Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR NEWPORT PLACE TOWERlill 111111111111111111111111111111111 lill *NEW FILE* EIR NWPRT PL TOWER I I 1 1 1 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER SCH #85061914 j CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 1 Contact: Patricia L. Temple 714/644-3225 IApril 1987 I L" 1 a TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT NO. 1, DRAFT EIR ATTACHMENT NO. 2, DRAFT EIR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS PLANNINC PLANNINC DRAFT EP TRAFFIC 11 r r I I f I �I E1 I I I I I I I 11 It CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: �1 Office of Planning and Research U 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk QPublic Services Division P.O. Box 838 FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Newport R-7ace Tower PROJECT LOCATION: 4141 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of an Amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community and a Traffic Study, to allow the construction of a 209,000 sq.ft. office and retail building with related parking. CONTACT PERSON: Patricia L..Temple TELEPHONE NO. 714-644-3225 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 85661914 This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determination's regarding the above described project: 1. The project has been x approved,_disapproved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. The project x will, will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. n An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to �= the provisions of CEQA. _ QA Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. 4. Mitigation measures x were, were not made a condition of approval of this project. 5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations x was, was not adopted for this project. 6. The Final Environmental Document and the record of the project approval may be examined at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915,(714)644/3225. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Patricia L. Temple ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR DATE:March 10, 1987 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach p I I II I II I I it I IT It I II IS U RESOLUTION NO. 87-29 '1 h;rfi13' ..� 1987 s A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC CERTIFYING•AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWPORT PLACE TOWER PROJECT AND, IN APPROVING SAID PROJECT, MAKE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided environmental impact assessment for the Zoning Amendment and Traffic Study for the Newport Place Tower Project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was reviewed by the Quality of Life Advisory Committee (QLAC); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public and QLAC during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through Response to Comments (Attachments No. 1 and 2 to the DEIR) and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15146(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed amendment, and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and It WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental doeuftata- tion prepared to evaluate the proposed project, including all elements of the Final EIR and the recommendation of the planning Commission; WHEREAS, all measures necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the project have been incorporated into the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVEb by the City Countil of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of t Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considera- tions is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project end that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. , 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. S. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorpotated into the project were rejected as .infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. - 2 - 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. S. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the be Further, the City attainment of project objectives and might more costly. Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the the Draft EIR and reasonable were preparation of all alternatives consid- ered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and ,that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the I� Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those scontained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. ' 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Newport Place Tower Project, the Planning Commission the and environ- mental documents evaluated a range of alternatives and the project is included within that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby certify the Final EIR for the Newport Place Tower Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed project and fully I mom n complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Pinal EIR is Composed of the following elements: a) volume I - Draft EIR and Technical Appendices b) Attachments 1 and 2, including comments, responses and additional information c) Planning Commission Staff Reports d) Planning. Commission Minutes e) City Council Staff Reports f) City Council Minutes g) City Council Resolutions h) Commehts and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through g) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Departments City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658-8915, (714) 644-3225. ADOPTED THIS ATTEST: 45 CITY CLERK PLT/kk CC20 9th day of March , 1987. - 4 - CEOA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AMENDMENT NO. 638 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NEWPORT PLACE TOWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT WITH MODIFICA- TIONS AND A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES SITE 5, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considera- tions make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of a request to increase future development rights in Professional and Business Offices Site 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community (Amendment No. 638). The project includes the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and approval of an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations and Planned Community - Development Plan, a Modification regarding the number and configuration of parking, and a Traffic Study. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunc- tion with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the ETR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: Ultimate development of the project will result in certain significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment, as indicated below and in the Final EIR. With respect to those impacts, the City Council of Newport Beach makes the findings as stated on the following pages. I 2 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT NOISE * short term impact on ambient noise levels from construc- tion noise. * Increases in noise levels generated by traffic are less than 3 dB. LAND * USE The proposed project will result in demolition of an existing bank building. * The proposed project represents an increase in scale when related to the existing buildings on -site. * The proposed project adds retail and recreational uses to the site not currently permitted by the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations. HOUSING * The relative housing demand generated by the project is less than one percent of the total city housing stock. • AESTHETICS * The proposed project will result in replacement of the current bank building. with a multi -level office build- ing. Existing surface parking areas will be replace with a multi -level parking structure. * Morning shade from the proposed project will extend westward over Site 5 across the site toward the Wells Fargo Realty Finance building. ' * The Charles Dunn -Continental building will receive noontime shading from the proposed office and parking * structures. Late afternoon shade/shadows from the proposed project will extend eastward across MacArthur Boulevard to the Pacific Club facilities and the parking structure will partially shade the El Torito Restaurant. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES * The project will add to area -wide demand for fire protection and paramedic services. The project will not require an additional fire station, equipment or personnel. * Demand on police services will not increase signifi- due to the since the site is currently cantly project. developed and patrolled, the project will not add to the patrol area; however, an increase in population in the area will increase the demand for police services. * The project will increase demand for solid waste collection from private haulers. Solid waste generation at the site will increase with the addition of office and commercial square footage. The estimated additional solid waste generation at the site upon buildout is as follows: I 3 Net Net Use Employees Tons/Year Commercial 699 319 This increase of 319 tons per year of waste generated at the site will incrementally add to the increase in solid waste tonnage being disposed of in Coyote Canyon Sanitary Land Fill. * The project will utilize an additional 3,398 megawatt - hours of electricity annually upon buildout. * The completed project will utilize an additional 6.7 million cubic feet of natural gas per year. * The project will increase demand for telephone services and facilities. * The project will not impact the wastewater treatment facility at Fountain Valley. * The project is not anticipated to impact significantly the provision of hospital services. I EFFECTS DETERMINED TO MITIGABLE TO LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE T TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Significant Effect * Nineteen intersections analyzed exceed the one percent volume criteria when project traffic is added to 1988 traffic conditions. Of,these, the Intersection Capacity Utilization ratio will be increased to a level over 0.9 by project traffic at nine intersections. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. 2. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circula- tion system improvements. identified -in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28-30), except at the intersection ad Campus Drive and Bristol Street North,. shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the city Traffic Engineer. 3. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersec- tion of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North propor- tionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer .will be made by the applicant pursuant to Section 15.40.030(A)(i)(c) of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code. 4. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, the form and content of which shall be approved by the Planning Director and the city Attorney, which commits the applicant to implement the TDM program and otherwise comply with this condition. The TDM program shall be made a part of all tenant leases in the building. All tenant leases shall provide that a failure to implement the TDM Program shall be a material breach of the lease, with the applicant having the right to obtain a court order compelling compliance. The provisions of the lease relevant td the TDM program shall be approved by the City Attorney. The Applicant shall use its best efforts, and all available legal remedies, to insure compliance with the provisions of the lease that relate to the TDM Program. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall, at a minimum, include the following features: I I 1. A program coordinator which shall be an employee of the property owner. The program coordinator shall have the specific assignment of developing, coordinating and overseeing the program. Each tenant with 50 or more on site employees shall designate one management employee to serve as a contact for the tenants and employees and program coordinator. 2. A goal to reduce, by 25% or more, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates, the reduction to be based upon a comparison with standard City rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall identify, at a minimum, the following methods for reducing peak hour trip generation rates, and each lease for each tenant shall obligate the tenant to use one or more of the following methods in implementing the TDM Program: a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. .b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange county Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. c. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to partici- pants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. (Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek and are subject to verification by City staff.) The report shall also discuss the extent to which the TDM Program has achieved the desired 25t reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip rates and, if the desired reduction has not been achieved, an assessment of the additional measures necessary to accomplish the goal. [-1 I The City shall have the right to require the applicant, or the applicant's successor -in -interest, to modify the TDM Program, establishing a level of participation of tenants in each method of the program, in the event a 25% reduction in peak hour trip generation has not been achieved during any reporting period. All tenant leases shall contain a provision authorizing the property owner to require additional participation by each tenant in the TDM Program. 5. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. Significant Effect * Increased demand for parking will occur with additional office development. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A parking structure shall be constructed to accommodated all parking demand generated by the project. Parking shall be provided at a minimum of one space for each 250 sq.ft of net area for office and retail use, one space for each 40 sq.ft of net public area for restaurant use, and additional parking may be required for the health club based upon a demonstrated formula. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect * Project emissions for carbon dioxