing office building on-site
and those professional buildings and financial institutions that surround the site. The
project is located on Dove Street in Newport Place near the intersection with Newport Place
Drive. The project site encompasses approximately 3.8 acres.
CHECKLIST
Page 1 3�
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Current The proposed site is located on an existing parcel which contains a
Development: 74,000 square-foot building, six-story office building and parking
lot.
To the north: Office building uses and parking areas
To the east: Office building uses and parking areas
To the south: Office building uses and parking areas
To the west: Office building uses and parking areas
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Public Services
Circulation
❑ Population&Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service
Systems
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral ❑ Aesthetics
Resources
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
CHECKLIST
Paget ��
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
III environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 0
prepared.
I find that although the,proposed project could have a significant effect 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. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"
or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
z- 9.3�• �'�
Submitted by: Signature Date
M yehr 1. 3 a• Sy
Printed Name Date
AA,t.64 .6 �- k4a2 ?/?o/rT
Prepared by: Hodge&Associates Signature 'Date
Cheryle L.Hodge
CHECKLIST
Page 3
� 3g
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
L�t
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓f
designation or zoning? (1,2,3)
b) Conflict with applicable environ- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
mental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1,2,3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
use in the vicinity? (1,2,3)
d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
operations (e.g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (1,2,3)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓❑
arrangement of an established
community(including a low-income
or minority community)?
(1,2,3)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ CAI
regional or local population
projections?(1,2,3)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z
either.directly or indirectly (e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major
Infrastructure)? (1,2,3)
c) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
especially affordable housing?
(1,2,3)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1,2,3,4) ❑ ❑ ❑
CHECKLIST
Page 4
n ,t 3`l
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1,2,3,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
liquefaction? (1,2,3,4)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic ❑ ❑, ❑ Q
hazard? (1,2,3,4)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2,3,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading,or fill?
(1,2,3,4)
g) Subsidence of land?(1,2,3,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
h) Expansive soils? (1,2,3,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ [J(
features?(1,2,3,4)
IV. WATER.:
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ Q ❑
drainage patterns,or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (1,2;3,4)
b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
water related hazards such as
flooding? (1,2)
c) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ Laj
other alteration of surface water
quality(e.g,temperature,dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ Ell
Q
water in any water body? (1,2)
e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z
or direction of water movements?
(1,2)
f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals,or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (1,2)
CHECKLIST
Page 5 q b
0 .
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ fZ
groundwater? (1,2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
(1,2)
1) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ CAI
of groundwater otherwise available
for public water supplies? (1,2)
V. AIR QUALITY.
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
(1,2,6,7,8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ f�J ❑
pollutants? (1,2,6,7,8)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
temperature, or cause any change
in climate?(1,2,6,7,8)
d) Create objectionable odors? (6,7,8) ❑ ❑ I� ❑
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in impacts
to:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ Q ❑
congestion? (1,2,3,10)
b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
features (e.g.sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)or
Incompatible uses (e.g.farm
equipment? (1,2,3,10)
c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
access to nearby uses? (1,2,3,10)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
oroff-site? (1,2,3,10)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or bicyclists? (1,2,3)
CHECKLIST
Page 6 Ll l
i l/I
Potentially Potentially Less,lhan No
Signiflcant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(1,2,3)
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
impacts?(1,2,3)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts
to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ [Q
species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants,fish, insects,
animals,and birds)? (1,2,3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
heritage trees)? (1,2,3)
c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? (1,2,3)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
and vernal pool)? (1,2,3)
a) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ [� Q
corridors? (1,2,3)
Vlll. ENERGY&MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
conservation plans? (1,2,3)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
wasteful and inefficient manner?
(1,2,3)
o) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and '
the residents of the state? (1,2,3)
CHECKLIST
Page 7
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IX. HAZARDS.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(1,2,3,9)
b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?(1,2,3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
potential health hazard? (1,2,3,9)
d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
sources of potential health hazards?
(1,2,3,9)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
(1,2,3)
X. NOISE.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
(1,2,3,5)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
levels? (1,2,3,5)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
b) Police protection? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
c) Schools? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ Q ❑
Including roads? (1,2,3)
e) Other governmental services? 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
(1,2,3)
CHECKLIST
Page 8 �3
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XII. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need
for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the
following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
b) Communications systems? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ Q ❑
distribution facilities? (1,2,3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
e) Storm water drainage? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
(1,2,3)
X111. AESTHETICS.
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ Q ❑
highway? (1,2,3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
aesthetic effect?(1,2,3)
o) Create light or glare? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ Q ❑
d) Affect a coastal bluff? (1,2,3) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
(1,2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ Q ❑
(1,2)
c) Affect historical resources?(1,2,) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ [(
physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
(1,2,3)
CHECKLIST
Page 9 t�
o�-
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
uses within the potential impact
area? (1,2,3)
XV. RECREATION.
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? (1,2)
b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
opportunities? (1,2)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history or
.prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects,the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
CHECKLIST
Page�1�0 �5
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
Indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CHECKLIST
Page 11
3-
SOURCE LIST
The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660.
1. Finai"Program EIR—City of Newport Beach General Plan
2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach.
3. Title 20,Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District,Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997.
8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
9. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, prepared by Eckland Consultants Inc.,July 14, 1997.
10. 1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance & General Plan Traffic Analysis, prepared by Austin-Foust
Associates, Inc., September 3, 1998.
CHECKLIST
Page 12 ��
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
New Office Building and Partially Subterranean Parking Garage
1401 Aove Street
General Plan Amendment No. 98-1(B),PC Amendment No. 877,
Traffic Study No. 117 and Modification No. 4731
Project Description
The application is a request to permit the approval of a General Plan Amendment,
an Amendment to the Planned Community, a Traffic Study and a Modification.
The project involves the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot commercial
office building built over a partially subterranean parking lot. The General Plan
Amendment and PC Amendment are required to increase the square footage
entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned Community. The current limit is
834,762 square feet which will be increased to 860,884 square feet to accommodate
the construction of the new commercial office building. A modification is required
to permit a reduction in the parking requirement ratio from 1 space per 225 square
feet to 1 space per for each 250 square feet of net floor area. The proposed site is
currently developed with a six-story office building and related on-site parking. The
new office building is located to the west of the existing building towards the rear of
the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists. The architectural
treatment will be compatible to that of the existing office building on-site and those
professional buildings and financial institutions that surround the site. The project
is located on Dove Street in Newport Place near the intersection with Newport Place
Drive (see Exhibits 1 and 2; Regional Location Map and Project Vicinity). The
project site encompasses approximately 3.8 acres. The project plans and site photo
exhibits are presented in Appendix A of this document.
ANALYSIS
The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the
Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental
Impacts. The project site has been subject to previous environmental assessment
in the Final Program EIR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan (hereinafter
referred to as FPEIR) and General Plan. These documents are hereby
incorporatedby reference consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines
and are on file and available for review at the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach.
y8
t
i�
LOS ANGELES yr ; AN COUNTY BERNARDINO
COUNTY 3
ti
� v
r Riverside p Freev+ay t
I ,
t ,
1
/ ORANGE T
sa 3 ai/ `` RIVERSIDE
v 0 ` COUNTY
Garden Grove LL `
Freewa
1 y TUSTIN m`jA Sa
1 9�d • ,�NI F`�
sd7 SANTA ANA
iP90 �(b
All
00 MESA COSTA, Os'Nz� • LAKE oo IRVINE ln�/f ORANGE /
• CJ FOREST Eid' COUNTY
hyy •
A San K t0 j I
NEWPORT • ��aq So MISSION
C BEACH
m
�lr�d01
c o �LAGUNA
BEACH LAGUNA .n j 1'
NIGUEL 4 t
•
• Ortega
O SANJUAN ; I
PROJECT CAPISTRANo , J
SITE POINT SAN
CL DIED
2 SAN COUNTY
EMENTE\\\\ �
MAP NOT TO SCALE
Regional Location
EXHIBIT 1
L►
-a�a
Pa
PROJECT
SITE
a
J0 OO �
� OP
0
e9�ST
'® Proec� t Location
MAP NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2
c' v-�
• • II
I. Land Use and Planning
The proposed site is located on the west side of Dove Street near Newport Place
Drive within Block E of Newport Place. Currently the site is developed with a
74,000 square foot, six-story office building and parking lot. Professional office
buildings, and financial institutions, surround the site. The new addition is to be
located to the west of the existing office building within the existing parking lot.
The City's General Plan Land Use Plan designation for the site is Administrative,
Professional & Financial Commercial, which includes office use. The site is
further designated within the General Plan Land Use Element as Airport Area
(Statistical Area L4.) Block E—Newport Place. Under the current General Plan
Land Use provisions, the Block E designated area is limited to 834,762 square
feet. Therefore, the proposed expansion of 26,122 square feet requires a General
Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment would allow an increase from
the current designation of 834,762 square feet to a total maximum limit of
860,884 square feet for Block E.
The City's Zoning Code designation for the site is PC —Newport Place Planned
Community, which permits office use. This project is located outside the Coastal
Zone Boundary and therefore a Coastal Development Permit is not required.
The project has the potential to result in impacts related to demolition and
construction activities (e.g., dust, noise, and traffic). Additionally, Block E and C
businesses nearby the site will be exposed to views of the demolition and
construction of the additional office facilities and parking structure. Through
anticipated conditions of approval and mitigation measures, short and long-term
impacts to surrounding and adjacent properties from the proposed office building
addition will be eliminated or minimized.
Potential short-term and long-term impacts, which will be minimized through
mitigation measures, include an increase in local traffic and minor alteration of
views from surrounding business properties and structures due to the orientation
of the new office building structure. These potential short-term and long-term
impacts are discussed with recommended mitigation measures in the following
sections of this document.
H. Population and Housing
The proposed project is an addition of 26,122 square feet of office space. The
office uses are projected to increase employment from an existing 300 (at full'
occupancy) to a total of 445 employees (an addition of 145 employees).
However, no direct population increase would result from the project or the
increase in employees.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 2 z
• i
While the proposed project will include a minor increase in employment, which ,
could generate an incremental increase in the demand for housing, this increase is
not considered significant.
III. Geologic Problems(Earth)
The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of
unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site. The
closest known active or potentially active faultis the Newport-Inglewood fault.
The existing surface parking on the west of the site will be altered to
accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The property was originally
graded in conjunction with the development of the existing office building and
parking lot. Although the project site is relatively flat, precise grading and
excavation will be required for the partially subterranean parking structure and it
is anticipated that the project will require an estimated 9,416 cubic yards of export
earthwork. The excess earthwork will be exported to a site located in Huntington
Beach. It is anticipated that a total of 673 truckloads (14 c.y. per double trailer
rig trucks) will be necessary to export the 9,416 cubic yards of earthwork. A
mitigation measure is presented requiring for the exportation of earthwork (e.g.
haul route) to the disposal site.
Potential 'impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of the exposed soils
during grading operations will be minimized through conditions of approval
and/or mitigation measures. Stockpiling of excavated earth will contribute to
impacts resulting in erosion and the generation of dust. Dust generated by
grading activities is considered a short-term impact on air quality and is further
discussed in Section V(Air Quality) of this analysis.
Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (Section DX). Compliance with the
City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) will reduce any
potential impacts to an insignificant level. No cumulative impacts associated with
geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the hotel addition.
Mitigation Measure No. 1 During construction activities, the project will comply with
the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all
applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including
the City Excavation: and Grading Code (NBMC Section: 15.04 or applicable
sections).
Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and Building
Department for review and approval.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 3 tj,�
Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction traffic control plan which includes the haul route, truck
hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction
warning/directional signage to the Planning and Traff c Department for review and
approval.
IV. Water
The proposed site is largely developed, and the proposed improvements would not
substantially increase water runoff. The project is located outside of all flood
hazard areas; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Subject to the
incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures,
no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a
result of the office building/parking structure addition. Provisions for drainage
requirements are contained in the City Exaction and Grading Code. To ensure
that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, a
mitigation measure is presented. Compliance with said Code will reduce any
potential impacts to an insignificant level.
Mitigation Measure No.4 The project shall conform to the requirements of the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to
the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
V. Air Quality
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB). The South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sets and enforces regulations for
stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is
responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in
coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
has developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The
AQMP goals include the implementation of technological and innovative changes
that provide for achieving clean air goals while maintaining a healthy economy.
The AQMP also addresses state and federal planning requirements and programs.
Potential air quality impacts to surrounding business properties from project
construction activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including
short-term impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction
equipment and dust generated during grading. The small amount of project-
related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels. Where
grading is near existing development, the dust generated by such activities is a
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 4
local, nuisance as opposed to an actual health hazard. However, dust will be
minimized as a result of site watering required by City and.SCAQMD regulations.
Potential air quality impacts to surrounding business properties from potential
long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include those
associated with vehicular emissions. A traffic study (dated September 3, 1998,
prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc, has been prepared for the project and is
discussed in Section VI (Transportation/Circulation/Parking). The traffic study
identified that the project is estimated to generate 366 daily vehicle trips. The
findings of the traffic study concluded that the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to transportation/circulation and parking.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Table 6-2 & 6-3) provides screening tables which identify projects (based on
size) of potential significance for air quality. The screening tables indicate that
the proposed project (as a result,of the size of project) does not have the potential
to exceed the emission thresholds of significance for air quality (for project
construction and project(office building) operations.
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is
anticipated that the project will not result in a significant impacts to air quality.
Mitigation Measure No.5 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure
that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction)
air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by
regular watering, or other dust palliative-measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rude 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining
equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction
activities to munimize project-related emissions.
Mitigation Measure No.6 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure
that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance
due to odors fron construction activities.
VI. Transportation/Circulation/Parking
A traffic analysis has been prepared for the proposed project by Austin-Foust
Associates, Inc. and, is available for review at .the Planning Department, City of
Newport Beach. The study is herein incorporated by reference consistent with
Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The traffic report includes an analysis of existing traffic conditions and future
conditions with and without development of the proposed project. The office
building is located on Dove Street near the intersection of Newport Place Drive,
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 5 h
which is known as Block E of Newport Place. The following describes information
presented in the traffic report prepared by Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Traffic Impact Analyses
a. Site Access
Site access will remain the same as that which currently exists. Access to the site
is provided off of Dove Street. The existing site has two access points
(driveways) from Dove Street. Also, there is an existing pedestrian sidewalk area
provided adjacent to Dove Street along the frontage of the site.
b. Trip Generation
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from
Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). These rates were derived
from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates for 100,000 square foot
office buildings. The proposed project will generate 366 trips daily, of which 49
will be generated during the AM peak hour and 48 will be generated during the
PM peak hour.
C. Trip Distribution
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns
in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of
development in relation to the location of the proposed project. An estimated 15
percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along MacArthur Boulevard,
25 percent is assumed to travel north and 10 percent to travel south along
Jamboree Road, 15 percent is assumed to travel south on MacArthur Boulevard or
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR-73), 5 percent is assumed to
travel south on Irvine Avenue, and 30 percent is assumed to travel west on SR-73.
d. Traffic Intersection Analyses
The City of Newport Beach identified nine intersections for analysis to determine
the impact of the proposed office development. Intersection analyses were
completed for the following nine (9) study intersections:
1. Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive &Bristol Street
2. Campus Drive &Bristol Street N
3. Campus Drive&Dove Street
4. MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive
5. MacArthur Boulevard&Birch Street
6. Jamboree Road&Bristol Street
7. Jamboree Road&Bristol Street N
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
i
Page 6 b
8. MacArthur Boulevard&Jamboree Road
9. Jamboree Road&Birch Street
A "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis," which is part of the City of Newport
Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), was utilized for each of the study
intersections. If project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the
combined total of existing, regional growth and committed project traffic on any
approach to any of the selected intersections, then additional analyses are required
which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analyses.
If one percent of the 2000 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach were larger
than the peak 2.5 hour project volumes, no further analysis was required. If
project peak 2.5 hour volumes were higher than one percent of the projected peak
2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection was
analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization(ICU) method.
Comparison of the one percent of-the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak
2.5 hour volumes resulted in one intersection failing the one percent test and
requiring additional analysis. The intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street
does not pass the one percent test.
The Campus Drive and Dove Street intersection was further analyzed to
determine potential impacts. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a
capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane with no clearance factor was
utilized. The traffic analysis indicates that the intersection will operate at
acceptable Levels of Service, with the existing geometrics, during both the AM
and PM peak hours under the TPO guidelines for conditions with the project.
Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed
0.90 or the ICU value does not change when the project is added. As established
by the TPO, the basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth
and approved/committed project traffic.
e. Future Traffic Conditions (Long Range General Plan)
The City's General Plan allows a maximum limit of 834,762 square feet,for Block
E in Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would increase the maximum limit from 834,762 square feet to a
maximum of 860,884 square feet. The traffic study prepared by Austin-Foust
Associates, Inc. included an evaluation to determine the project's impact on the
buildout circulation system. Future volume projections were obtained from the
NBTAM.
The traffic report indicates that five intersections will operate at LOS "F" under
buildout conditions. Dove Street, being a local street, is not included in the
NBTAM network; therefore, the intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street is
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 7
not included in the buildout year summary. The project will result in a one
percent increase in the PM Peak hour ICU value at the intersection of MacArthur
Boulevard and Jamboree Road, which operates at LOS "F" under buildout
conditions. The City is investigating additional improvements at this intersection,
including the addition of a northbound free right-turn lane. A northbound free
right-turn lane will mitigate the project's impacts at this location and will improve
the intersection to LOS "E". The project will be responsible for its fair share of
the cost of the northbound free right-turn lane.
Parkine
The project includes the construction of a two-level parking garage to be built
below the proposed office building. The construction area will utilize
approximately 35% of the available existing parking space leaving 170 spaces
available. It is anticipated that the existing building will be at 45% occupancy
during construction as a result of remodeling work previously planned for the
building. Therefore, it is anticipated that 170 spaces will be available during
construction activities will accommodate the estimated occupancy of the existing
occupied building. The proposed project includes a request for a modification to
reduce the parking requirement from 1 space per 225 square feet to 1 space per
each 250 square feet of net floor area. Following project completion, a total of
430 parking spaces (includes surface parking & spaces within the new parking
structure) will be provided for the office buildings. Following project completion,
there will be a surplus of approximately 29 parking spaces (based on 1 space per
each 250 square feet of net floor area).
Mitigation Measure No.7 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall contribute its proportionate pro-rata fair share traffic impact fees required for
improvements at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road as
recommended in the traffic study dated September 3, 1998 prepared by Austin-
Foust Associates, Inc. and determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
VII. Biological Resources (Plant and Animal Life)
The site is developed and located in an urbanized area of the City. No rare,
endangered, or threatened plan or animal species have been previously reported, or
are expected to inhabit the project site. The project will not affect any natural
vegetation.
The project site is fully developed and has been developed for more than 15 years.
Surrounding properties are also fully developed. On-site flora consists of
ornamental landscaping, with no natural or native communities of vegetation
remaining. Due to the highly developed nature of the subject property and
surrounding properties, on-site fauna is limited to small rodents and/or mammals
adaptive to an urbanized area. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant
impact to plant and/or animal life.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 8 `�
VIII'. Energy and Mineral Natural Resources
The project site is fully developed and has been developed for more than 15 years.
Surrounding properties are also fully developed. The use of natural resources will
not be significantly affected by this project. No significant increase in the use of
energy or natural resources is anticipated.
IX. Hazards
The proposed use is an addition to an existing office building operation.
Therefore, no foreseeable hazard to public health and safety is anticipated.
Eckland Consultants Inc. (study dated July 14, 1997) has conducted an
Environmental Assessment Phase 1 study. The Phase I study indicated no on-site
contamination. The proposed project will not utilize hazardous materials on the
site,therefore,no adverse effect on human health or risk of upset is anticipated.
X. Noise
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers,
concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels. However,
intervening structures and/or topography will act as noise barriers and reduce
levels further. Noise levels will be further mitigated by limiting the hours of
construction through provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations
(NBMC Chapter 10.28).
Operational Impact
Future on-site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those, which now
exist. The increase in traffic noise is not of a magnitude that would be discernable
to the average person. Traffic from the office building addition, together with
other planned projects in the.area will cumulatively cause an incremental increase
in ambient noise levels. However, with the incorporation of City standard
conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts
associated with office operations to noise are anticipated as a result of the
addition.
Mitigation Measure No. 8 The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with
the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the
Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the
hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on
Sundays and holidays.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS U
Page 9
l►"y
XI. Public Services
The project site is developed and has been for more than 15 years., Surrounding
properties are also fully developed. There are sufficient public or governmental
services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for
these services.
MI. Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and service systems are already servicing the existing office building at
1401 Dove Street. A survey was conducted to assess any possible changes on
demand for existing community services and public utility providers currently
serving the site. Each appropriate agency was given a project description
(overview), regional location map, vicinity map, a preliminary plot plan of the
proposed addition, and a Service Availability/Capacity Information Request
questionnaire designed to determine any possible impacts on services. The
agencies contacted and which provide services to the site are:
Fire Protection City of Newport Beach Fire &Marine Department
Law Enforcement City of Newport Beach Police Department
Natural Gas The Gas Company
Electricity Southern California Edison Company
Telecommunications Pacific Bell
Water/Wastewater City of Newport Beach Utilities Department
Solid Waste Waste Management of Orange County
Transit System Orange County Transportation Authority
The survey and responses from these service providers are presented in the
Appendix of this document. The following information discusses the results of
the survey and potential impacts associated with the proposed project.
a. Fire Protection
The City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department are currently
providing fire protection and emergency response services for the existing
office building at 1401 Dove Street. The City of Newport Beach Fire and
Marine Department will continue to provide fire protection and emergency
response services to the site once construction of the new building addition
is complete. The closest emergency response facility to the site is Station
#3 located on Santa Barbara Drive. Five other facilities are also available
for emergency response service. Response times to the site are dependent
on various factors. Emergency calls receive the quickest response times
with alarm calls and non-emergency calls having longer response times
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 10
• • c
respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating circumstances
may further affect response times.
The addition of the new office building may potentially increase the
number of calls for service to the location; however, no new facilities or
staff will be required. The Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department
(letter dated September 2, 1998 included in the appendix of this document)
has indicated that the project is not expected to negatively impact any
current facility, service or service expansion plans for the project area
and/or site.
Current emergency equipment and facilities at the project site must be
evaluated to ensure that the current facilities are adequate and serviceable
for the office addition. Items that need to be evaluated include,but are not
limited to, the following: the fire alarm panel, firefighter communication
equipment, fire pump, emergency generator, and on site water supply.
All fire protection must be designed as an integral part of the construction
process with all improvements and/or modernization of equipment
systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the City of Newport
Beach Fire and Marine Department prior to any construction approval.
b. Law Enforcement
The Cityof Beach Police Newport It wp Department is currently providing Law
enforcement services for the office building at 1401 Dove Street. The City
of Newport Beach Police Department will continue to provide law
enforcement services to the site once the construction is complete. The
City's police facility is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. Response
times to the site are dependent on various factors. Emergency calls
receive the quickest response times with alarm calls and non-emergency
calls having longer response times respectively. The availability of
personnel and extenuating circumstances may further affect response
times. It is anticipated that the office addition will increase the number of
calls for service to the location; however, no new facilities or staff will be
required.
C. Natural Gas
The Gas Company currently provides the office building at 1401 Dove
Street with natural gas services via an existing gas line. They will
continue to provide the service once the construction is complete. Their
ability to meet any future demand is dependent on the supply of natural
gas and -the policies of the California Public Utilities Commission. The
Gas Company (per communication of August 28, 1998 included in
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS I 0
Page 11
appendix hereto) has indicated that there are no expected negative impacts
from the new office building and no new facilities or staff will be required.
d. Electricity
The Southern California Edison Company currently provides electricity to
the office building at 1401 Dove Street and will continue to provide this
service once the proposed office building is complete. The Southern
California Edison Company has been contacted regarding the project
(letter dated August 19, 1998 in the appendix hereto) and it is anticipated
that no new facilities or staff will be required. There are no expected
negative impacts on electric service expected from the office .
e. Telecommunications
Pacific Bell currently provides telecommunications services to the office
building at 1401 Dove Street and expects to provide their services once the
office building is complete. Existing telephone facilities are located along
Dove Street. Pacific Bell (letter dated September 16, 1998 presented in
the Appendix of this document) has indicated that two 4" conduits,
plywood backboard(s), and ground wire(s)will be need to be placed on the
site by the applicant to allow service to the new building addition. Pacific
Bell has also stated that the proposed project will utilize all of the
remaining available telecommunications facilities in the immediate area.
There are no expected negative impacts from the new office building.
Further, no new facilities or staff will be needed for the continued service
to the office building.
f. Water and Wastewater
The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department currently provides water
and wastewater services to the office building at 1401 Dove Street in the
public right-of-way (Dove Street and City easements). It is anticipated
that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed office building. The
points of connection for all applicable water and sewer lines will need to
be identified and agreed to by the City of Newport Beach Utilities
Department prior to any construction approval.
g. Solid Waste
The 1401 Dove Street complex is currently being provided solid waste
services by Waste Management of Orange County. Waste Management of
Orange County will continue to provide solid waste disposal services to
the office building once the project is complete. Further, there are no
expected negative impacts from the office addition, and no new facilities
or staff are anticipated.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS I
Page 12
�f .
• • t
h. Transit System
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public
transportation services to and around the site. The OCTA currently
provides local bus service in the vicinity of the project site along
MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. They are expected to continue
their services once the new office building P is complete. The OCTA bus
route 61 operates along MacArthur Boulevard. Service consists of 30 one-
way trips daily. Bus routes 71 and 76 operate along Birch Street. These
u o one-way
rotes operate a t 57 on w y daily trips. The OCTA has indicated(per letter
dated August 28, 1998) tha
t the service is significantly underutilized.
?� Y
OCTA's long range plan calls for a 49% expansion of'bus service (in
Orange County) by year 2015. The project is not expected to negatively
impact any current facility, service or service expansion plans for the
project area and/or site. It is the belief of the OCTA that there is adequate
capacity available to service the site. Further, the addition is not expected
to necessitate any new facilities or staff.
Mitigation Measure No. 9 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any
construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any
necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in
consultation with the appropriate public agencies.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 Prior to the conunencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building Deparunent a letter from the
City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater
services to and fronn the site.
YM. Aesthetics
The project site is near fully developed and has been developed for more than 15
years. Surrounding properties are also,fully developed. Site photos are presented
in Appendix A of this document. The proposed addition includes a new 25,806
professional office building and parking structure to be located within the existing
parking lot. The new structure will be compatible with the existing office
building in architectural style, finish and color. The height and bulk of the new
building are sufficient that it will be visible from many locations within and
around the Newport Place area. The immediate vicinity of the project site includes
a number of existing buildings (many over 3 stories) in photos presented in the
Appendix of this document.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS 7
Page 13 �°'
t
Due to the highly developed nature of the subject property and surrounding
business properties, including existing multi-story high rise office buildings, the
aesthetic impacts associated with the new office building is not considered a
significant impact. In addition, with the incorporation of the project's design,
landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site, as well as the application of
City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, any impacts will
be reduced to an insignificant level.
The proposed project will introduce additional lighting associated with the
operation of the building (security lighting, landscape lighting, etc.). The exterior
lighting will be visible, however, due to the high urbanized developed nature of
the immediate vicinity, potential impacts of light and glare are not considered
significant. Parking lot lighting similar to existing site lighting will be utilized for
the proposed project. Additionally, to ensure that exterior lighting is designed
such that direct rays are confined to the site (to the greatest extent feasible) a
mitigation measure is recommended to limit affects on the neighboring uses.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or
altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and
directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light
spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in col junction
with the lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical
specifications, including photometric information to determine the extent of light
spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made apart
of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance
of the certificate of use and occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant
shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to
confirm control of light and glare specified by this mitigation measure.
XIV. Cultural Resources
The project site is located in an area where there is currently a parking lot where
initial earthwork was performed in 1972. There is no record of any archaeological
and paleontological resources that have been discovered in the past and may
potentially exist on this site. Previous surveys (as documented in Final General
Plan EIR) indicate that there are no observable cultural resources on the property.
No known paleontological resources exist onsite, however, fossils (i.e. marine
mammals, invertebrate fossils etc.) may potentially exist under the surface.
Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure
compliance with City Council Policies regarding archaeological and
paleontological surveys and recovery of resources.
h
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
J
Page 14
�K2
Mitigation Measure No. 12 A qualified archeologist shall be present during grading
activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant
cultural resources are uncovered, the archeologist shall have the authority to stop
or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the
significance of thefind.
XV. Recreation
Due to the highly developed nature of the subject property and surrounding
properties, including existing multi-story office and other commercial/retail land
uses, the demand for additional neighborhood or regional parks is not anticipated.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS /
Page 15 lD
�l�
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the
project.
3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects.
4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be
caused by the proposed project.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 16 V
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
New Office Building and Partially Subterranean Parking Garage
1401 Dove Street
General Plan Amendment 98-1(B), PC Amendment No. 877,
Traffic Study No. 117 and Modification No. 4731
I. OVERVIEW
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed
by the applicant and tha City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project
will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures, implementing actions, and
verification procedures for this project.
II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is
verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances,
policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction
and verified by plan check and /or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after
construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation
measures are summarized below.
A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design:
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project
file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file
will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project
design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans.
B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances,
policies, standards, or conditions of approval:
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will
be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary
or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance
with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field
inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and conditions.
C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring:
If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the
City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will
review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request
additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final
monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. /^
� t
MITIGATION MONITOING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY
1401 Dove Street Office Building&Partially Subterranean Parking Structure
General Plan Amendment No.98-1(B),PC Amendment No.877,
Traffic Study No.117 and Modification No.4731
No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification
Action Verification Verification Person Date
1 During construction activities,the project will Condition of approval Field During Public Works •
comply with the erosion and siltation control inspection as construction Department/
measures of the City's grading ordinance and necessary activities Building
all applicable local and State building codes Dept.
and seismic design guidelines, including the
City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC
Section 15.04 or applicable sections).
2 Prior to the issuance ofa grading permit, the Condition ofapproval Plan Check Prior to P
lanning
applicant shall submit a comprehensive issuance of
geotechnical investigation to the Planning and grading
Building Departmentfor review and approval. permit 3 Prior to tie issuance ofa gradingpermit, the Condition ofapproval Plan Check Prior to
applicant shall submit a construction traffic issuance of and Building
control plan which.includes the haul route, grading Department
truck hauling operations,construction trajfuc permit
flagmen,and construction warning/directional
signage to the Planning and Building
Department for-review and approval.
No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification
Action Verification Verification Person Date
4 The project shall conform to the requirements Condition ofApproval Plan Check Prior to Planning
ofllre National Pollution Discharge issuance ofa Dept.&
Elimination System(NPDES)and shall be grading Public lYorks
subject to the approval of the Public Works- permit Dept.
Department to determine i
com liance-
During construction activities, the applicant During Public Works
S Condition of approval Note a: g
shall ensure that the following measures-are Gradingconstruction DeptlTraffirJ
complied with to reduce short-term Plans Field activities Building
(construction)air quality impacts associated inspection Field
Dept.
with theproject: a)controllingfrugitive dust
by regular watering,or other dust palliative necessary
measures to meet South Coast-Air Quality
Management District(SCAQMD)Rule 403
(Fugitive Dust);b)maintaining equipment
engines in proper tune;and c)phasing and
scheduling construction activities to minimize
project-related emissions.
6 During construction activities,the applicant Condition ojapproval Note on During Public Works
shall ensure that the project will comply with Grading construction DeplMraffct
SCAQMD Rule 402(Nuisance),to reduce Plans_Field activities Building
nuisance due to odors from construction De t.
activities. inspection as P
necessary
7 Prior to the issuance ofa buildingpermit,the Condition of approval Plan Check Prior to Public
developer shall contribute itsproportionate issuance ofa Works/
pro-ratafairsharetraffcimpactfeesrequired building Traffic Dept.
for improvements at the intersection of permit
MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road as
recommended in the traffic study dated
September3, 1998 prepared by Austin-Foust
Associates,Inc.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 2
No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification
Action Verification Verification Person Date
8 The applicant shall ensure that the project will Condition of approval Note on During Planning
comply with the provisions of the City of Grading& construction Dept/Bldg.
Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element Construction activities Dept.
and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise Plans-Field
restrictions. During construction activities, the inspection as
hours of construction and excavation work are
allowed from 7:00 a.m.to 6:30 p.m.on necessary
weekdays and 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on •
Saturdays,and not at any time on Sundays and
holidays.
9 Prior to the commencement ofgrading Condition ofapproval Plan Check Prior to Planning
activities, the applicant shall coordinate with commence- Dept. &
utility and service organizations regarding ment of Building
any construction activities to ensure existing grading Dept.
facilities are protected and any necessary activities
expansion or relocation offacilities are
planned and scheduled in consultation with
the appropriate public agencies.
10 Prior to the commencement ofgrading Condition of approval Plan Check Prior to Planning
activities, the applicant shall submit to the commence- Dept. &
Planning and Trajjic Department a letter ment of Traic Dept.
from the City Utilities Department confirming grading
availability of water and wastewater services activities
to and from the site.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
s- Page 3
No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification
Action Verification Verification Person Date
11 Light sources within the parking area shall be Condition ofapproval Plan Check Prior to Planning
designed or altered to eliminate light and Confirmation issuance of Dept.
glare spillage onto adjacent properties or Letters building
uses. Prior to the issuance ofa building permit
permit,Ilia applicant shall demonstrate to the
Planning Department that the exterior
lighting system has been designed and
directed in such a manner as to conceal the
light source and to minimize light spillage
and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to
the issuance of buildingpernit, the
applicant shall provide to the Planning
Department, in conjunction with the lighting
system plan, light fixture product types and
technical specifications, including
photometric information to determine the
extent oflight spillage or glare which can be
anticipated This information shall be made a
part ofthe building set ofph ins for issuance
of the buildingpermit. Prior to issuance of
Ilia certificate of use and occupancy or final
of buildingpermits,the applicant shall
schedule an evening inspection by Are Code
EnforcementDivision to confirm control of
light and glare specified by this mitigation
measure.
A qualified archeologist shall be present During Planning
12 Condition ofapproval Hired from
during grading activities to inspect the Hired grading Dept/Bldg.
underlyingsoil for cultural resources. If activities
significant cultural resources are uncovered, Archeologist- Dept.
Ilia archeologist shall have the authority to Field
stop or temporarily divert construction inspection as
activities for a period of 48 hours to assess necessary
Ilia significance of thefind.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS k
�'o( Page 4
Appendix A
Project Plans & Site Photo Exhibits
""` ^J l•` � ICI
• • L—������ [rgfy�a�rluV.t —�� I
�.c MJp �• I
Yrt 1 n•+ 1 [�a.ru
• � —• • �wo.w.w[ OReL ua4 1 c✓1u.IL2i.L {' ��
to e,.t
I m 1 sc+ s •w%�++��
•� — IL.. �. e.Aw.e.�r »a. •1. Ise w
ryyl[yl J� � ' i ° •• -¢.r[w..�y s.a.' ar.w.Lr r•at
= r lae4aaasmoR Iwa s<au+eer..u.
IQWua.m�w waw.+y.�rr..ru• C
ewcr 'raa I.1S4i i
—a L.�r w[: ✓ i! a2 Yu w,u'!rr[ [rV(MlLI.
�) � .xfE Rall/1er{iigC Aal a �Y ,
°
BECK
MARTIN
mn,ouwMrr.d
wn,raa
cann...n. r.we
i• '
_:. H .
M RurtM KOO=� •3 `
l IOtfM1 �Wt��If.11A111= •y�Tti <Y Y�
r1A/�fM1 rw=� • VIA
n�a,a�mwv� mn��,errm�
REM PLAN _ G�
L-P
gA
a ^
:'f•may%= . . "f ''":�,�3?K. _ "'�=C�'•'G—t
Ex
*, I u, roc
• If!t'G '•t: •' wY 1 t! 4•� J
r
�r
�1 FTy� �rW 1 -ij•(..• � 1 •���.
�' "��1`�.� r Nl. r+•�/� � yr sue•=--� �'�'
/I .� lY�l • r pax. 1 ` r ��•y.
Appendix B
Traffic Study
�5
1401 DOVE STREET
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE & GENERAL PLAN
Traffic Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
2020 North Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705-7827
(714) 667-0496
September 3, 1998
C�
1401 DOVE STREET TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE & GENERAL PLAN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed office development at 1401 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach consists
of 26,122 square feet of general office space. The project site is located on Dove Street between Birch
Street and Newport Place Drive/Von Karman Avenue. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project,
and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided on
Dove Street.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the New
Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). These rates were derived from Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip rates for 100,000 square foot office buildings. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation
for the proposed project.
As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 366 trips daily, of which 49 will be
generated during the AM peak hour and 48 will be generated during the PM peak hour. The trip
generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the AM and PM peak periods. The
peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an estimated factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the
usual one-hour peak period.
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the
vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the
location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. An estimated
15 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along MacArthur Boulevard, 25 percent is
assumed to travel north and 10 percent to travel south along Jamboree Road, 15 percent is assumed'
to travel south on MacArthur Boulevard or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor(SR-73),
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057tawpd
X
co
N
tl
as
r
� I
p.ws
6
u
0
R
�Q
bP C
w
PROJECT
S2� SITE
�e
�P
e�'iyr
ro
o�
y
C
O
e
o�
a, Figure 1
N R PROJECT LOCATION
5
ao
� n
ro N
ro
u
O6 - - -_v, C..
• C 1
I '
I
J. 9 Ywr �✓� ••�x.n.....n,•wr 1
• 'd I
0
c
o�
J
�• - Figure 2
it
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
�'n
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
—AM PEAK HOUR— —PMPEAKHOUR—
LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL 1N OUT TOTAL ADT
TRIP RATES
Office TSF 1.69 21 1.90 32 1-55 1.87 14.03
TRIP GENERATION
Office 26.1 TSF 44 5 49 8 40 48 366
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 4 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan'TrafffcAnalysis 017057ta-wpd 'g,'�
'J L
6 O
� g
N
= JO
t, 5
g•oe
O
25%
R
Q A
30% c
Ga A
PROJECT
0
5% �P`e
�J \
e'Piy.
eR�sTo
N
a
s
c 15%
!n 10%
o �
08
Figure 3
N�
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
\ a
• • L
five percent is assumed to travel south on Irvine Boulevard,and 30 percent is assumed to travel west
on SR-73. Figures 4 and-5 illustrate AM and PM peak hour project,trips, respectively.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The City of Newport Beach identified nine intersections for analysis to determine the impact
of the proposed office development. These intersections are:
Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive &Bristol Street
Campus Drive &Bristol Street N
Campus Drive&Dove Street
MacArthur Boulevard & Campus Drive
MacArthur Boulevard &Birch Street
Jamboree Road &Bristol Street
Jamboree Road&Bristol Street N.
MacArthur Boulevard&Jamboree Road
Jamboree Road &Birch Street
The•1997 peak 2.5 hour volumes for the study intersections were provided by City staff. An
expected completion date of 1999 was assumed. The analysis year,2000,is one year after the project
is completed. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to volumes along MacArthur
Boulevard,Jamboree Road, andIrvine Avenue.
The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved projects, also provided by City staff,were added
to the peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes
prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects is given in Table 2.
One percent of the projected 2.5 hour volumes of each approach of each intersection was
compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this
comparison is shown in Table 3.
1401 Dove Street Trafnc Phasing Ordinance 6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan TrafneAnalysis 017057tawpd a
F
a o
b� ono, 0
o00
----- P�
ro \07.0.-o
/ I1 _
0 J
o�,r ° o—o4a
\1 O
g h�00 O �O
J/ °o
GPI¢ � � •.`Oa
0 \
00O
� O
J
O
• 0 Q
l
0 iy -p0� oJo F/I
•�� a
Figure 4
PROJECT—GENERATED
AM PEAK HOURTR PS
s �
ao
n o
�L4 O�O,t- ()
a 00y
0-7.omo
0
o
°° �� p •
S
ti ti
Q A O
r/(ry0
`Roo
° 0 1jr
o y
s e°�
o
N 4 _
0
J
td Figure 5
PROJECT-GENERATED
PM PEAK HOUR TR pS
Table 2
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECPSUMMARY PERCENT COMPLETED
Newport Village 0%Occupancy
Civic PLm 0%Occupancy
Corporate Plaza&West 13%Occupancy
Hoag Hospital Extension 2%Occupancy
Interpretive Center 0%Occupancy
Hoag Hospital Expansion 0%Occupancy
Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0%Occupancy
Fashion Island Expansion 2%Occupancy
Fletcher Jones Mercedes 0%Occupancy
Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0%Occupancy
Corona Del Mar Plaza 0%Occupancy
Ford Redevelopment 0%Occupancy
TIA Drive thru Restaurant 0%Occupancy
CIOSA-Irvine Project 0%Occupancy
Newport Dunes 0%Occupancy
Gty of Irvine Development 0%Occupancy
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 9 Austin-Foust Associates,Innc. „l5
and General Plan TrrafGcAnalysis 017057mw �j
0 • `
z
Table 3
SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS
AM PROJECr PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN I%OF2000
INTERSECTION NB SB EB WH PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES
I. Irvine/Campus a Bristol 4 0 26 0 Yes
2. Campus.&Bristol N 30 2 0 0' Yes
3. Campus a Dove 3U 0 0 2 Yes
• 4. MacArthur aCunpus 2 14 0 0 ya
S. MacArthur a Birch 0 12 2 0 yes
6. Jamboree a Bristol 8 2 0 0 Yes
7. Jamboree a Bristol N 8 2 0 0 Yes
S. MacArthura7amboree 14 6 8 22 YCs
9. Jamboree a Birch 2 22 0 0 Yes
PM PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN I%OF2000
iNTERSECRON NB SB EB WB PEAK 23HOURVOLUMES
1. Irvine/Campus a Bristol 0 4 4 0 Yes
2. Campus a Bristol N 4 10 0 18 yes
3. Campus a Dove 4 0 0 10 No
4. MacArthur a Campus 12 2 0 0 y«
5. MacArthur a Birch 0 2 12 0 yes
6. Jamboree a Bristol 2 8 0 0 yu
7. Jamboree a Bristol N 2 8 0 0 yes
8. MacArthuraJamboree 2 40 2 4 Yes
9. Jamboree a Birch 20 4 0 0 yes
1401 Dove Street TraffcPhasing Ordinance 10 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057tawpd vJ�
�y
If one percent of the 2000 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak
2.5 hour project volumes, no further analysis were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes were
higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any intersection,
the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method.
1.
Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5,hour
volumes resulted in one intersection failing the one percent test and requiring additional analysis. The
intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street does not pass the one percent test. The one percent
analysis sheets are included in the appendix.
An ICU analysis was performed for the intersection which failed the one percent test. Existing
lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was
utilized. The following table summarizes the existing,background and background-plus-project ICU
values for Campus Drive and Dove Street.
1401 DOVE STREEI'TPO-ICU ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND+
EXISnNG BACKGROUND PROJECT
INTERSECT70N AM PM AM PM AM PM
3. Campus&Dove .71 .90 .71 .90 J2 .90
•Exceeds level of service-D"
Level of service ranges .00- .60 A
.61• .70 B
.71. .80 C
.81-.90 D
91-1.00 E
Above 1.00 F '
As this table indicates,the project will have no marginal impact on the intersection of Campus
Drive and Dove Street.
. . 1401 Dove Strut Traf[ic Phasing Ordinance Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.and General Plan TrafrKAnall sis 017057m%pd
7W�
f
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed office building would generate 50 trips during the AM peak hour and 50 trips
during the PM peak hour. Nine intersections in the vicinity were checked to determine the marginal
impact of project traffic on the street system. One of the nine intersections did not pass the one
percent analysis. An ICU analysis was performed on the intersection. The intersection passes the
ICU analysis. The proposed project has no marginal impact on the study intersections, and no
intersection improvements are required.
GENERAL PLAN,ANALYSIS
The proposed office development requires a General Plan Traffic Study to determine the
project's impact on the buildout circulation system. Future volume projections were obtained from
the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model(NBTAM). NBTAM was developed to support the traffic
analysis•portion of the City's General Plan. Details of the traffic model can'be found in the reference
at the end of this report.
Buildout-with-project ICU values are compared.with no-project ICU values in'Table 4. These
ICU values are based on buildout lane configurations. As this table indicates,five intersections will
operate at LOS"F'under buildout conditions. Dove Street, being a local street, is not included in
the NBTAM network; therefore, the intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street is not included
in the buildout year ICU summary.
The proposed project causes a one percent increase in the PM peak hour ICU value at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road,which operates at LOS"F"under buildout
conditions. The City is investigating additional improvements at this intersection, including the
addition of a northbound free right-turn lane. A northbound free right-turn lane will mitigate the
project's impacts at this location and will improve the intersection to LOS"E". The project will be
responsible for its fair share of the cost of the northbound free right-turn lane.
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 12 Austin-Foust Associates,Inap
and General Plan Tralric Analysis 017057mwpd
t • •
' Table 4
BUILDOUTICU SUMMARY
' BUILDOUT BUILDOUT
NO-PROJECT' W/PROJECr
INTERSECnON AM PSi AM PM
1. Irvine/Campus&Bristol .83 .83 .83 .83
2. Campus&Bristol N .74 1.24 .75 1.24
4. MacAnhur&Campus .69 1.11 .69 1.11
5. MacArthur&Birch .56 S4 .56 .84
6. Jamboree&Bristol .72 57 .72 .87
7. Jamboree&Bristol N 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02
8. MacArthur&Jamboree .89 1.11 .89 1.12
9. Jamboree&Birch .80 1.07 .80 1.07
Level of service ranges:.00-.60 A
.61-.70 B
.71-.80 C
.81-.90 D
91.1.00 E
Above LDO F
1401 Dave Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 13 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina G
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057ta.wpd D/
�l'r�
• • 1
REFERENCES: ?
1. "Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM),Traffic Model Data,"Austin-Foust
Associates,Inc. September 1996.
1401 Dave Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina
and General Plan ThIricAnalysis 017057ta wpd
it /
y
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 1.hvine/Campus 8 Bristol
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997
Peak 212Hour Approved
Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 212 Hour Growth Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 3501 105 48 3654 37 4
Southbound 1145 0 13 1158 12 0
Eastbound 7210 0 200 7410 74 26
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
==> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume,
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is regrdred.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 2624 79 30 2733 27 0
Southbound 3286 0 19 3305 33 4
Eastbound 5216 0 86 5302 53 4
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1%or Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 1401 Dove St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000
�a
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 2.Campus 8 Bristol N
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpdng 107
Peak 212Hour Approved
Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 21/2 Hour GroMh Peak 212 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 5566 0 32 5598 56 30
Soulhbound 1218 0 24 1242 12 2
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 3385 0 131 3516 35 0
=_> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 3681 0 0 3681 37 4•
Southbound 3941 0 112 4053 41 10
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 6586 0 189 6775 68 18
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected PM Peak 2 12 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 1401 Dove St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000 x
. _l x
a
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 3.Campus&Dove
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997'
Peak 212 Hour Approved
Existing . Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 212 Hour GrmMh Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 4050 0 0 4050 41 30
Southbound 1848 0 0 1848 18 0
Eastbound 8 0 0 8 0 0
Westbound 324 0 0 324 3 2
_=> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1,%ofProjected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
ProjectAM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 2091 0 0 2091 21 4
Southbound 6949 0 0 6949 69 0
Eastbound 35 0 0 35 0 0
Westbound 758 0 0 758 8 10
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak212 Hour Traffic Volume.
=_> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysts is required.
PROJECT: 1401 Dove-St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000 I
'1r
3. Campus R Dove
Existing I I .Background
I I I I
AM PK HOUR PH-PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOER
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01* I I NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01* .I
NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18 I f NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18
NBR 0 0 315 83 NOR 0 0 315 83
� I
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24 I I SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SOT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64* I I SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
S8R 0 0 6 7 I f SBR 0 0 6 7
I I I
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00 I EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01 I I EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7 I EBR 0 0 1 7
I I I I
WBL 0 0 40 251 I I W8L 0 0 40 251
WBT 1 1600 5 .09` 2 .25* I I WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149 i i WBR 0 0 93 149
� I
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90
Background + Project
I I
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
' LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
I
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .44* 793 .18
NOR 0 0 330 85
I I
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
S8R 0 0 6 7
I I
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7
I I
WBL . 0 0 41 256
WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149
I I
' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90
Q-r
1. Irvine/Campus & Bristol
Buildout - No Project I I Buildout with Project
I I i I
AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOLR 1
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL Vic VOL Vic
I I I I I
HBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0
NBT 5 8000 1618 .24* 1370 .21 I NBT 5 8000 1620 .24* 1370 .21
1', NBR 0 0 330 590 .37 I I NOR 0 .0 330 590 .37 I'
1 S8L 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14 I I SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14
SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2208 .46* I I SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2210 '6*
SBR 0 0 0 0 I 1 SBR 0 0 0 0
I I
EBL 1.5 837 ('.48)* 358 .22 10. I' EBL 1.5 850 {.48}* 360 .23
EBT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32* I I EBT 2.5 6400 2230 ,48 1530 .32*
EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18 i i EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18 1
i
W8L 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 WBT 0 0 0 0 I'
WBR 0 0 0 0 I I WBR 0
I 0 0 0 I I
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .OS* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR 05*
J
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 83 .83
2. Campus & Bristol N
Buildout - No Project I I Buildout with Project 1
I I I I
AM PK HOUR PM PK HCUR I 1 AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL Vic i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29* I I HBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29*
NBT 3 4800 1985 .41* 838 .17 I I NBT 3 4800 2000 .42* 840 .18 1 NBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 NBR 0 0 0 0 I
I I I I
SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1978 ,31* ( I SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1980 .31*
SBR 2 3200 649 .20 1147 .36 i i SBR 2 3200 650 .20 1150 .36
I
EBL 0 0 0 0 I i EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 I I EBT 0 0 0 0
1 EBR 0 0 0 0 I I EBR 0 0 0 0
I
1 WBL 1 1600 430 .26 460 .29 1 1 WOL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29
WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3711 .59* I I WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3720 .59* i WBR 0 0 120 5o I I WBR 0 0 120 50
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05* I I I
1 I Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05 1
i
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 1.24 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 1.24
�T
' •8. MacArthur & Jamboree
•
Buildcut - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL' '"V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13* NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NBT 3 4800 1683 .35* 749 .16 NBT 3 4800 1690 .35* 750 .16
NBR 1 1600 510 .32 630 .39 NBR 1 1600 510 .32 630 ,39
SBL 1 1600 99 .06* 310 .19 S6L 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SBT 3 4800 519 .11 1624 .34* SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34*
SBR f 79 566 S8R f 80 570
EBL 2 3200 886 .28* 599 .19* EBL 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19*
EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13 EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR f 520 240 EBR f 520 240
WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19 WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34* WBT 3 4800 420 .W 1620 .34*
WBR f 449 38 WBR f 460 40
Right Turn Adjustment N8R .11* Right Turn Adjustment NBR .12*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.12
Buildcut with Project with improvements
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL Y/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NBT 3 4800 1690 .35* 750 .16
NBR f 510 630
SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34*
SBR f 80 570
EBL 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19*
EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR IF 520 240
WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34*
WBR f 460 40
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.00
" D I
S. Jamboree & Birch .f
Buildout - No Project i Buildout with Project
AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11* HBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11-
HBT 3 4800 ISIS .37 1710 .37 HBT 3 4800 1520 .38 1720 .37
NBR 0 0 280 60 HBR 0 0 280 60
SBL 3 1600 40 .03 10 01 ( SBL 1 1600 40 .03 10 .01
SBT 3 4800 909 .19* 2238 .47* ( SBT 3 4800 920 .19* 2240 .47*
SBR f 840 80 SBR f 840 80
EBL 1.5 90 {.05}* 560 {.19}* EBL 1.5 90 {.OS}* 560
EST 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19 EST 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19
EBR f 60 530 i i EBR f 60 530
WBL 0 0 80 210 WBL 0 0 80 210
WBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30* VBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30"
WBR 0 0 140 130 i i WBR 0 0 140 130
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07
to
• 3. Campus & Dove
Existing Background
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01* NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18 NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18
• NBR 0 0 315 83 NBR 0 0 315 83
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24 SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64* SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
SBR 0 0 6 7 SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00 EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EST 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01 EST 1 1600 0 :00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7 EBR 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 40 251 WSL 0 0 40 251
WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25* WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149 i i WBR 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90
Background + Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .44* 793 .18
NBR 0 0 328 85
SBL - 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EST 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 41 256
WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90
1. Irvine/Campus& Bristol
Buildout - No Project i I Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I• AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0 I I NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 5 8000 1618 .24* 1370 .21 I I NBT 5 8000 1620 .24* 1370 .21
NBR 0 0 330 590 .37 i i NBR 0 0 330 590 .37
SBL 1 1600 170 .11= ZZO 14 I I SOL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14 j
SBT 3 4800 830 .19 2208 .46* I I SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2210 .46*
SBR 0 0 0 0 i i SBR 0 0 0 0 f,
EBL 1.5 839 {.48}* 358 .22 I I EBL 1.5 850 {,48}* 360 .23
EST 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32* I I EST 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32'
EBR 2 3200 520 16 590 .18 i i EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18
WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 I I WBR 0 0 0 0
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83
2. Campus & Bristol N
Buildout - No Project i i Buildout with Project
I I
AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
I
NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29* I I NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29*
NBT 3 4800 1987 .41* 838 .17 I I NBT 3 4800 2000 .42* 840 .18
NBR 0 0 0 0 I I NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 4 6400 610 .10 '1978 .31* I I SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1980 .31*
SBR 2 3200 649 .20 1147 .36 i i SBR 2 3200 650 .20 1150 .36
i
EBL 0 0 0 0 I I EBL 0 0 0 0
EST 0 0 0 0 I I EST 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 i i EBR 0 0 0 0
I I
WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29 I I WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29
WBT 4, 6400 1990 .33* 3711 .59* ,I I WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3720 .59*
WBR 0 0 120 50 I I WBR 0 0 120 50
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05* I I Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05
t *
I
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 1.24 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 1.24
job
• 4. MacArthur & Campus
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 140 .09* 460 .29* NBL 1 1600 140 .09* 460 .29*
NBT 4 6400 979 .15 1334 .21 NBT 4 6400 980 .15 1340 .21
NBR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06 NBR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06
SBL 1 1600 110 .07 210 .13 SBL 1 1600 110 .07 210 .13
SBT 4 6400 1863 .29* 929 .15* SBT 4 6400 1870 .29* 930 .15*
SBR 1 1600 400 .25 730 .46 i i SBR 1 1600 400 .25 730 .46
EBL 2 3200 510 .16* 60 .02* EBL 2 3200 510 .16* 60 .02*
EBT 3 4800 770 .16 680 .16 EBT 3 4800 770 .16 680 .16
EBR 0 0 10 70 i i EBR 0 0 10 70
WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04 WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04
WBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1640 .34* WBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1640 .34*
WBR f 110 150 WBR f 110 150
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .31* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .31*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 1.11
5. MacArthur & Birch
Buildout - No Project 'Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 120 .08 220 .14 NBL 1 1600 120 .08 220 .14
NBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1560 .33* HBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1560 .33*
NBR f 220 80 i i NBR f 220 80
SBL 1 1600 300 .19* 130 .08* S8L 1 1600 300 .19* 130 .08*
SBT 4 6400 936 .20 729 .15 SBT 4 6400 940 .20 730 .15
SBR 0 0 418 .26 220 i i SBR 0 0 420 .26 220
EBL 1 1600 129 .08 234 .15* EBL 1 I600 130 OB 240 IS*
EBT 2 3200 540 .20* 500 .17 EBT 2 3200 540, .20* 500 .17
EBR 0 0 110 50 EBR 0 0 110 50
WBL 1 1600 30 .02* ISO .09 WBL 1 1600 30 .02* 150 .09
WBT 2 3200 320 .10 910 .28* WBT 2 3200 320 .10 910 .28*
WBR f 50 210 WBR f 50 210
i
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84
6. Jamboree 5 Bristol •r
Buildout - No Project Buil'dout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC i i L-3ES :APACITY VOL V/C VOL VIC
NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0
NBT 5 8000 2326 .29- 1899 .24 NBT z8000 2330 .29* 1900 .24 f
NBR 0 0 20 10 i i NBR 0 0 20 10
SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 3 4800 479 .10 1866 .39- SBT 3 4800 480 .10 1870 .39*
SBR 0 0 0 0 i i SBR 3 0 0 0
EBL 1.5 1370 .43* 740 {.42}' EBL 1.5 1370 .43* 740 {.42}'
EST 1.5 4800 350 .22 1260 .42 EST 1.5 4800 350 .22 1260 .42
EBR 2 3200 840 .26 1540 .48 i i EBR 2 3200 840 .26 1540 .48
WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 D 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0
Right Turn Adjustment EBR .06* Right Tt,^n -c;:stment EBR .06*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .87
7. Jamboree E Bristol N
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK'HOUR f AM PK HOUR PM'PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC i i L-5E5 :APACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC
NBL 2 3200 1230 .38 1470 .46* NBL 2 3200 1230 .38 1470 .46*
NBT 3 4800 2076 .49* 1239 .26 NBT 3 4800 2080 .49* 1240 .26
NBR 0 0 260 10 i i NBR 0 0 260 10
SBL 0 0 10 0
SBT 4 6400 449 .09 1866 .38* SBT 4 6400 450 .09 1870 .38*
SOR 0 0 310 .19 570 i i SBR 0 0 310 .19 570
EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0
EST 0 0 0 0 EST 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0
WBT 2 3200 910 .28* 570 .18* WBT 2 3200 910 .28* 570 .18*
WBR 1 1600 700 .44 210 .13 WBR 1 1600 700 .44 210 .13
Right Turn Adjustment Multi .24* Right Turn Aa::stment Multi .24*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.02 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.02
y B. MacArthur'& Jamboree
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR !
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13* NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NBT 3 4800 1683 .46* 749 .23 NBT 3 4800 1690 .46* 750 .23
NBR 0 0 510 630 .39 i i NBR 0 0 510 630 .39
SBL 1 1600 99 .06* 310 .19 SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SBT 3 4800 519 .11 1624 .34* SBT 3 4800 520 .1'l 1630 .34*
SBR f 79 566 i i SBR f 80 570
EBL 2 3200 886 .ZB* 599 .19* EBL 2 3200 690 .28* 600 .19* �
EST 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13 EST 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR f 520 240 i i EBR f 520 240
� WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19 WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34* WBT 3 4800 420' .09* 1620 .34*
WBR f 449 38 WBR f 460 40
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .11* Right Turn Adjustment NBR .12*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .89 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .B9 1.12
9. Jamboree & Birch
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY ''VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 610 .36* 170 .11* NBL 1 1600 630 .38* 170 .11*
NBT 3 4800 1519 .37 1710 .37 NBT 3 4800 1520 .38 1720 .37
NBR 0 0 280 60 NBR 0 0 280 60
SBL 1 1600 40 .03 30 .01 SBL 1 1600 40 .03 10 .01
SBT 3 4800 909 .19* 2238 .47* SBT 3 4800 ' 920 .19* 2240 .47*
SBR f 840 80 i i SBR f 840 80
EBL 1.5 90 {•05}* 560 {•19}* 'EBL 1.5 _ 90 {,05}* 560 {.19}*
EST 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19 EST 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19
EBR f 60 530 EBR f 60 '530
WBL 0 0 80 210 WBL 0 0 80 210
WBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30* W8T 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30*
WBR 0 0 140 130 i i WBR 0 0 140 130
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07
1 U�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
SUBJECT: HEV-Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners Item No.4
(applicants) GPA 98-1 (B)
1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street Negative Declaration
A 877
M.4731
TS 117
A request to permit the construction of an extended stay hotel and an office Continued to
building. The project involves the approval of: 1/7/1999
• a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General
Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the
extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment
involves modifications to the PC text development standards to
accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC
text modifications to the development standards include, but are
not limited to:
• increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of
Newport Place Planned Community,
• changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from
Industrial to Hotel,
• changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from
Auto Center to Professional and Business Office,
• establishing a 50 foot height limit for the hotel site,
• establishing a 95 foot height limit for the office site,
• establishing new street-side front yard, and side yard
setback requirements,
• a Use Permit for the establishmentof an extended stay hotel,
• a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels,and
• a Traffic Study.
Marc Myers noted that since the delivery of the packets to the Commissioners,
staff has received two letters regarding the proposed project for the meeting.
Staff is requesting a continuance to January 7, 1999 to study the questions
raised in the letters and time to prepare comments. Additionally, a question
has arisen regarding the adequacy of the noticing for the project. The records
have been reviewed and it has been found that all parties were notified in a
timely manner. Because of that, staff feels that the public hearing for the
project can be opened for testimony. Additionally, on page 17 of the staff
report Condition No. 2 should read as follows: The project shall provide 281
parking spaces on site.
Staff clarified for the Commission that the two letters were from the same party.
One that was received late that same afternoon and the first one that was
faxed to the Commission earlier in the week.
16
` City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
Commissioner Fuller requested and received information on:
• lot line adjustments- the lot line adjustment will take place between where
the proposed office building is to be located and the lot that is directly
adjacent to it which has a parking structure on it
Public commentwas opened.
Coralee Newman, Principal with Government Solutions, 120 Newport Center
Drive-representing both applicants in this case spoke to the Commission. She
introduced Mr. Bill Smith,Vice President of Lennar Partners and his architect,Mr.
Paul Komets from HLK who will give a brief overview of the office proposal.
Representing the Holtze Executive Village is Mr.Jan Holtze and his architect,Mr.
Jon Van Tilburg who will give a brief overview of the hotel proposal. This dual
project proposal is for property previously utilized as an auto dealership
(Fletcher Jones Mercedes). These land uses are appropriate for the area and
will be complimentaryto the existing land uses.
Presenting a graphic for orientation, Ms. Newman pointed out the streets and
indicated where the proposed office development on the corner of Dove and
Quail and the proposed hotel proposal on the corner of Spruce and Quail. She
noted that the hotel proposal has a small street frontage on Bristol. There is an
existing office development between the two proposal sites. This area is part of
the Newport Place Planned Community zoning and has a variety of land uses
including retail uses, hotels, and industrial, commercial office buildings that
range in height from two to nine stories.
Mr. Bill Smith of Lennar Partners noted the following:
• Lennar Partners is a publicly traded real estate company.
• Assets of over 500 million dollars.
• This project is the first opportunityfor office development in Orange County
for Lennar Partners.
• Orange County is highly desirable for office type tenants.
Mr. Paul of HROK Architectures referencing the exhibits on the wall noted the
following:
• Proposal is for a five-story office building.
• There is an existing parking structure on site and that will be upgraded to
enhance the circulation from the building.
• There is enough room on this site to create two pedestrian areas.
• Frontage has two points of access,one off Dove and one off Quail.
• Services will be in the back in an enclosure.
• Burms are proposed along Quail to help buffer the traffic noise in the
pedestrian plazas.
Mr. Jan Holtze, owner of Holtze Corporation and Holtze Executive Village Hotel
17
` City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
Concept noted the following:
• Not the standard hotel.
• Rooms that are offered are much larger and are offered as a two bedroom,
two bathroom suite that is fully furnished.
• Rentals are from one night to a year.
• Suites are also leased as two separate rooms.
• The two bedroom suites are called as two keys or two beds or two rooms.
• This proposed project is a 304 key hotel, which is approximately 152 two-
bedroom suites.
• There is a mix of three bedroom suites,which allows for flexibility.
• The corporation has three properties in Denver with a total of 700 rooms that
have historically operated at or above 90%occupancy.
Mr.John Van Tillberg,architect,referencing exhibits,noted the following for the
hotel:
• Center clubhouse,seating area and receiving rooms.
• The clubhouse is two stories high located behind the motor court and sits
back from the street with an arched entrance and a meeting room on the
top.
• Design is Mediterranean style with tiled roof.
• The site plan shows a motor court entrance off Quail with the clubhouse in
the front.
• Parking for the hotel will be 281 cars that will be under the building.
• Discussed the landscaping plans.
• Food service is limited to continental breakfasts in the morning.
• Elevation of the building is divided into three parts.
• This is a four story building with an open circulation and central corridor area
which opens to court yards with a single group of rooms.
• There is a series of penthouseswith rooms that provide flexibilityfor their uses.
• One or two presidential suites in the hotel.
At Commission inquiry,it was clarified that there are windows on all four sides of
the existing office building. Referencing the exhibits,the views from the existing
office building were explained.
Discussion continued on:
• Numberof keys (304) depending on the nightly demand.
• Number of cars to be parked for the office building. (375 parking spaces in
current parking structure,which will stay,plus 105 surface parking spaces).
• The hotel requires one space for every two beds, and is parked nearly one
to one. (281 spaces provided)
• No restaurant on site.
• Service building in rearwill house laundry and maintenance facilities.
• Average setback is 35 feet on the front and side.
• Number of employees will be around 60 at peak times.
18
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
• Typically,the housekeeping staff will be provided van service or take mass
transit to the site.
• Van service will be available for transportation purposes of guests.
• The floor area is 195,000 square feet; the land area is 160,000 square feet,
which represents 1.2 Floor Area Ratio.
Mr. Frank Battaile, 92 Augustino, Irvine attorney representing Quail Business
Center which is the building in the middle of the proposed project. He asked if
public comment would be closed tonight and was answered no. He stated
that people received notice that the meeting was going to be tonight rather
than previously noticed for December 14+h. Continuing,he noted the following
concerns of the proposed project:
• Description of the project ignores the existence of the two-story Quail
Business Center.
• No shadow analysis has been done.
• The existing surrounding buildings are all one or two story buildings;
therefore,this project is not compatible with the surrounding land uses.
• The traffic study was done and the credit given to Holtze based on a car
dealership that ceased over a year ago. CEQA requires that existing
conditions have are to be addressed.
• Two vacant lots exist now.
• The total traffic count was reduced by almost 50% because of pre-
existing uses.
• The intersection at Campus and Bristol that the level of service to the
level that mitigation will be required.
• Orange County Transit Authority plans a ramp connection between 73
and 55 which has been accepted as a mitigation measure.
• The ramp may or may not become a reality.
• There is no reason to conclude or assume there will be traffic interaction
between the proposed business office and the proposed hotel.
• There are significant changes to the General Plan and the land use.
• An EIR is required if so many changes are going to be made to the
zoning.
• Planned Community Development Standards changes are site specific and
will only affect these two pieces of property and therefore are not
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,they constitute variances.
• The applicant wants a variance for height and setback; however, there is
nothing wrong with these lots.
• If the mitigation measures attached to the staff report are not the same
mitigation measures that were in the circulated mitigated negative
declaration, they have been changed and that is not allowed under
CEQA. Any change would require a re-circulation of the negative
declaration.
• Mitigation measures call for future studies on water and sewage usage.
19
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
Commissioner Gifford clarified the following with the speaker:
• understanding of the building he is talking about is a condominium building
with a diverse ownership-six owners
• individuals or entity represented by Mr. Battaile - Quail Business Center
which is an association of the owners
• surrounding neighborhood has a multi-story building at the corner of Quail
and Westerly Place-representation of the surrounding area is not specific
CommissionerAshley noted his concern of a potential"domino"theory that the
proposed project could create. The Quail Business Center could intensify its
use,which in turn could potentially cause a more intense traffic use in the area.
Mr. Victor Mahoney, 1105 Quail Street clarified that Mr. Battaile represents the
Quail Business Owners Association that is comprised of six individual condo units
that were built in 1983. Mr. Battaile also represents the Crown building at 1451
Quail Street that was built in 1973. Continuing,he noted the following:
• Public notice was received on December71h.
• Traffic-entrance of garage parking structure will be problematic.
Value of propertywill go down.
• The side of the proposed five-story hotel is 10 feet from the property line.
• Views from the front of the building are into the parking lot and landscaped
areas. The back of the building is set back to the wall with a short setback.
• He knew there would be changes in the future to the adjacent buildings.
Staff noted that the height limit without any amendment to the PC for the hotel
site is 35 feet, but the Commission may increase that height based on
conventional findings to exceed the basic height limits. There is no secondary
height limit specified within the PC, and it could be 375 feet. There are height
limits related to the immediate airport area. The area specified within the
middle of the PC has a height limit of 8 to 10 stories.
Commissioner Gifford ascertained from the speaker that Mr. Holtze made
presentations to the Board of the hotel project. At that time, the concerns of
traffic and shadowing were discussed.
Ms.Temple stated that the noticing procedure for 1301 and 1001 Quail was:
• October 291h - the mandatory public notice of a mitigated negative
declaration was circulated,which was posted in the Daily Pilot, posted in
the County Clerk's office and notifications were mailed to properties within
a 300 foot radius of the subject property. Notice was also mailed to 22
additional interested/affectedparties.
• In checking the mailing lists,all six of the condominium owners were mailed
a notice.
• Public Notice of hearing was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot
20
I • •
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
radius of the subject properties on November25th. Posting was done at two
places on each property and there is an affidavit of posing on file.
• Public Hearing Notice/Planning Commission hearing agenda was published
in the Daily Pilot Newspaper.
• December a second clarifying notice was sent which indicated that this
was the Planning Commission hearing on the date of December 10th.
Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Mahoney when he originally talked to Mr. Holtze
and Lennar Partners about this project and was told about 45 days ago. They
had become aware of the project when the demolition procedures had
started.
Cheryl Nichols, 1107 Quail (new owner) a CPA in the front lower suite of Quail
Business Center,noted the following:
• Never received a notice.
• Specific measures were to be followed regarding dust control while the
project is under construction - had to file a complaint, as they did not
comply.
• Concerned with safety at night with the transient population going in and
out of the hotel.
• Lighting
• We do not charge for parking, which may be impacted if the future
additional parking is charged.
Kimberly Wallison, 1000 Bristol Street North- owner of the retail shopping center
located on Bristol. The shopping center has been there for 20 years. She
supports this project,as it will have a positive impact. Both the project owners
have been to their office and have shared their plans. Continuing,she stated
that they have been properly notified of the meetings and notified of the
project schedule. It will increase the value on the shopping center and
compliment its services.
Coralee Newman stated the following:
• Agree to the continuanceto January 7, 1999.
• Presented a photo survey taken that day and disagreed about the
characterizations of the area made. (she pointed out the various high rise
buildings that are in the general vicinity and demonstrated the existing
conditions)
• Presented a copy of a letter dated September 23, 1998 from Lennar
Partners to Mr. Jim Janulius at the Quail Business Center explaining the
upcoming project. Both Mr. Lennar and Mr. Holtze have made every
attempt to talk to the neighbors about this project in a timely manner.
Commission asked that the following issues be included for deliberation at the
next Planning Commission meeting:
1. Parking for day and night use-to be provided by the applicant.
21
L • •
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1998 INDEX
2. Shadow analysis-to be provided by staff.
3. Plot Quail Business Center office building-to be provided by the applicant.
Public Comment was left open.
Ms. Temple stated that in regards to Ms. Nichols notification, the official list
received as part of the completed application was dated April 1998. Based on
a review of the assessor's records,it does indicate that the Nichols acquired the
property in June of 1998,which was subsequent to the submittal of the list. Staff
will add this new property owner to our list for future notifications.
Mr. Edmonston clarified the following:
• 20%credit is applied within the traffic phasing analysis that includes existing
traffic to projects that have been approved in the city that are not yet fully
occupied. There is no further reduction in terms of the new traffic from the
project.
The net impact of the hotel is less than the 304 keys because of the typical
mix they have found at their other projects in Colorado.
The connector at the 73/55 interchange, it is a fully funded project, it is
nearly completed in design, the right-of-way acquisition is underway, the
City is a financial contributorto the project and has been a budgeted item
for a number of years. It is expected to take traffic off of Bristol Street
couplet and put them right on the highway. A 15%shift would be needed
which will bring it to Level Service D. The City of Costa Mesa is taking the
lead on this project and construction is expected in two years.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to January 7,
1999.
Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
SUB E6.T: Street names for the Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes Item No. 5
Area (Final Tract No. 15584) FTM No. 15584
Adopt Resolution appro ing„the new street names "Campanile", "Loggia", Approved
Residencia", "Rivoli" and WIQgld4for the Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes
Area.
Public comment was opened and closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt Resolution No. 1487
approving the street names for Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes.
22
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes •
November 19, 1998 INDEX
�-- Gode.
J. This use permif¢for*a,Q alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance
with the terms of this crcipter. hall expire within 12 months from the date of
approval unless a license has b*66bRissued or transferred by the California
State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration
date.
r*•
SUBJECT: 1401 Dove Street Item No.4
IMH/ICH Dove Street(applicant) GPA 98-1 (B)
• General Plan Amendment No. 98-1(B), with the Negative Declaration
acceptance of a Negative Declaration A 877
• Amendment No.877 M. 4731
• Modification No.4731 TS 117
• Traffic Study No. 117
A request to permit the construction of a two-story 26,122 square foot Recommended for
commercial office building built over a partially subterranean parkinglot. The approval
proposed site encompasses approximately 3.8 acres of land area and is
currently developed with a six-story office building and related on-site parking. •
The new office building will be located to the west of the existing building
towards the rear of the site where a portion of the parking lot currently exists.
The project involves the approval of:
• a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment to increase the
square footage entitlement in Block E of Newport Place Planned '
Community.The current limit of 834,762 square feet will be increased to
860,884 square feet to accommodate the construction of the new
commercial office building,and
• a Modification to permit reduction of the parking requirement ratio from
1 space for each 225 square feet to 1 space for each 250 square feet of
net floor area,and
the approval of a Traffic Study.
Associate Planner Mark Myers noted the following:
• Subject property is currently developed with a six-story, 74,000 square foot
office building.
• The proposed office building will be located on site where a portion of the
surface parking lot currently exists.
• Since the Land Use Element of the General Plan does not provide for further
growth in this particular area of Newport Place Planned Community, a
General Plan Amendmentis required.
• Amendments to the General Plan may be approved with the findings that
the amendment is consistentwith the policies of the General Plan.
18 •
T City of Newport Beach
• Planning Commission Minutes f
November 19, 1998 INDEX
restaurant or any other eating and drinking establishment. No seating,
tables, or counter space shall be provided for the purpose of the
onsumption of food or beverages on the premises.
Stand d Re uirements
A. Thep Me
arct is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
stand , unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
B. Signs and this jays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller
and customer r m view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open ainer, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control A6t shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall taR reasonable steps to discourage and correct
objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas,
sidewalks, alleys and are surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet
and adjacent properties m�Stt� be taken during business hours if directly
related to the patrons of the sUVct alcoholic beverage outlet.
• E. The exteriorof the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of
litter and graffiti at all times. The ov eror operator shall provide for daily
removal of trash,litter debris and graSfiti from the premises and on all
abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employe \fo
and/or selling alcoholic
beverages shall undergo and successful] plete a certified training
program in responsible methods and sving and selling alcoholic
beverages. To qualify to meet the feqs of this section a certified
program must meet the standards of tQ is Coordinating Council
on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifyihp/licensing'body which
the State may designate. The establishment stall comply with the
requirements of this section within 180 days of the issud\cef the certificate
ofoccupancy.
G. Alcoholic beverage.sales from drive-up orwalk-up servndows shall be
prohibited.
H. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of a proval to
this use permit or recommend to the City Council the revocatidQ of this
use permit, upon a determination that'the operation which is the Subject
of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, spl(ety,
peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. N��
I. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal !
• 17 }
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
• While consistencywith the General Plan can be made in this case, it should
be noted that the General Plan provides a focused and limited amount of
policy criteria by which a project can be analyzed.
• The intent of the General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 (B) allows for growth
provided traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City.
• The subject property is only able to achieve consistency with policy B of the
General Plan with a proportional contribution to an identified intersection
improvement.
• The traffic analysis shows the additional office space would result in an
increase in the level of service at one intersection without the intersection
improvement.
Concluding,he noted that on page 5 of the staff report in the third paragraph
under the subheading Modification, there is a typographical error. The last
sentence should read a surplus of 44 spaces,not 69.
At Commission inquiry,staff noted that the total number of spaces provided on
site is 430.
Chairperson Selich noted his confusion with this site that is proposing to add
26,000 square feet and does not trip the TPO and another proposed expansion
project (also subject to the General Plan Amendment) had to cut 10,000
square feet so that it would not trip the TPO. It is confusing as to what can
happen with incremental square footage being added. There is additional
developmentthat the General Plan allows that has not been built yet. The TPO
will effectthe propertyowner's abilityto use that square footage. By approving
this project, what will we do to their ability to use their property to their full
advantage? Here, we are going over and above the square footage that is
I presently allowed in the General Plan on this site. It becomes confusing
because it seems you could go through and incrementally do these little
projects behind the various office buildings and before you know it,you have a
lot of additional square feet without actually tripping TPO.
Commissioner Adams stated this was not unique to this application or site. The
argument can be made citywide and has been going on for the last 15 years.
This is one of the issues being addressed in the TPO Committee.
Discussion continued on:
• discussing the hotel site on the original Fletcher Jones site,the office project
and this application together;
• this project not factored into the TPO study
• challenges of deciding the base line for the TPO
• regional growth factors
• distribution and peak hour characteristics
• scale of projects
• 19
City of Newport Beach ,
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
Public comment was opened.
Craig Cooper,representative of Impact Company noted the following:
• first proposal was for 32,000 square feet expansion
• through initial traffic study, made aware of impact on neighborhood
circulation necessitating a reduction to 26,000 square feet
• the original building purchased to house corporate facilities
• projected growth is to occupy the entire six story and future expansion
• three operation shifts starting at 6:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m.,7:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted his concerns about a general plan review and
perhaps a specific area plan for the airport. The Commission can then address
the many small changes to the general plan with these reviews. Continuing,he
stated that reducing the parking requirement to 1 for 250 suggests that
additional development may occur. He suggested the condition make the
requirementso that the parking surplus is 0.
Marc Myers noted that Condition 2 under the Heading of Modification No.
4721„ could be changed to 231 square feet of net floor which would establish
the parking requirementat 429 spaces
Motion was made by CommissionerKranzleyto recommend to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No.98-1 (B), with the acceptance of a
Negative Declaration; Amendment No. 877, Modification No. 4731 with the
change to condition 2, and Traffic Study No. 117
Ayes: Fuller,Ashley,Selich, Gifford,Adams, Kranzley
Noes: None
Absent: Ridgeway
Abstain : None
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Findinas:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines,and Council Policy K-3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation
measures listed, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the
20
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
environment.
3. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this
or other projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human
beings that would be caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been
considered in the various decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the project will comply with the
erosion and siltration control measures of the City's grading
ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes
and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation
and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04 or applicable
sections).
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the
Planning and Building Departmentfor review and approval.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction traffic control plan which includes the
haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic
flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage to the
Planning and Traffic Department for review and approval.
4. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be
subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to
determine compliance.
5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that
the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term
(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project:
a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust
palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality'
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)
maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c)
phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize
21
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
project-related emissions.
6. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that
the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance),to
reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall
contribute its proportionate pro-rafa fair share traffic impact
fees required for improvements at the intersection of
MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road as recommended
in the traffic study dated September 3, 1998, prepared by
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. and determined by the City Traffic
Engineer.
8. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the
provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise
Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise
restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of
construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on '
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
9. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations
regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities
are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of
facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the
appropriate public agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building
Department a letter from the City Utilities Department
confirming availability of water and wastewater services to
and from the site.
11. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or
altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent
properties or uses. Prior,to the issuance of a building permit,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department
that the exterior lighting system has been designed and
directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and
to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties.
Prior to the issuance of a building ,permit, the applicant shall
provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the
lighting system plan, light fixture product types and technical
22
n
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
specifications, including photometric information to determine
the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated.
This information shall be made a part of the building set of
plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of
the certificate of use and occupancy or final of building
permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by
the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and
glare specified by this mitigation measure.
12. A qualified archeologist shall be present during grading
activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If
significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archeologist
shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert
construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the
significance of the find.
Standard Requirements:
1. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access
requirements.
2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of
any required public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a
grading or building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
4. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown
of the grading and building site plans.
5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site,
the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department and the Planning Department that
adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project.
Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange
County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department.
6. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside
the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L.
7. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic
Engineer.
23
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
B. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 W: Adopt Resolution No.
1482(Attached) recommending to the City Council the adoption of
General Plan Amendment No.98-1 (B).
C. Amendment No. 877: Adopt Resolution No. 1483, recommending to the
City Council adoption of Amendment No.877.
D. Modification No.4721
Findings:
1. The proposed, development is consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan as amended by this application.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation
measures listed, the proposed project does not have the
potential to significantly degrade the quality of the
environment.
3. The granting of a modification to establish a parking
requirement of 1 space for each 250 square feet of net floor
area will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood and the modifications as
approved are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code because this parking ratio
has proven to be adequate for most general office
developments in the City.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations,except as noted
below.
2. That one parking space for each= 231 sq. ft.of net floor area
shall be provided on-site.
Standard Requirements:
1. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of
the Municipal Code.
24
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
2. That the proposed office building and related parking structure
shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
3. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access
requirements.
4. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic
Engineer.
5. That this Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the date of approval as specified in Section
20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
E. Traffic Study 117
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the
impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18.
2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic
Engineer and found in compliance with the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
3. Thatthe Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic
will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of
traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,'or'primary'street at any
of the nine intersections selected for evaluation by City staff and
based on the characteristics of the proposed development.
4. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic
will not be greaterthan one percent of the existing traffic during
the 2.5 hour peak period on eight of the nine study intersections
and that the ICU analysis for one of the nine intersections
indicates that the ICU value does not increase.
25
1
City of Newport Beach '
Planning Commission Minutes
November 19, 1998 INDEX
SUBJECT: Discussion of Residential Development Standards in the Item No.5
old Corona del Mar Area Residential
Development
Discussion between staff and Commission was on the following: Standards in old
' Corona del Mar
• rezdning of Balboa Island to R-1.5 was done due to similar concerns
• the floor area limit in old Corona del Mar is the same as on Balboa Island Discussion only
• these concerns come up in many of the older residential neighborhoods
that have,lot size restrictions
• architectu ql community is very good designing within our development
standards homes that meet their client's needs
• homes are geNg larger in floor area and building bulk
Public comment was opened.
,
Bud Rasner,208 CarnationtAvenue noted the following:
• 26 year resident and business owner
• taxpayers money spent dolgg,studies
• this process isn't needed
• property rights
• village feel in old Corona del Mdr
• look at what can be done via zon)Vg laws
• maximize use of homes �>
• property values going up
• do not need more bureaucratic restricti^ns on property rights
Tod Schooler noted the following: a
• interested in being on a committee to discuss ikese issues
• had past experience as a developer in old Corona del Mar
11
• proposals presented to the city used to go to theT anning Commission for
design and comments . w
• a lot of similar design is being used in the small con�,minium projects in
old Corona del Mar
r,
Public comment was closed. '
r,
Commissioner Fuller asked what the major issues were, i.e.,,third floor, bulk size,
and conversion from quaint little cottages to condominiums or pis all. He
agrees that we are losing the home cottage feeling in that area . hether
that is good or bad is another issue. The area is definitely changing and
therefore supports recommendations to review this.
Chairperson Selich stated it's all of those plus more that the staff has struggled
with over the years in the development that has been proposed.
26
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA 92663
(714) 644-3200
A. General Information
1. Applicant/Agent: Burge Corporation Phone: (949 ) 492-1175
Address: 981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200 , San Clemente, CA. 92673
2. Property Owner: IMH/IMC Dove Street, LLC Phone: (714 ) 438-2152
Address: 20371 Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana Heights, CA. 92707
B. Project Description
Please attach the following materials for the project:
•Vicinity map •Plans drawn to scale
•Proposed revisions to zoning map •At least 3 differentsite photos mounted
and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X I 1 cardboard with a key map
strikeeut notation,if applicable showing the photo locations and
direction of view
1. Projectname: 1401 Dove Street
2. Project location: 1401 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA. 92660
3. Assessor's parcel#: 427-221 —04 4. Permit application#: Unknown
5a. Proposeduse: Parking structure with 30 ,000 S.F. office above
5b. Project size(dwelling units,gross floor area,etc.): 30,000 SF
5c. Sitesize: 166 ,627 S.F. 5d.Building height: 86 Feet
6. Existing land use designations:
General Plan: Zoning: Commercial
SpecificPlan: LCP:
7. Previous governmental approvals: N/A
8. Other governmental approvals required:
Federal: No State: No
Regional: No Local: Yes
9. Begin construction: October, 1998 Estimated occupancy: June, 1999
(date) (date)
1
Certification
I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been
authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false
statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the
basis of this information..
Y II/LkPg N p 50A Date -7'1 ^q Q
V
Print name of owner or representative and Title Signature
For Office Use
Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By:
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\1FORMS\IENV-INF.DOC Rev. 7-24-97
4
Potential Environmental Effects
1) Land Use and Planning:
A) The site presently contains a 74,000 six story office building with grade level parking
and is bounded by similar multi-storied office building; B) The project conforms to
existing land use plans and regulations; C) The project is compatible to it's
surrounding land uses.
2) Ponulation/Housing/Employment:
The proposed office/parking structure will be utilized for employees of property
owner and will be for general office use. There will be approximately 75-100
employees.
3) Earth:
The earth work on the project will be limited to excavation for a partial subterranean
parking lot. No soils investigations have been performed for the proposed structure to
date.
4) Water:
Project will be designed to drain along existing drain patterns. The project is not
located in a flood hazard zone.
5) Air Quality:
No air emissions or odors will result from this project.
6) Transportation/Circulation/Parking:
The proposed parking structure will be designed to accommodate the proposed office
structure and will comply with all regulations.
7) Biological Resources:
Present vegetation onsite consists of parking lot planters. Any site landscape
removed will be addressed in the re-landscaping for the proposed project. No fish or
wildlife inhabits the site.
8) Energy and Mineral Resources:
Project will be designed to meet all applicable energy codes and will not result in the
loss of any known mineral resources.
9) Public Health and Safety:
No aspect of this project will present a risk to public health due to normal
construction operations. A phase one environmental study prepared on July 14, 1997
indicated no onsite contaminations.
10) Noise:
No abnormal noise other than construction related noise will be generated during
construction or after occupancy.
11) Public Services:
All public services are available to site.
12) Utilities and Service Systems:
Utilities are adequate to serve new facility.
13) Aesthetics:
A. No scenic vistas will be impaired by this project or will it be aesthetically
offensive.
B. Light and Glare:
Parking lot lighting similar to existing site lighting will be utilized for proposed
facility. This lighting will have no adverse impact on adjoining properties.
14) Cultural and Historical Resources:
Proposed building site is currently a parking lot with initial earthwork performed in
1972. There is no record of any archeological or paleontogical impact on the site.
This project will not have an adverse physical or aesthetic effect on any building for
structure having historical, cultural or religious significance.
15) Recreation:
This project will not impact any recreational facilities.
Q aEW PORT � •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
e.<
C'9</FOR P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200
July 1, 1998
Mr. Bill Robertson
Burge Corporation
981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200
San Clemente, CA 92673
Subject: Contract Approval of Environmental Consulting Services for the
Proposed Office Building and Parking Structure at 1401 Dom Street
CONTRACT APPROVAL
Approved By: Marc Myers
Title: Associate Planner
Firm: City of Newport Beach
Consultant: Hodge&Associates
24040 Camino Del Avion, Suite A247
Monarch Beach, CA 92629
Project Address: 1401 Dove Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Date of Proposal: June 29, 1998, copy of proposal attached and on file.
Budget of$ 4,174.50 with the understanding that modifications to
the study may result in additional charges and that the balance
will be due upon notice from the City of Newport Beach.
Project Applicant: Burge Corporation(Bill Robertson),I
Applicant Approval: Signature: V U
Bill Robertson, Project Manager
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BY:
Marc rs, Associate Planner
F:\uscm\sharcd\lplmcom\pcnding\14dlDov\contract.doc
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
�E.wPoRr
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u �z
e.� P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
C,LI F00.N�P '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3200
July 1, 1998
Bill Robertson
Burge Corporation
981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200
San Clemente,CA 92673
Subject: Environmental Review for the Proposed Office Building and Parking Structure
at 1401 Dove Street
Dear Mr. Robertson,
Enclosed for your review, please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Hodge and Associates, regarding
environmental review documentation required for the proposed office building and parking structure located
at 1401 Dove Street. The proposal contains an outline of the required scope of work, schedule of time, and
cost estimate for preparation and processing of the environmental documentation.
The environmental consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and
warranted. The fees are as follows:
Consultant Fees $3,630.00
City Fees(15%) $544.50
Total Request: $4,174.50
Should you concur with the proposal, please submit a check in the amount of$4,174.50 payable to the City
of Newport Beach and sign and return the enclosed proposal agreement so that we may authorize Hodge and
Associates to proceed with services. You may fax a copy and mail the original so that we can expedite the
consultant's start of the project.
Very truly yours,
Marc Myers
Associate Planner
Attachment: Copy of Environmental Consultant Proposal
F:\USERS\PLMIPLANCOWENDING\1401dov\COST.DW
,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
s JUL 06 '98 10:20RM BURGE fQRPORATION P•1i2
Burge Cor oraflon :
�
General Contractor
License=0338554 ,
Date: (o•, I
To: C, of 1~11 +�JWo
Attention: MAf—& Y11` (5.
Fax Number: 61AI- 614
Reference: Etrl�ll� iia P ?(� ti
Number of pages to follow:
From: 61'.0
Remarks: m �► ' .c. 'r ti°-� 1 fl�v� .
Hoh6E = y50&WIV
-VA( v� � iN 6 qr1 OJ T u�ifiuf
�D DO •,ygcy W WIL 4s \102P o LOAD "I"" t4O P6f'%%1-r
`!aJ 'f0 C.omP�� Its A TiYWt. !
---_ FA 19 R O'n9LLc`0 0O 'I460. \W0W.".
gQrr . k GI(Dc,±n�mXV�- .MbOuV HV,' i� do" i Jfq.
Wj.W 01, Ul EreMrlb A C41-aK_ VfVA IKfi 'V:54 D.UD-
`ru — -Mt cosh 0� —(A�, 0)—?5k : ca �tx t�Trt. :
P440 +k Vl w ao tip
P�`�✓t6t/CrA , �- �- you'
B►u, �o ;
Please call if you have any questions or if this transmittal was incomplete
at (714) 492-1175 FAX (714) 492-1176 ;
981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200
San Clemente, CA 92673
JUL 06 '98 10:21AM BURGECOPORATION • P.2/2
O�aEW POD
: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
rikzV ^, P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915
IF OF- �P
BUILDING DEPARTMENT-(714) 644.3288
FEE RECEIPT
Date G— 5 �r Plan Check No. Received By
Received From Job:Address
Building Plan Check......................................................................2900-5002 $
Zoning Plan Check (Architectural) ......................:........................2700.5003 $
Zoning Plan Check (Grading) .............................:........................2700-5003 $
Grading Plan Check - Cu.Yds.......................................................2900.5004 $
FirePlan Check.............................................................................2330-5055 $�
Electric Plan Check.......................................................................2900.4612 $
Plumbing Plan Check..................................................................1.2900-4616 $
Mechanical Plan Check,........ .......................................................2900.4618 $
Overtime Plan Check-Building...................................................2900-5023 $
Overtime Plan Check , Grading.............................................I........2900-5004 $
Overtime Plan Check-Planning...................................................2700-5003
Preliminary Code Compliance Review...........................................2900-5002 $
Reinspection B E H P/Special Inspection..................................:..2900.5008 $
Reinspection Fire...........................................................................2330-5050 $
Temporary Electric...............................................:........................2900.4612 $
TemporaryGas................................................................................2900-4616 $
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.........................4..........,...,...2900-5008 $
Underground Utilities Waiver......................................................010-2225 $
Grease Interceptor ................... 2900-4620 $
/�G ......,.�......... .
Planning Department Fees.............................r.. ..,. _�..1...........,..2700.5000 $
Sale of,Maps &Publications.............................. .........� a..........2700-5812 $
Determination of Unreasonable Hardship. ...... ...
Microfilm Copies/Photocopies..................................
:1i:':.............010 2263
J� f3: .. ..
Other (Specify)................................... ....... ............I........
. $ '
TOTAL FEES
Fee Receipt No. 7
M-11F,: PLAN CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL
(f\feercpt.198)
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
•BURGE CORPORATION•
General Contractor
October 21, 1998
Mr.Marc Myers
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Re: 1401 Dove Street
General Plan Amendment
GPA—98-1B
Dear Marc,
I have not seen any correspondence from your office confirming our telephone conversation with
regards to hearing dates. Will you be supplying a formal notification stating our application is
complete and the date of our planning commission hearing? We are in the process of notifying
our neighbors of our plans and I want to make sure I have written confirmation,from your office,
of the actual hearing date. Please give me a call,today,to confirm dates and that you will be
following up with written confirmation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Robertson
Burge Corporation
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING:WonRRT EACH
ENT
CITY n
AM OCT 22 1998 PM
71819110 Il 111?111213141816
981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92673
Phone: (714) 492-1175 FAX: (714) 492-1176
OCT 21 '98 08:39RN hURGE CORPORATION P.1i1
*URGE CORPORATION •
G a n c r a 1 C o n r r a c % o r
0# 4'k-
It' Note 7671 Oale t0q L_9% Pageab
M`(K.S Fmm m' 1�J jD
aA (�t.Q•Pv{�nlld Co.
Phone# tt�'L.. 11-1
Octobcr2l, 1998 �5sv Fax# '1MZ' 1�"� 1p
Mr.Marc Myers
City of Newport Beach
' Planning Departinent
P.O.Box 1768 ��/` ,
Newport Beach,-CA 92659-8915 5/i v � ' y
Re: 1401 Dove Street
General Plan Amendment
GPA-98-IB
Dear Marc,
I have not seen any correspondence from your office confirming our telephone conversation with
regards to hearing dates. Will you be supplying a formal notification stating our application is
complete and the date of our planning commission hearing? We are in the process of notifying
our neighbors of.our plans and I want to make sure I have written confirmation,from your office,
of the actual hearing date. Please give me a call,today,to confirm dates and that you will be
following up with wri tten confirmation. Thank you.
Sincerely>�
Bill Robertson
Burge Corporation
981 Calle Negocio, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92673
Phone: (714) 492-1175 FAX: (714) 492-1176
01BURGE CORPORATION
General Contractor
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
AM JUL 01 1998 PM
June 29, 1998 7 $ 91011l2l234 $ 6
III I I I I I I I I
Mr.Marc Meyer
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915
Re: 1401 Dove Street
General Plan Amendment
GPA—98-lB
Dear Marc,
The Impac Companies has decided to reduce the scale of their project at 1401 Dove Street to
25,846 square feet from the proposed 32,000 square feet. We have reduced the scale of our
project with the understanding that this new building square footage will not make our project
subject to a traffic study. While this reduction in square footage makes our project less attractive
it is of greater importance to move rapidly towards approval and completion.Please proceed with
our application so we may receive a hearing date as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Bill Robertson
Burge Corporation
Cc: Kathy Murray/Impac Companies
Patricia Temple/City of Newport Beach
�1
{r�L Q0( -6 ZS�J 8 5
17paty aIt- JGw-�cvu/f�/lc� _��""� - - -----
- - I
rtkE�y WILL, NyFD SCuoy 21;xN�
TRANSMITTAL
Buk0 cOAPOI:`'iATION JE?S. t EP 4 .
981 CALLE NEGOCIO,SUITE 200 ADDRESS:
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 Q��,,�1
TEL:(714)492.1175 FAX:(714)492.1176 "'�"�' , V�/qw t L
TO: G I? 1 0 r 6W ?0f;f 1 DATE: 7. 3 0 . 1$
L4AAI 6 D01
ATTN: WINE mqor�,
ACTION REQUIRED:
FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR YOUR FILES
FOR YOUR USE BID/PROPOSAL
AS REQUESTED CORRECT AS NOTED
OTHER
PLANS &SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED:
ARCHITECTURAL DATED:
STRUCTURAL DATED:
CIVIL DATED: RECEIVED BY
LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION DATED: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MECHANICAL DATED: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLUMBING DATED:
FIRE SPRINKLER DATED: JUL 3 Q 1998
ELECTRICAL . DATED: AM PM
UTILITY COMPANY DATED: 7 8 910111212 3 4 5 E
SOILS REPORT DATED: I I I t 1 I t I !
SHOP DRAWINGS DATED:
OTHER DATED:
REMARKS: y
Ip Atb
lb YYIQ p G ►YI
5J i WLMIrb l
r1 !tiM N N -Avmkq
M AA IA
✓IE'i
THANK YOU,
Bill Robertson
BURGE CORPORATION
03/11/98 16:41 %2714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 0 002
ECKLAND CONSULTANTS INC.
Phase I Environmental Assessment•Draft
for
Transwestern Investment Company
1401 Dove Street Office Building
• 1401 Dove Street
Newport Beach, Orange County, California
Comm. No. 97-00180-0013a
July 14, 1997
03/11/98 16,42 '0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 121003
.r-
- u u
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Comm. No. 97-MI80-0013a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I - Identification Page 1
Section Il - Objective Page 2
Section III - Procedures and Limitations Page 3
Section IV - Executive Summary Page 4
Section V - Site History and Description Page 5
Section VI - Environmental Assessment Page 13
Section VJl - Conclusions and Recommendations Page 29
Section VM - Records Reviewed Page 30.
Section IX - Interviews Page•31
Attachments - Site Vicinity Map
Site Vicinity Map
USGS Topographic Map
Aerial Photographs
Environmental Assessment Questionnaire
EDR Database Report
- Title Report
- Site Photographs
IL. .
03/11/98 16:42 $714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 1@004
Phase I Environmental Assessment- Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 1
s•",,•,,•,N IDENTIFICATION
CLIENT: Trangwestem Investment Company
SITE NAME: 1401 Dove Street Office Building
SITE LOCATION: 1401 Dove Street
Newport Beach, Orange County
California 92660
OBSERVATION DY: David P. Othold
Architect
REVIEWED BY: Michael P. Poulos
Environmental Professional
Quality Assurance Manager
OBSERVATION DATE: June 19, 1997
03/11/98 16:42 $714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC zoos
Phasc I Environmental Asscssment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 2
This Report is a Phase I Environmental Assessment for the 1401 Dove Street
Office Building located at 1401 Dove Street in Newport Beach, California,
performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation E 1527-97,
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I
Environmental Site Asseskmenl Process and following the Scope of Work
outlined in l:okland Consultants Inc.'s proposal dated May 5, 1997. The
purpose of this Report is to identify recognized environmental conditions
which may have an impact on the site, using readily available sources of
information, interviews and field observations.
03/11/98 16:42 $714 7 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC . Q008
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 3
SECTION M-PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS
The procedures used to prepare this Report follow those outlined in ASTM
Designation E 1527-97, Eckland Consultants Inc. conducted on-site
observations on June 19, 1997, interviewed site operations personnel and
conducted observations of properties adjacent to the subject site. Database
searches were conducted fallowing ASTM guidelines by E Data Resources,
Inc. Such database searches are generally limited to a search distance of a
one-mile radius from the subject site.
The findings in this Report are based on our document reviews, site
observations, interviews, and other sources of information as set forth in this
Report. No testing or invasive search was conducted.
Eckland Consultants Inc. does not warrant or guarantee the environmental
conditions of the site or warrant the Client's ability to assert a defense under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or any comparable state or local law.
Documents and data provided by the Client, designated representatives of the
Client, or other interested parties, and consulted in the preparation of this
Report, have been reviewed and may be referenced herein, with the
understanding that Eckland Consultants Inc. assumes no responsibility or
liability for their accuracy.
This Report is for the exclusive use of Transwestern Investment Company,
its lenders,partners or its affiliated companies, and no other party shall have
any right to rely on any service provided by Eckland Consultants Inc. (ECI)
without prior written consent.
OS/11/98 16:43 V714 7 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC. 16007
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 4
SFCTION TV_EXECI= SUMMARX
Purpose of Report: The purpose of this Report is to provide a
Phase I Environmental Assessment of the 1401
Dove street Office Building located at 1401
Dove Street in Newport Beach, California
92660.
t
Documents Reviewed: USGS topographic map, geologic maps, aerial
photographs, and records from Federal, state
and local governments.
scope of Work: Generally, the scope of work includes visual
observation of the site and improvements,
reconnaissance of the site vicinity, a review of
government environmental database records,
and interviews with site and local government
personnel
Limitations of
Scope of Work: SCI's inquiry was limited to interviews,
review of available documents and visual
observations of readily accessible areas of the
site. Based do documentation provided and
MIS observation, no sampling or analytical
testing was performed.
Recognized
Environmental Conditions: ECI concludes that asbestos-containing
fireproofing material exists at the subject site
and its condition is monitored by periodic air
monitoring for airborne asbestos fibers. The
most recent air monitoring sampling and
testing results indicate that the level of
airborne asbestos fibers is below the level
established by the U.S. EPA as safe for
reoecupaney after an abatement process.
Recommendations: ECI recommends that an Asbestos Operations
and Maintenance (OW Program be
implemented and that periodic air monitoring
continue.
I - -
01/11/98 16:43 0714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC. 0008
Phase I Environmental Assessment- Draft July 142 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 5
ec+nmrni►r v_ SITE ffi9TORY AND b
N
rT
The 1401 Dove Street Office Building is an office facility located in Newport
Beach, California. The site has been improved with one building, grade-
level, asphalt-paved parking and driveway areas, and ornamental
landscaping.
At the time of the site visit, ECI estimates that 98% of the site surface was
covered by the building and pavement. ECI's observation.of the site soil
surfaces was limited to the landscaped areas.
gn VISIT AND INTERVIEWS
On June 19, 1997, ECI visited the subject site and reviewed the fixed
facility. David P. Othold of ECI was accompanied by Mr. Mark Greer,
Property Manager of the 1401 Dove Street Office Building. ECI interviewed
Mr. Greer concerning the current•and historical use, operations, and
improvements at the subject site. On June 18, 1997, ECI sent an
Environmental Assessment Questionnaire regarding the subject site to Mr.
Greer. The questionnaire Was not returned. A blame copy of the
Environmental Assessment Questionnaire is appended. W. Greer indicated
that the spray-on fireproofing on the structural steel framing and docking at
the subject site is an asbestos-containing material.
ECI observed the interior and contents of the building and noted operations
and activities at the subject site. ECI locked,for suspect asbestos-containing
building materials, stored chemicals,underground and aboveground storage
tanks, unusual surface appearance, wetlands and other issues that may
indicate environmental conditions on the subject site. ECI noted the location
of on-site electrical power transformers and storm drainage structures where
these were encountered. ECI observed sites contiguous to the subject site
and areas within the immediate vicinity of the subject site.
ECI photographed selected features at or near the subject site to support-this
written Report. The photographs are identified, described, and appended to
this Report.
03/11/fl8 16:43 V714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 0009
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 6
STJBJF.C'1'SITE
The subject site, 1401 Dove Street Office Building, is located at 1401 Dove
Street on the east side of Newport Beach, California.
The neighborhood is primarily zoned for commercial office use consisting
of office buildings in all directions. The major streets in the neighborhood
are McArthur Street,NogBristol Avenue and the Coma Del Mar Freeway.
Only Dove Street provides direct access to the subject site.
The subject site is a trapezoidal parcel the contains a total area of
approximately 3.596 acres. The subject site is landlocked along three
boundaries and has street frontage along the east side.
The topography of the subject site is relatively flat. Slight additional slopes
are provided in parking areas for storm water drainage. Ou-site drainage is
by sheet flow to catch basins and curb inlets connected to the municipal
storm sewer. The puking and driveway areas are paved with asphalt.
Driveway aprons and sidewalks are concrete.
Electric service is provided by a pad-mounted transformer. Southern
California Edison Electric Company is the electrical supplier and is
responsible for transformer-related incidents. Natural gas service is provided
by Southern California Gas Company. The site is serviced by City of
Newport Beach municipal water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer services
from buried utilities along the adjacent thoroughfares.
Landscaped areas consisting of trees, shrubs, ground covers and lawn grass
were observed around the building, in islands at the parking areas and along
the site boundaries.
BLm�DING
The 1401 Dove Street Office Building consists of one, six-story office
building, which reportedly contains a total of approximately 73,987 square
feet of net rentable area. The subject site was indicated to have been
developed in 1973. A partial set of plans was provided for our review. No
specifications, other than those on the plan sheets, were available for review.
The building is primarily constructed of a stiucttual steel frame, concrete
0,3/11/98 16:44 W14 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC IM 010
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 7
exterior wall panels and aluminum window wall systems. The building has
a penthouse that bas stucco-finished walls. The roofs are flat and covered
with modified bitumen roof systems. The floor treatments in the tenant
spaces and corridors consist of carpet, granite and exposed•conercte. The,
restrooms have ceramic tile floor covering. The walls are finished with
painted gypsum board with various tenant wall treatments added. The
ceilings consist of suspended acoustical tiles.. Lighting is provided by lay-in
fluorescent fixtures. Thgrre is one hydronic boiler and a domestic water
heater, and both use natural gas. The building is cooled by an air-water
central chilled water system that has two chillers which use R 22 refrigerant.
Space heating.is provided by hot water circulated from the hydronic boiler.
Two geared electric elevators and two enclosed stairways provide vertical
tramportation. The building does not have a basement or any crawl spaces.
The structural steel columns, beams and some of the steel floor decking are
protected by a spray-on fireproofing.
A-D— WING PROPER'IM
Immediately contiguous properties are listed in the following table. All sites
are
located in Newport
yBeach, California.
.:'YA�N y!'/J nl•I! w N%IfKJU1:2 .iw� ilm41,n..wy� h 04 *" ..
' 1�i... 'N.l..Kafe•\ie� !G•y�• '�y Y%M .t2•• Atl4MVl)Jl"�wtuu�+xu tJ t i.
t,,,,E�r„ ���rU.•*. �•x��i.&c w.....��D ��eQAe� cam. •L
��!' r:va•.mr.••u v 7w"e"$3,1y� + m+.: �l v awvi ��r.�uf S;Y
• �'fii'ame :.�ax�,.!`Jpergt[3n�. . .,, .t$-?tic „�opG�` 364
Commerce Ccntcra Onc General Offiee West None
and Two Building
1601 Newport Pima General Office North None
Building
1600 Dove General Office Sass None
Bulking
1402 Newport Plaza Parking Garage for East one
Office Building
One Newport Place Office Building South None
Because of controlled surface drainage and the predominantly nonhazardous
uses on these contiguous sites, they do not. in our opinion, pose a significant
0�/11/98 16:45 V714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC QI011
Phase I Environmental Assessment- Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page•8
environmental risk to the subject site.
VICINITY
The subject site is located in a business area of Newport Beach, California
that is about 1/2-mite southeast of rho John Wayne Airport. Local area
properties were observed by M for current use or conditions that may be
cnvironmentally significant. ECI observed no local area properties that
appear to engage in activities that are considered to be environmentally
significant to the subject site.
TopOGRAEHY.ANT) HYDROGEOLOGY
ECI reviewed the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Newport Beach
Quadrangle Map, which indicates that the subject site is approximately 50
feet above mean sea level. There does not appear to have been substantial
grade changes .to the subject site when compared'to the topography of
surrounding sites and SCI's examination of aerial photographs. A copy. of
the pan of the USGS map that covers the subject site is appended.
ECI interviewed Mr. Greer regarding soil grading, cutting, and filling
activities at the subject site. Mr. Greer stated that, to his knowledge, no
such activities had occurred at the subject site other than,grading for the
construction of the improvements.
ECI observed that the general site drainage and on-site storm water runoff
is directed by gutters and surface contours to the catch basins oa the site.
SpXLh a and Ground Water Flow
The regional surface water generally flows in a westerly direction towards
the Newport Bay. The direction of ground water flow in the area of the
subject site is assumed to be in a westerly direction. The direction of ground
water flow is influenced by seasonal rainfall but is generally thought to
follow surface topography. This is typically the case as ground water tends
to originate in areas of topographic highs and flow toward topographic lows
such as stream valleys, rivers and wetlands. Ground water levels and flow
00/11/98 16:45 W14 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 0 012
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 9
direction can vary depending on precipitation, ground water withdrawal and
below grade structures. The depth to the normal water table is estimated to
be approximately 10 feet.
Geology and Soils
The subject site is in an area of the Orange Basin that is Down at the
Downey Plain. The surfxc�.ial materials consist of Quaternary-age stratified
clay, sand, and silt of alluvial and coastal origin. The soil types have
variable permeability- These soil types would be expected to have low
susceptibility to ground water contamination as the result of surface
spreading of wastes, depending upon local soil conditions.
Wetlands
ECI did not observe ponded water, flowing water, saturated soils, or
hydrophytic vegetation at the subject site. Extensive identification and
delineation of wetlands, however, is beyond the scope of services for this
Phase I Environmental Assessment.
am HISTORY
The following summarizes ECI's review of readily available historical
records, photographs, and maps gathered by ECI from government agencies
and commercial enterprises regarding the subject -site history, use, and
improvements, This should not be considered a complete listing of available
information.
TnteryieWs
We were unable to locate anyone with,significant knowledge of the history
of the site improvements.
]Juilding,Denartment Records Review
i
0;/11/98 16:45 '0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC I1019
Phase I Enviroruneximl Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 10
According to City of Newport Beach Building Department records, the
building was constructed during 1973. City of Newport Beach Building
Permits were issued for improvements to the subject site in 1972. No prior
building permits were found.
Aerial PhotoUah Review
Aerial photographs were reviewed to identify past site use and areas of
environmental concern on the subject site. Ea reviewed aerial photographs
of the subject site for the years 1927, 1947, 1957, 1968 and 1977. The
aerial photographs were obtained from various sources by E Data
Reasources. Copies of aerial photographs reviewed by ECI are appended to
this Report.
SCI's review of the 1927, 1947, 1957 and 1968 aerial photographs shows
the subject site to be unimproved pastureland near a natural drainage creek.
other than the creek, no disduguisbable sand features were shown in any of
the aerial photographs. The surrounding properties are shown to have the
same appearance and to be undeveloped. FM noted no discernable changes
from 1927 to 1968 in the photographs.
ECI's review of the 1977 aerial photograph shows the subject site to be
developed with the present improvements. The adjoining properties to the
west, north and east are also shown to be developed with the present
improvements. The adjoining southward property is shown undeveloped in
its natural state.
The aerial photographs indicate that the past site use was pastureland without
improvements. No evidence of fill activity, surface scarring, staining, or
other issue of environmental concern was identified by ECI during the aerial
photograph review.
Fire insurance Map Review
Beginning in the 1860s, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company and others
prepared maps for the insurance industry which depict site improvements and
commercial activities in most metropolitan areas of the United States.
03/11/98 16:46 W14 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 0014
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page it
ECI attempted to obtain fire insurance maps, specific to the site, to review
as part of ibis Phase I Environmental Assessment. However, no maps were
found for the subject site.
T
Man and Directory Review•
Maps and directories area, r ently a source of historical information.
These documents can provide information concerning historical site and
adjacent site boundaries, ownership, improvements and use.
Eas review of the USGS Newport Beach, California 7.5 ,minute
Quadrangle map dated 1965, photorevised 1981, indicates the subject site to
be improved with the current improvements. The map also indicates the
present structures on the adjoining westward and southeastward sites. No
other structures are indicated on the subject site or on the adjacent sites.
Title Records RQYi=
A title records review, or chain-of-title, can be used to identify prior
ownership of a property and to evaluate previous activities or operations in
terms of environmental significance, In addition, significant easements,
covenants and restrictions may also be indicated in the title record.
A 50-year chain-of-title record was reviewed by ECI for the subject site.
The chain-of-title record was prepared by Los Angeles Title Services, Inc.
The chain-of-title record indicates a past ownership which is not considered
to be environmentally significant. A copy of the title report is appended to
this Report.
j�p�ent Review
Documents and reports prepared by others were reviewed'as part of this
Phase I Environmental Assessment. These include:
1) Guidance Document for An Asbestos Operations and
Maintenance Program,prepared by RMS Environmental, Inc_,
0i/11/98 16:46 W14 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 11015
Phase I Environmental Assessment- Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 12
and dated September 1992. The document indicates that the
fireproofing on the structural elements is an ACM and
precautions with work above the suspended ceilings are
recommended. Also, semiannual air sampling and testing is
recommended. The document indicates that the level of
airborne asbestos in the building is below the lowest acceptable
concentration allowed by law.
2) Air Sample Reports prepared by Associated Safety Consultants,
Inc., dated April and May 1988 and February 1989. The
Report indicates that the level of airborne asbestos in the
building is below the lowest acceptable concentration allowed
by law.
3) Air Sample Reports prepared by RMS Environmental, Inc.,
dated September 1992. The Report indicates that the level of
airborne asbestos in the building is below the lowest acceptable
concentration allowed by law.
4) Air Sample Reports prepared by Enviroturiemal Monitoring
Group, dated February 1997. The Report indicates that the
level of airborne asbestos in the building is below the lowest
acceptable concentration allowed by law.
ECI did not independently corroborate any information presented in the
reports and, thus, is not repsonsible for the accuracy or validity of the data,
information and conclusions presented in them. ECI's review represents our
assessment of the information presented and does not warrant or guarantee
the environmental condition of the property_
0a/11/98 16:46 '0714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 121016
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 13
,VXMM I r -Fb1p tlnTTlMitMAL ASSESSMENT
FIXBT uerrr r= Ruvrt?vv
The building and site improvements observed by ECI on June 19, 1997,
were reported to have been completed during 1973. remodeling of tenant
improvements and corridor finishes has reportedly occurred since then.
Remodeling activities to meet maintenance requirements and tenant needs are
ongoing. Interview remarks by Mr. Greer indicated that rcccht maintenance
has included remodeling of the corridor finishes on three floors and
sealcoating of the pavement.
During the site visit, ECI looked for chemicals, hazardous substances, or
petroleum-based fuels and lubricants stored on the subject site. ECI also
looked for shelf quantities of commonly available janitorial and cleaning
supplies in the building's service areas and tenant spaces.
SM ACT1 EMS
ECI observed the accessible exterior areas of the building and improvements,
and physically entered and observed the interior spaces and activities in the
building. Interview remarks by Mr. Greer, indicate that the building is
currently about 84% occupied.
The subject site is exclusively for office tenant use, and none of the tenants
appears to be engaged in environmentally significant activities. The tenant
list is appended to this Report.
SrTP CHEMICAL STO}?AGfi
EQ looked for chemicals or hazardous substances stored on the subject site.
Additionally, ECI observed that only small quantities of nonhazardous
chemicals used for treatment of the water in the cooling system and shelf
quantities of commonly available janitorial and cleaning supplies are stored
on the subject site.
0�/11/98 16:47 0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC Q 017
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 14
WASTE DISPOSAL-ERA=135 .
ECI identified the current waste generation and inquired about prior waste
disposal practices at the subject site. According to W. Greer and ECI
observations, only general municipal solid waste is disposed of from the
subject site. Areas of waste storage appeared to be generally well kept and
free of debris.
General municipal waste is collected, placed in a dumpster, removed from
the subject site on a periodic basis, and disposed of by South Coast Refuse
Company.
U =Q GROUND AND ABOVEGROUND STAR A T _TANKS,
Owners and operators of certain underground storage tanks (USTs) are
required to register those USTs with the state agency responsible for
administering the federally mandated UST program. A search of the list of
registered USTs in California, prepared by Environmental Data Resources,
Inc., showed that no registered USTs are located on the subject site.
ECI interviewed W. Greer regarding the presence of USTs and aboveground
storage tanks (AM) on the subject site. Mr. Greer stated that no USTs or
ASTs containing regulated or hazardous substances are located on the subject
site. ECI inquired with the Newport Beach Fire Department about USTs and
ASTs at the site. The.Fire Department has no records of USTs and ASTs
on the subject site.
ECI-interviewed Mr. Greer regarding the past use of heating fuels on the
subject site to ascertain whether USTs or ASTs may have bmn utilized oil-
site for the storage of heating fuels or oils. He stated that•tbe building has
always been heated by hot water from a natural gas boiler. ECI's
observations confirmed the nature of the current heating systems at the
subject site.
ECI visually observed the subject site for surficial evidence of USTs and
ASTs. ECI did not observe evidence of USTs or ASTs at the subject site.
Oa/11/98 16:47 0714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 1J018
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 15
POLYCHLORINATED ORINATED BIPHENYf S =Bs)
Federal regulations issued pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) require that electrical transformers must be labeled to identify their
PCB content. Electrical transformer owners are responsible for compliance-
with all applicable regulations governing electrical transformers.
ECI observed one pad-mkunted exterior electrical transformer and several
interior dry-type transformers during the site visit. The exterior electrical
transformer appeared to be in good condition, The dry-type transformers are
air cooled and do not contain any fluids. ECI did not observe any labels
indicating the PCB content on the exterior electrical transformer at the
subject site.
ECI contacted Southern California Edison Company (SCE) regarding
ownership and PCB status of the exterior electrical transformer at the subject
site. Southern California Edison Company bas confirmed that they own the
transformer and are responsible for transformer-related incidents. Mr. Chris
Cartwright of the Service Planning Department of Southern California
Edison Company indicated that the concentration of PCBs in the mineral oil
of 965ro of SCEs transformers is less than 50 parts per million(ppm). SCE
will test the oil of the transformer at the subject site for a fee to determine
the concentration of PCBs. He also indicated that SCE normally replaces
leaking transformers.
Based on utility ownership and no observed leaks of the exterior transformer,
ECI recommends no further action with regard to PCBs.
.ASBESTOS
During the site visit, ECI visually observed reasonably accessible-interior
areas of the building for the existence and condition of suspect asbestos-
containing materials (ACM). Design drawings and specifications were not
available for review. It should be noted that asbestos can onljr be identified
by specialized equipment and not by the unaided human eye,s The site visit
was not intended to be a comprehensive search for all ACM at the subject
site.
EC
I observed spray-on fireproofing on the steel structural columns, beams
0�/11/98 16:48 W14 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC �1019
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 16
and the underside of some of the steel floor deck. ECI notes that the
construction date of the building was before the date the U.S. EPA acted to
eliminate friable asbestos from building materials (1977). Based on the
construction date of 1973, the present fireproofing is suspected of containing
asbestos. No other materials were observed that are considered to be suspect
ACM.
ECI was provided copies gAir Sample Reports and a'Guidanee Document
for an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Program prepared for the
subject site. The Guidance Document indicates that the spray-on
fireproofing has been identified as an asbestos-containing material.
However, no documentation of actual sampling and testing of the
fireproofing material was available for review.
The latest air sampling reports, dated September 30, 1996, and February Z,
1997, indicate that the highest concentration of airborne asbestos fibers is
less than 0.007 f/ce. This is below the EPA's reoccupancy level of 0.01 flee
or less.
Based on these test results, references made by the Guidance Document, and
M's observations, asbestos-containing material has been identified. The
fireproofing material is not damaged and can be maintained in place with an
Asbestos Operations and MaintenA= (O & M) Program. The Guidance
Document provided states that it is not a formal 0 &M Program. An 0 &
M Program is a formal guidance manual with specific instructions on
regulatory compliance and construction methods to avoid potential exposure
to asbestos fibers. 'ECI recommends the implementation of an Asbestos
Operations and Maintenance Program.
Renovation or demolition of areas containing ACM is governed by Certain
local, state, andlor federal regulations and should not be attempted without
contacting the appropriate agency. As per OSHA regulations, untested
materials are presumed asbestos-containing (PACK until testing and
laboratory analysis confirm otherwise. Additionally, if ACM is to be
removed, a qualified, licensed asbestos abatement contractor should be
consulted.
LEAD-BASED PAINT
03/il/98 16:48 V714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC @ 020
Phase I Environmental ,Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 17
In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead
as an additive in paint. Currently, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development are proposing additional lead-based
paint regulations.
During the site visit, accessible areas were evaluated for the presence of
lead-based paint and observed for evidence of damaged and/or peeling paint.
Few of the surfaces in the building are painted. In general, the painted
surfaces appeared to be in good condition except for some minor chipped
areas at the-elevator door jambs on the fifth floor.
Considering that the building was built before 1978, it is suspected of
containing lead based paint.
ECI performed a limited number of lead-based paint tests using wet
chemistry test methods, which detect the presence of lead-based paint in
amounts above a 0.5% lead content. ECI observed limited areas in the
interior to determine the existence and condition of suspect lead-based paint
and grouped suspect lead-based paint into homogeneous areas based upon
uniform substrate, color, and texture. The test results are summarized
below:
��K,�aaf,.��� }.•.n. :&r;..iw3�
g' x > EA,7J3SF !"> ,l•..'LLs`1[A ` _..:.... ,��,q „„.Xt,.w.�w.w.vuu,:
S',(6KL k{4 T acL�JV 1.r>LYJ:.4 JlYf>�.IYJ' H M'M' ' IT .T'm Utt%y�p . }5 ,
.: ,,.w""?F�EQ 9,,tE,�. •sYPS� N... ..y^;:£:„L .�'.....•a
1 Door of exit stair W. 1 at 1st floor Good No
2 Door frame of stair no. 2 at 2nd Good No
floor
3 Stairs at stair no.2 at 5th floor Good No
4 Elevator door frame at 5th floor Good No
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
established an action level of 0.5% lead content in defusing a lead-based
paint hazard.
This limited testing program did not detect the presence of lead based paint.
03/11/98 16:49 0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC IM021
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 18
POTABLE WA ,%M Y
The subject site is serviced by a municipally operated public water system,
which is subject to the regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
This Act requires that public water supplies be tested for the presence of lead
in water. ECI contacted the local water supplier, City of Newport Beach,
regarding the results of water tests. The City reports that the lead content
of water is below the U.kEpA action level of 0,015 .milligrams per liter.
RADON
Radon gas is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless gas that is the by-
product of the decay of radioactive materials found within bedrock and soil.
Radon gas enters buildings through cracks, structural joints, and plumbing
openings in floor levels that are in direct contact with the soil. Radon gas,
when inhaled, has been found to be carcinogenic in humans. The U.S. EPA
recommended action level for radon gas is 4.0 pCi/L(picoCuiies.per liter).
Interview remarks by Mr. Greer indicate that no previous radon tests have
been performed for the building.
The California Department of Health in conjunction with the U.S. EPA has
conducted residential screening tests in Orange County. The results of that
screening indicate that Orange County is predicted to have an average indoor
radon screening level of 0.765 pC11L.
Based on the literature reviewed and considering that the building is not
permanently occupied, it is our opinion that the risk• of radon gas
accumulation is not a significant environmental concern at the subject site.
EXTERIOR SURFACE, CONDS=
ECI observed the exterior surface of the subject site for evidence of open
dumping, soil discoloration, and stressed vegetation. ECI'estimates that
approximately 98% of the subject site surface was covered by the building
and pavement. ECI,s examination of exposed soil surfaces was limited to
landscaped areas along the site boundaries and adjacent to the building'.
During the site visit, the prevailing weather at the subject site was partly
cloudy with temperatures of approximately 75° Fahrenheit. There was no
03/11/98 16:49 '0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 0022
Phase I Environmental Assessmem- Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 19
precipitation.
Interview remarks by Mr. Greer indicated that the subject site was not
previously utilized as a quarry and/or solid waste disposal facility.
Additionally, Mr. Greer stated that he has no knowledge that the subjm site
has been the location of a petroleum spill, chemical spill, fire, or other
environmental incident.
W. Greer stated that all landscape maintenance services arc performed by
outside contractors.
ECI saw no pits, ponds or lagoons at the subject site during the site visit.
No surface depressions, surface stains attributed to chronic leaks or spills,
or areas of distressed or dead vegetation were observed during the site visit.
INTERIOR SURFACE CONDITION
ECI observed the interior surfaces of the Building for evidence of unusual
conditions, and to determine the location, condition, and contents of floor
drains. ECI did not observe corrosion, oil-staining or unusual conditions
inside the building during the site visit. ECI observed that floor drains are
present, in the restrooms. According to the plans reviewed, the floor drains
are connected to the building's sanitary sewer.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW
An environmental records database search report was provided to us by
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. ("EDR")dated June 13, 1997. A copy
of EDR's report is appended. The following discussion excerpts specific
Items from the BDR report which are deserving of additional description.
The Orphan Site List(that is, sites that could not be plotted on the EDR map
as part of its search report) was also reviewed. Any significant orphan sites
are discussed in the following text:
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and i iabiliy TnformationUv m ( R . .TS)
03/11/98 16:49 W14 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 0023
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 20
Since 1982, the U.S. EPA has developed and maintained lists of
contaminated sites under the federal Superfund Program pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA). The U.S. EPA discovers these sites from citizen
reports, routine inspection of hazardous waste generators;treatment, storage
and disposal facilities, and reporting requirements.
Review of the most recer`CERCLIS list, provided by EDR, identifies no
CERCLA site within the approximate minimum search distance of one-half
mile from the subject.site.
National Priorities List (NPL)
The U.S. EPA maintains this list as a subset of CERCLIS identifying over
1,200 CERCLA sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program.
Once sites have been designated on the CERCLIS list,the U.S. EPA uses its
Hazard Ranking System to determine poten i tial rsks of those CERCI.A sites
to human health and to the environment. Only those CERCLA sites which
present the greatest risk are added to the NPL, which qualifies the sites to
receive CERCLA remedial funding.
Review of the most recent NPL list, provided by EDR, identifies no NFL
site within the approximate minimum search distance of one mile from the
subject site.
RCRA - Generators
The U.S. EPXs RCRA Program(Resource Conservation-and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6991 et seq.) identifies and tacks hazardous waste
from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The 'Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS) is a
compilation by the EPA of selective information on facilities which generate,
store, transport, treat or'dispose of bazardous waste. Inclusion of a facility
on the RCRIS database is not necessarily an indication of an environmental
problem.
Review of the most recent RCRA-Generator facility list, provided by EDR,
identifies no RCRA generator facility on the subject site, and none on
03/11/98 16:50 '0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC 0 024
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 21
adjoining properties.
RCRA -Treatment. Storage DiVQsal Faci itiea{TSD1
The U.S. EPA's RCRA Program(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6991 et seq.) identifies and tracks hazardous waste
from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act information System '(RCRIS) is a
compilation by the EPA of selective information on facilities which generate,
store, transport, treat or dispose of hazardous waste. Inclusion of a facility
on the RCRIS database is not necessarily an indication of an environmental
problem.
Review of the most recent RCRIS-TSD facility list, provided by EDR,
identifies two RCRA TSD facilities within the approximate minimum search
distance of one mile from the subject site. The listed sites are the Hughes
Aircraft Co, MSD Division at 2601 Campus Drive and Xerox Corporation
Irvine CRC at 18691 Jamboree Boulevard. They are•situated approximately
3/4-mile and 1 mile tiortheast and slightly upgradient of the subject site.,
Due to their regulated nature, these RCRA facilities are not currently
considered to be an environmental risk•to the subject site.
Fsmereency Response Notification System
The ERNS is a compilation of reported releases of hazardous substances into
the environment. The database contains information from Spill Reports
made to federal authorities, including the U;S. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard,
the National Response Center, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Review of the most recent ERNS list,provided by EDR, revealed that there
were no ERNS records found concerning the subject site.
iL nderaround Storagt Tanks W311)
Certain USTS are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6991 et seq., and must be registered with the State
of/11/98 16:50 V714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC. ICJ025
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 22
agency responsible for administering the UST program. The California
Facility Inventory Database contains, active and inactive UST locations.
Inclusion of a facility on the UST database is not necessarily•an indication
of an environmental problem.
Review of the most recent UST and CA FID lists, provided by EDR,
identifies no registered UST facilities on the subject site and one registered
UST facility on adjoining`roperrtii�es.
WlfbK<`'Sw�VhW<0.Y:K'W� =\x!xeY'; 1J xt1'/�Kk;tthG'G1"v uw •••♦eYroh«Malnswtwr�ro'*'.�, M sou�
R.ro•.�e»;aexx.PoT.t�vwwe>
^"..,",..�..«..;' ��uxr�,•w. ^r :-. �. �.» ,ux,^vwa.xa �•a1�F�4�14. �,:uu. v
_ 11 f2yy,s°]''Pi°':.5�*arw�no xi.•h�.,.'.ei.n ; ��
d Snaatr YS•tm'A•.•n , ,:4kYkk�',k'Eb�.'At air' � k_ 454^�.� Y�.7," ��
[nriH`MI�M'M'•/ �NA�`wyaM.^M`•'nnawv+..
30004229 �, RREEF Funds USA#I Yes-South No
The database indicates that the UST is active. There is a nud-rise office
building at 1301 Dove and we presume that it is owned by the RREEF
Funds. The UST is likely used for an emergency electrical power generator.
Based on the topography, the regulated nature of the UST and no leak
incidents listed, we do not consider the UST to be a significant
environmental risk at this time.
This is the current list of registered UST facilities on-the subject site or on,
adjoining properties. A discussion of leaking USTS follows in the next
Section of this Report.
Leaking Underground Stm=Tanks (L•USTS).
Certain UST9 are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act(RCRA),42 U.S.C. §6991 et seq., and must be registered'with the State
agency responsible for administering the UST program.
Review of the most recent LUST list,provided by LDR, identifies no LUST
facilities on the subject site and 21 LUST facilities within the approximate
minimum search distance of one-half mile from the subject site. The LUST
sites within 1!4-mile of the subject site are indicated in the following table:
OS/11/88 16:51 '0714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• Q1026
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft 7uly 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 23
�� n •µ•>b �M Fi:Y •R :�.�`I�IZfCR .S'�&5"^'^uin�lnw:�twA4..�`%YGV�
1 my H • ^ � Yy., ]. 1 '^ 1�{.��1 EIGawLeNu^Wp Mr.. �[.aT 1p�i
�• aCi��` Q.A` ,�i i �63C� KN�,:^� •ys�o"`�abJ��N��Mi
........... C`.. .. .....r• M k • 0 GYni W.MM/ue%AW.S'. .n
083002788T westerly Place 3/8-mlle northeast Signed ofP: remedial
and cross gradient action completed or
deemed unnecessary
083001459T Beacon Bay Car wash 3/8-mile south and Gasoline overfill and
cross gradient groundwater
affected. Remedial
investigation in
Progress.
Each of the listed LUST facilities were evaluated based on status of the
incident, area geology, ground water flow direction and separation distances.
The database indicates that remedial action is in progress or has been
completed at 11 of these listed sites. Based on this evaluation, it is ECI's
opinion that the listed LUST facilities do not represent an environmental
risk to the subject site.
Cal-Sites (AMA
The Annual Work Plan (AWP) contains a listing of all verified hazardous
waste sites that are or will be targeted for abatement by the California
Environmental Protection Agency under the Hazardous Substance Cleanup
Bond Act of 1984(California Health and Safety Code Section 25356)and the
Hazardous Substances Account(HSA)_
Hazardou$ waste sites may be discovered by the department directly or be
referred to the department for confirmation and follow-up action by another
government agency, such as a local health department, a California Regional
Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB), a responsible party or a concerned
citizen. New sites are added to this database as they are verified and the
"Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation and Hazard Ranking System"
processes are completed.
Review of the latest Cal-Sites AWP listing, provided by EDR, identifies no
AWP sites within the approximate minm�nimnm search distance of one mile
from the subject-site.
03/11/98 16:51 '2714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 0 027
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft ,July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 24
Cat Sites-ASPIS
Developed under Section 25359.6 of the California Health and Safety Code,
the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
maintains a listing of potential and known hazardous waste sites under the
Department of Toxic Substances Control Program(TSCP). The RWQCTis,
Department of Fish and Game and other state environmental regulatory
agencies' TSCP staffs also.,review historical land use data sources to generate
lists of potentially contaminated sites.
Cal-Sites-ASPIS combines the former ASPIS (Abandoned' Sites Program
Information System) and BEP (Bond Expenditure Plan or State Superfund
List)hazardous waste site databases. Information concerning most of these
sites should be considered preliminary although most confirmed sites from
Us database are merged into the AWP database once they have been hazard
ranked. Many of these sites are currently identified as requiriug no further
action (NFA) based on a TSCP determination that no release had occurred
or, if a release may have occurred, it did not represent a significant threat to
the public or the environment.
Review of the latest ASPIS listing, provided by EDR, identi.fes one ASPIS
site within the approximate minimum search distance of one mile from the
subject site. The listed Cal-Site is Zeus Manufacturing, situated about one
mile west of the subject site, at 2970 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa.
Information about the listed site notes that DTSC action or oversite activity
is not required. Due to the distance from the subject site, the type of soils
in the area, and the assumed direction of ground water flow, the listed site
is not considered to be an environmental risk to the subject site.
Califmmda Hazardous Material Incident Reporting_System Lf iB MIRSI
'ibe California Office of Emergency Services database contains reported
information on incidents involving accidental releases or spills of hazardous
materials.
Review of the latest CHMIRS listing, provided by EDR, indicated that the
subject site is not identified.
03/11/98 16:52 V714 757 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• IM028
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 25
Ha2Ud=Waste and &bstancec Sites List fCORTM
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) publishes a
listing of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites throughout the State
of California- Under California Government Code Section 65962.5, these
sites are submitted to the Cal-EPA by the State Department of Health
Services, State Water Resources Control Board, the Integrated Waste
Management Board and flke Department of Toxic Substances Control.
The database identifies public•dunking water wells with detectable levels of
contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites
with known toxic.material identified through the abandoned site assessment
program, sites with underground storage tanks (USTs)having a reportable
release and all solid waste disposal facilities from Which thzre is a known
migration.
Review of the latest listing of CORTESE sites, provided by EDR, identifies
six CORTESE sites within the approximate minimum search distance of one-
half mile from the subject site. Each of these facilities are also listed on the
LUST database discussed previously.
g Fsl u.t3a„ s„
$•P"4c$^�• a fA
...... `•
• >�Ywea..x.arxn �..M
�'zav�•tl�•••w.n z.mxnxenw •........
�
�.fe:e.,'t� "' �'�` '.tom•.'.•...: 'Y �+Fd 0..6•'•.wxa y� •i.;F�'xe
BC�f�'�Q r'!r'.;,•.�r°M�u� " ,s .;` wrw �'n :.>•°c''.� >kw..r. Nu $ �,
083001459T Beacon Bay Car Wash w 3/16-mile northwest Ground water
and cross gt'adntet contamiaatloa by
gasoline. Remedial
investigation in
progress.
083001619T Knoll Company KCN-10 >1/4-mile southeast; Soil contamination
Bast cross gradinet only. Signed off
083000609T Jim Selmons Mercedes 1/2-mile south;cross Soil contamination
gradinet only. signed off
30-001063 Beach Imports 3/8-mile southeast; None provided
cross-gradient
083000403T Texaco Service Station 3/8-mile north;up Remediadon in
gradient progress; removal o
floating frcc
hydrocarbon product
30-OW540 Newport Nissan 3/8-mile sontheast; None provided
cross gradient
Oa/il/98 16:53 '0714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• IM029
Phase I Environmental Assessment- Draft, July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Bn+lcting Page 26
Remediation is noted to have been completed at two of the•listed CORTESE
sites These sites are not considered to be an environmental risk to the
subject site based on the area's geology, separation distance, and the status
of remedial action.
NotifX 65
California's Proposition 65 requires notifications be made to the California
Water Resources Control Board about any release which could have an
adverse impact on drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential
health risk. The notification is required under Proposition 65 (the public's
right-to-know).
Review of the latest Notify 65 list, provided by EDR, does not identify any
Notify 65 sites within the approximate minimum search distance of one mile
from the subject site.
Toxic Pits
The Toxic Pits database identifes sites that are suspected of containing
hazardous substances where cleanup has not been completed. The
information is supplied by the California Water Resources Control Board.
Review of the latest Toxic Pits list, provided by EDR, identifies no Toxic
Pits sites within the approximate minimum search distance of one mile from
the subject site.
Solid Waste information&9
The California integrated waste Management Board maintains an inventory
list of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities
and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid waste Management and Resource
Recovery Act of 1972, California Government Code Section.2.66790(b).
Generally, the California Wegrated waste Management Board learns of
locations of disposal facilities through permit applications•and from local
enforcement agencies. Since 1977, the SWIS has grown to track
approximately 1,000 solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations in the
03/11/98 16:53 '0714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• IM030
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 27
State of California.
Review of the latest SWIS listing, provided by EDR, identifies no SWIS
facilities within the approximate minimum search distance of one-half mile
from the subject site.
Hazardous Waste information Sy,tree (ff A7NF't'1
The California Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control
Division, has developed and maintained lists of hazardous waste generators
and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities in the State of
California, pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Control Law(California Health
and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.) and the Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 1976 (California Health and Safety Code Section
25179.1 et seq.). Inclusion of a facility in the HAZNET list is not
necessarily an indication of an environmental problem.
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code requires all counties to
prepare and submit hazardous waste management plans. To assist the
counties, the Toxic Substances Control Division maintains lists containing
hazardous waste generation and disposal data within each county. This
information has been assembled by the Toxic Substances Control Division
from manifest reports required from hazardous waste generators. This
database currently lists over 20,000 facilities in the.State of California.
Review of the latest HAZNET list, provided by EDR, identifies no
IIAZNET facility on the subject site, and seven HAZNET facilities within
the approximate minimum search distance of one-quarter mile from the-
subject site. Due to their regulated nature, these HAZNET facilities are not
currently considered to be an environmental risk to the subject site.
Maiglfacfired Gas Plants_(90Z
Manufacturcd Gas Plants produced combustible gas for urban use prior to the -
widespread use and pipeline distribution of natural gas in the 1950s. The
main fuels used in production of this gas were coke, coal and oil; the by-
products of this manufacturing process include a variety of tars, sludges and
other chemicals.
03/11/98 16:53 $714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• IM031
Phase I Environmental Assessment -Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 28
These sites tend to have subsurface contamination due to the common
practice of disposing of the waste products on site. The EDR report
identified no MGP sites within the approximate minimum search,distance of
one mile from the subject site.
Orohan Sites
In addition to the plotted sites in the EDR report, there may also be a list of
unmapped sites, lmown as Orphans. These are sites that could not be
accurately plotted_ The Orphan Sites list was reviewed and no sites were
identified that are considered to be environmentally significant to the subject
site.
03/11/98 16:54 $714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 0032
iI •.
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 29
SECTION`III- CONCLUSIONS AND REC03 M XD'ATI M
CONCj FUSIONS
ECI has performed a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment following the
guidelines of ASTM Designation E 1527-97. Based on site observations,
review of available .documents and the database records search, and
interviews, ECI concludes that asbestos-containing fireproofing material-
exists at the subject site and its condition is monitored by periodic air
monitoring for airborne asbestos fibers. The most recent air monitoring
sampling and testing results indicate that the level of airborne asbestos fibers
is below the level established by the EPA as safe for reoccupancy after an
abatement process.
KE-CQ2fldMMA31=
ECI recommends that an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Program be implemented and that periodic air monitoring continue.
03/11/88 16:54 $714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• IM033
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 30
crrr�pN VIII ,$'CORDS REVIER'ED
For this Report the following government database records were reviewed:
pat2bage 'Igoe of Records BM=
CERCLIS Federal Superfund sites U.S. EPA
NPL National•Priority Superfund Sites U.S. EPA
RCRA Hazardous waste generators, U.S. EPA
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities
ERNS Iazardous spills or releases U.S. EPA, Coast
Guard, DOT, Nat'l
Response,Center
UST Underground storage tanks State of California
LUST Leaking underground storage State of California
tanks
SWF/LS Solid waste landfills State of California
AWP Known hazardous waste sites California EPA
ASPIS Known or potential hazardous California Dept. Of
waste sites Toxic Substance
Control
CHMIRS CA hazardous material incidents California Office of
Emergency Services
CORTESE Identified hazardous waste sites California EPA
NOTIFY 65 Proposition 65 notifications California Water
Resources Control
Board
TOXIC PITS Toxic pits cleanup sites California Water
Resources Control
Board
SWIS Solid waste facilities California Integrated
Waste Mgmt. Board
03/11/98 16:54 V714 0901 MERIDIAN PACIFIC• 1@034
Phase I Environmental Assessment-Draft July 14, 1997
1401 Dove Street Office Building Page 31
HAZNET Hazardous waste sites California-EPA
MGP Manufactured Gas Plants EDR
In addition, ECI reviewed aerial photographs, topographic maps, geologic
maps, soil survey maps and other documents including:
USGS Topographic Map, Newport Beach, California, Quadrangle (1965,
photorevised 1981)
Aerial Photography dated 1927, 1947, 1957, 1968 and 1977
Geologic Map of California
RCTION xx 1 MVIEwS
Name h ne
Counter Staff, City of Newport Beach Building and
Engineering Departments (714) 640-3225
Mr, Marc Meyers, City of Newport Beach
Planning Department (714) 644-3210
Counter Staff, City of Newport Beach
Fire Department (714) 644-3104
Mr. Chris Cartwright
Southern California Edison Company (714) 895-0246
1401 DOVE STREET
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE & GENERAL PLAN
Traffic Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
2020 North Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705-7827
(714) 667-0496
I
f -
i
September 3, 1998
f'
L
I '
1401 DOVE STREET TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE & GENERAL PLAN
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed office development at 1401 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach consists
of 26,122 square feet of general office space. The project site is located on Dove Street between Birch
Street and Newport Place DriveNon Karman Avenue. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project,
and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided on
Dove Street.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the Newport
Beach Traffic Analysis Model(NBTAM). These rates were derived from Institute of Transportation
Engineers trip rates for 100,000 square foot office buildings. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation
for the proposed project.
As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 366 trips daily, of which 49 will be
generated during the AM peak hour and 48 will be generated during the PM peak hour. The trip
generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the AM and PM peak periods. The
peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an estimated factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the
usual one-hour peak period.
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the
vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the
location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. An estimated
15 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along MacArthur Boulevard, 25 percent is
assumed to travel north and 10 percent to travel south along Jamboree Road, 15 percent is assumed
to travel south on MacArthur Boulevard or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor(SR-73),
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057mwpd
G
6'O A
A �
N
G G^ 2
n ,0
G
H �
a
g
J
GP z
N
PROJECT
SITE
S2 O�
)P
N
9,P�Sl
O!
a
3
O
c
o
U Figure 1
PROJECT LOCATION
�'n
U V '
o a
C.O
C)g
n
U La
n fB!
0
6
6rbn^4 G— T-
o �
I �
I �
e _
1
0
RZINUILn
c
JG
Figure 2
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
�'r
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
—AM PEAK HOUR— --PM PEAK HOUR—
LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT
TRIP RATES
Office TSF 1.69 .21 1.90 32 1.55 1.87 14.03
TRIP GENERATION
Office 26.1 TSF 44 5 49 8 40 48 366
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 4 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
"' and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057tawpd
G
6_O
A d
� O
15%
VJ
b rt
G G
� ro
G
H
0
a 25%
s
R
Q A
30% GPI z
u
PROJI C I
5%
9R�S
N
6,Q�Slo
9
c
15%
10%
o�
Figure 3
d R PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
�n
five percent is assumed to travel south on Irvine Boulevard,and 30 percent is assumed to travel west
on SR-73. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate AM and PM peak hour project trips, respectively.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The City of Newport Beach identified nine intersections for analysis to determine the impact
of the proposed office development. These intersections are:
Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive &Bristol Street
Campus Drive&Bristol Street N
Campus Drive&Dove Street
MacArthur Boulevard &Campus Drive
MacArthur Boulevard &Birch Street
Jamboree Road&Bristol Street
Jamboree Road&Bristol Street N
MacArthur Boulevard&Jamboree Road
Jamboree Road&Birch Street
The 1997 peak 2.5 hour volumes for the study intersections were provided by City staff. An
expected completion date of 1999 was assumed. The analysis year,2000,is one year after the project
is completed. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to volumes along MacArthur
Boulevard,Jamboree Road, and Irvine Avenue.
The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved pro
ijects, also provided by City staff,were added
to the peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes
prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects is given in Table 2.
One percent of the projected 2.5 hour volumes of each approach of each intersection was
compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this
comparison is shown in Table 3.
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057ta.wpd
6 O
o `LS' ono L 0
r 0
0 -------A
qB O 0 a°2
s 11 r 0
> � Y1 0
0 1p � O 000
Q �o
°
111 �� O
00 1 O^�/r
141.
� O
y
` O
O
°
o�
N$, Figure 4
d PROJECT-GENERATED
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
b A
6 0
�g
0
0—i.omo o.-0 0 02
0
° h�0
Oo R O
s 1h 9 Zo sp
a
°ry GPI ry c
p 1 ��c o Z� ♦h o
w I�
O��
� p
g p0`�
d^
o �O
c
o ti
J
$• Figure 5
PROJECT-GENERATED
'v PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Table 2
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECT SUMMARY PERCENT COMPLETED
Newport Village 0%Occupancy
Gvie Plain 0%Occupancy
Corporate Plaza&West 13%Occupancy
Hoag Hospital Extension 2%Occupancy
Interpretive Center 0%Occupancy
Hoag Hospital Expansion 0%Occupancy
Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0%Occupancy
Fashion Island Expansion 2%Occupancy
Fletcher Jones Mercedes 0%Occupancy
Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0%Occupancy
Corona Del Mar Plaza 0%Occupancy
Ford Redevelopment 0%Occupancy
TLA Drive thru Restaurant 0%Occupancy
CIOSA-Irvine Projed 0%Occupancy
Newport Dunes 0'7o Occupancy
City of Irvine Development 0%Occupancy
f
L� 1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 9 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057tawpd
t
Table 3
SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS
AM PROJECT PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN I%OF2000
INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUMES
1. Irvine/Campus&Bristol 4 0 26 0 Yes
2. Campus&Bristol N 30 2 0 0 Yes
3. Campus&Dove 30 0 0 2 Yes
4. MacArthur&Campus 2 14 0 0 Yes
S. MacArthur&Birch 0 12 2 0 Yes
6. Jamboree&Bristol 8 2 0 0 Yes
7. Jamboree&Bristol N 8 2 0 0 Yes
8. MacArthur&Jamboree 14 6 8 22 Yes
9. Jamboree&Birch 2 22 0 0 Yes
PM PROJECT PEAK 25 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN I%OF2000
INTERSECI7ON NB SB EB WB PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES
1. Irvine/Campus&Bristol 0 4 4 0 Yes
2. Campus&Bristol N 4 10 0 18 Yes
3. Campus&Dove 4 0 0 10 No
4. MacArthur&Campus 12 2 0 0 Yes
5. MacArthur&Birch 0 2 12 0 Yes
6. Jamboree&Bristol 2 8 0 0 Yes
7. Jamboree&Bristol N 2 8 0 0 Yes
8. MacArthur&Jamboree 2 40 2 4 Yes
9. Jamboree&Birch 20 4 0 0 Yes
1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 10 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057ta wpd
If one percent of the 2000 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak
2.5 hour project volumes, no further analysis were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes were
higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any intersection,
the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method.
Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5 hour
volumes resulted in one intersection failing the one percent test and requiring additional analysis. The
intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street does not pass the one percent test. The one percent
analysis sheets are included in the appendix.
An ICU analysis was performed for the intersection which failed the one percent test. Existing
lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was
utilized. The following table summarizes the existing,background and background-plus-project ICU
values for Campus Drive and Dove Street.
r 1401 DOVE SrREETTPO-ICU ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND+
EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT
INTERSEMON AM PM AM PM AM PM
3. Campus&Dove .71 .90 .71 .90 .72 .90
•acecds level of service"D"
Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A
.61- .70 B
.71- .80 C
.81-.90 D
.91-1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
As this table indicates,the project will have no marginal impact on the intersection of Campus
Drive and Dove Street.
I
t
Lw 1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 11 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057ta.wpd
I
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed office building would generate 50 trips during the AM peak hour and 50 trips
during the PM peak hour. Nine intersections in the vicinity were checked to determine the marginal
impact of project traffic on the street system. One of the nine intersections did not pass the one
percent analysis. An ICU analysis was performed on the intersection. The intersection passes the
ICU analysis. The proposed project has no marginal impact on the study intersections, and no
intersection improvements are required.
GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS
The proposed office development requires a General Plan Traffic Study to determine the
project's impact on the buildout circulation system. Future volume projections were obtained from
the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model(NBTAM). NBTAM was developed to support the traffic
analysis portion of the City's General Plan. Details of the traffic model can be found in the reference
at the end of this report.
Buildout-with-project ICU values are compared with no-project ICU values in Table 4. These
ICU values are based on buildout lane configurations. As this table indicates, five intersections will
operate at LOS"F" under buildout conditions. Dove Street,being a local street, is not included in
the NBTAM network;therefore, the intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street is not included
in the buildout year ICU summary.
The proposed project causes a one percent increase in the PM peak hour ICU value at the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road,which operates at LOS"F"under buildout
conditions. The City is investigating additional improvements at this intersection, including the
addition of a northbound free right-turn lane. A northbound free right-turn lane will mitigate the
project's impacts at this location and will improve the intersection to LOS"E". The project will be
responsible for its fair share of the cost of the northbound free right-turn lane.
i
t . 1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 12 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analy 017057mwpd
Table 4
BUILDOUTICU SUMMARY
BUILDOUT BUILDOUT
NO-PROJECT WIPROJECT
INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM
1. Irvine/Campus&Bristol .83 .83 .83 .83
2. Campus&Bristol N .74 1:4 .75 1.24
4. MacArthur&Campus .69 1.11 .69 1.11
S. MacArthur&Birch .56 .84 .56 .84
6. Jamboree&Bristol .72 .87 .72 .87
7. Jamboree&Bristol N 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02
8. MacArlhur&Jamboree .89 I.11 .89 1.12
9. Jamboree&Birch .80 1.07 .80 1.07
Level of service ranges:.00-.60 A
.61-.70 B
.71-.80 C
.81-.90 D
.91-1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
_.. 1401 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordimnce 13 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057tawpd
REFERENCES:
1. "Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM),Traffic Model Data,"Austin-Foust
Associates,Inc. September 1996.
f
1401 Dave Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance 14 Austin-Foust Associates,Ina
and General Plan Traffic Analysis 017057ta wpd
r
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 1.Imne/Campus&Bristol
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997
Peak 21/2Hour Approved
Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 2112 Hour Growth Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 3501 105 48 3654 37 4
Soulhbound 1145 0 13 1158 12 0
Eastbound 7210 0 200 7410 74 26
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 2624 79 30 2733 27 0
Southbound 3286 0 19 3305 33 4
Eastbound 5216 0 86 5302 53 4
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
==> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 1401 Dove St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000
t '
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 2.Campus&Bristol N
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997
Peak 212 Hour Approved
Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 212 Hour Growth Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 212 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 5566 0 32 5598 56 30
Southbound 1218 0 24 1242 12 2
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 3385 0 131 3516 36 0
Project AM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 3681 0 0 3681 37 4
Southbound 3941 0 112 4053 41 10
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 6586 0 189 6775 68 18
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected PM Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 1401 Dove St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000
1%Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: 3.Campus&Dove
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1997
Peak 21/2 Hour Approved
Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project
Approach Peak 21/2 Hour Growth Peak 2112 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
AM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 4050 0 0 4050 41 30
Southbound 1848 0 0 1848 18 0
Eastbound 8 0 0 8 0 0
Westbound 324 0 0 324 3 2
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected AM Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume,
Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected AM Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysis is required.
PM PEAK PERIOD
Northbound 2091 0 0 2091 21 4
Southbound 6949 0 0 6949 69 0
Eastbound 35 0 0 35 0 0
Westbound 758 0 0 758 8 10
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected PM Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected PM Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)Analysts is required.
r 'PROJECT. 1401 Dove St. FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2000
3. Campus & Dove
Existing Background
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01* NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .w
NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18 NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18
NOR 0 0 315 83 NOR 0 0 315 83
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24 ( SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64* SOT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
SBR 0 0 6 7 SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00 EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EST 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01 EST 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7 EBR 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 40 251 ( WBL 0 0 40 251
WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25* WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
W8R 0 0 93 149 i i WBR 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90
Background + Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .44* 793 .18
NBR 0 0 330 85
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EST 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 41 256
W8T 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90
1. Irvine/Campus 8 Bristol
Buildout - No Project ( Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK MOIR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL VIC
NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 5 8000 1618 .24* 1370 .21 NBT 5 8000 1620 .24* 1370 .21
NBR 0 0 330 590 .37 NBR 0 0 330 590 .37
SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14 SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14
SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2208 .46* SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2210 .46*
SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0
EBL 1.5 837 {.48}* 358 .22 1 EBL 1.5 850 {.48}* 360 .23
EBT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32* EBT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32*
EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18 EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18
WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05*
�- TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83
' 2. Campus 6 Bristol N
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOLR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29* NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29*
NBT 3 4800 1985 .41* 838 .17 NOT 3 4800 2000 .42* 840 .13
NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0, 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1978 .31* SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1980 .31*
SBR 2 3200 649 .20 1147 .36 SBR 2 3200 650 .20 1150 .36
EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0
WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29 WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29
WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3711 .59* WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3720 .53*
WBR 0 0 120 50 WBR 0 10 120 50
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05*
i
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 1.24 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 1.24
B. MacArthur 8 Jamboree
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13* NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NOT 3 4800 1683 .35* 749 .16 NOT 3 4800 1690 .35* 750 .16
NOR 1 1600 510 .32 630 .39 NOR 1 1600 510 .32 630 .39
SBL 1 1600 99 .06* 310 .19 SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SBT 3 4800 519 .11 1624 .34* SOT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34*
SBR f 79 566 SBR f 80 570
' EBL 2 3200 886 .28* 599 .19* EBL 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19*
EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13 EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR f 520 240 EBR f 520 240
W8L 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19 W8L 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34* WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34*
WBR f 449 38 WBR f 460 40
Right Turn Adjustment NOR .11* Right Turn Adjustment NOR .12*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.12
Buildout with Project with improvements
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NOT 3 4800 1690 .35* 750 .16
NOR f 510 630
SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SOT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34*
SBR f BO 570
EBL 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19*
EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR f 520 240
WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34*
WBR f 460 40
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 1.00
i .
r
f
0
9. Jamboree 6 Birch
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11* NBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11*
NBT 3 4800 1519 .37 1710 .37 NBT 3 4800 1520 .38 1720 .37
NBR 0 0 280 60 NBR 0 0 280 60
SBL 1 1600 40 .03 10 .01 SBL 1 1600 40 .03 10 .01
SBT 3 4800 909 .19* 2238 .47* SBT 3 4800 920 .19* 2240 .47*
SBR f 840 80 SBR f 840 80
EBL 1.5 90 {,05}* 560 {.19}* 1 1, EBL 1.5 90 {.05}* 560 {,19}*
EBT 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19 EBT 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19
EBR f 60 530 EBR f 60 530
WBL 0 0 80 210 WBL 0 0 80 210
WBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30* WBT 1 1600 60 .18* .140 .30*
WBR 0 0 140 130 W8R 0 0 140 130
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07
3. Campus 8 Dove
Existing Background
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOLR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .Oi* NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18 NBT 3 4800 1761 .43* 793 .18
NOR 0 0 315 83 NBR 0 0 315 83
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24 SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64* SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .E4*
SBR 0 0 6 7 SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .DO ESL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01 EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
EBR 0 0 1 7 EBR 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 40 251 WBL 0 0 40 251
WOT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25* WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
WBR 0 0 93 149 WBR 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .90
Background + Protect
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 16 .01 22 .01*
NBT 3 4800 1761 .44* 793 .18
NBR 0 0 328 85
SBL 1 1600 298 .19* 376 .24
SBT 3 4800 597 .13 3060 .64*
SBR 0 0 6 7
EBL 1 1600 0 .00 3 .00
EBT 1 1600 0 .00 3 .01
E8R 0 0 1 7
WBL 0 0 41 256
WBT 1 1600 5 .09* 2 .25*
W8R 0 0 93 149
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90
1. Irvine/Campus & Bristol
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 5 8000 1618 .24* 1370 .21 NBT 5 8000 1620 .24* 1370 .21
NBR 0 0 330 590 .37 NBR 0 0 330 590 .37
SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14 SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14
SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2208 .46* SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2210 .46*
SBR 0 0 0 0 S8R 0 0 0 0
EBL 1.5 839 {.48}* 358 .22 EBL 1.5 850 {.48}* 360 .23
EBT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32* EBT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 1530 .32*
EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18 EBR 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18
WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .83
2. Campus & Bristol N
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29* NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29*
NBT 3 4800 1987 .41* 838 .17 NOT 3 4800 2000 .42* 840 .18
NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1978 .31* SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1980 .31*
SBR 2 3200 649 .20 1147 .36 SBR 2 3200 650 .20 1150 .36
EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0
W8L 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29 WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29
WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3711 .59* WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3720 .59*
WBR 0 0 120 50 WBR 0 0 120 50
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .05*
` TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 1.24 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 1.24
i
4. MacArthur & Campus
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 140 .09* 460 .29* NBL 1 1600 140 .09* 460 .29*
NBT 4 6400 979 .15 1334 .21 NBT 4 6400 980 .15 1340 .21
NBR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06 i i NBR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06
SBL 1 1600 110 .07 210 .13 SBL 1 1600 110 .07 210 .13
SBT 4 6400 1863 .29* 929 .15* SBT 4 6400 1870 .29* 930 .15*
SBR 1 1600 400 .25 730 .46 SBR 1 1600 400 .25 730 .46
EBL 2 3200 510 .16* 60 .02* EBL 2 3200 510 .16* 60 .02*
EBT 3 4800 770 .16 680 .16 EBT 3 4800 770 .16 680 .16
EBR 0 0 10 70 EBR 0 0 10 70
WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04 WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04
WBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1640 .34* WBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1640 .34*
WBR f 110 150 WBR f 110 150
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .31* Right Turn Adjustment SBR .W
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 1.11
5. MacArthur & Birch
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 120 .08 220 .14 NBL 1 1600 120 .08 220 .14
NBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1560 .33* NBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1560 .33*
NBR f 220 80 NBR f 220 80
SBL 1 1600 300 .19* 130 .08* SBL 1 1600 300 .19* 130 .08*
SBT 4 6400 936 .20 729 .15 SBT 4 6400 940 .20 730 .15
SBR 0 0 418 .26 220 SBR 0 0 420 .26 220
EBL 1 1600 129 .08 234 .15* EBL 1 1600 130 .08 240 .15*
EBT 2 3200 540 .20* 500 .17 EBT 2 3200 540 .20* 500 .17
EBR 0 0 110 50 EBR 0 0 110 50
WBL 1 1600 30 .02* 150 .09 WBL 1 1600 30 .02* 150 .09
WBT 2 3200 320 .10 910 .28* WBT 2 3200 320 .10 910 .28*
WBR f 50 210 WBR f 50 210
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84
6. Jamboree & Bristol
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
_ J AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C J LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0 J NBL 0 0 0 0
J NBT 5 8000 2326 .29* 1899 .24 J NBT 5 8000 2330 .W 1900 .24
NBR 0 0 20 10 NBR 0 0 20 10
J SBL 0 0 0 0 J J SBL 0 0 0 0
J SBT 3 4800 479 .10 1866 .39* SBT 3 4800 480 .10 1870 .39* J
SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0
J EBL 1.5 1370 .43* 740 {.42}* J EBL 1.5 1370 .43* 740 {.42}* J
EBT 1.5 4800 350 .22 1260 .42 EBT 1.5 4800 350 .22 1260 .42
' EBR 2 3200 840 .25 1540 .48 EBR 2 3200 840 .26 1540 .48
J J J
WBL 0 0 0 0 J W8L 0 0 0 0 J
WBT 0 0 0 0 J WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 J J WBR 0 0 0 0
J � J
Right Turn Adjustment EBR .06* Right Turn Adjustment EBR .06*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .87
7. Jamboree & Bristol N
Buildout - No Project J J Buildout with Project J
J � J
J AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR J AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C J LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
J NBL 2 3200 1230 .38 1470 .46* J NBL 2 3200 1230 .38 1470 .46*
NBT 3 4800 2076 .49* 1239 .26 NBT 3 4800 2080 .49* 1240 .26
NBR 0 0 260 10 J J NBR 0 0 260 10 J
SBL 0 0 0 0 J SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 4 6400 449 .09 1866 .38* J J SBT 4 6400 450 .09 1870 .38*
SBR 0 0 310 .19 570 SBR 0 0 310 .19 570
J EBL 0 0 0 0 J EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 J EBT 0 0 0 0 J
i ' EBR 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0
J � J
J WBL 0 0 0 0 J J WBL 0 0 0 0 J
WBT 2 3200 910 .28* 570 .18* WBT 2 3200 910 .28* 570 .18*
WBR 1 1600 700 .44 210 .13 WBR 1 1600 700 .44 210 .13 J
J Right Turn Adjustment Multi .24* J Right Turn Adjustment Multi .24*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.02 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.02
8. MacArthur & Jamboree
Buildout - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13* NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13*
NBT 3 4800 1683 .46* 749 .23 NBT 3 4800 1690 .46* 750 .23
NBR 0 0 510 630 .39 i i NBR 0 0 510 630 .39
SBL 1 1600 99 .06* 310 .19 SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20
SBT 3 4800 519 .11 1624 .34* SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34*
SBR f 79 566 i i SBR f 80 570
EBL 2 3200 886 .28* 599 .19* EBL 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19*
EST 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13 EST 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13
EBR f 520 240 i i EBR f 520 240
WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19 WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19
WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34* WBT 3 4800 420 .09* 1620 .34*
WBR f 449 38 WBR f 460 40
Right Turn Adjustment NBR .11* Right Turn Adjustment NBR .12
*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .89 1.11 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .89 1.12
9. Jamboree & Birch
-------------
Buildcut - No Project Buildout with Project
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11* NBL 1 1600 610 .38* 170 .11*
NBT 3 4800 1519 .37 1710 .37 NBT 3 4800 1520 .38 1720 .37
NBR 0 0 280 60 NBR 0 0 280 50
S8L 1 1600 40 .03 10 .01 SBL 1 1600 40 .03 30 .01
SBT 3 4800 909 .19* 2238 .47* SBT 3 4800 920 .19* 2240 .47*
SBR f 840 80 SBR f 840 80
EBL 1.5 90 {,05}* 560 {.19}* EBL 1.5 90 {.05}* 560 {.19}*
EBT 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19 EBT 0.5 3200 70 .05 60 .19
EBR f 60 530 EBR f 60 530
WBL 0 0 80 210 W8L 0 0 80 210
WBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30* WBT 1 1600 60 .18* 140 .30*
WBR 0 0 140 130 WBR 0 0 140 130
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.07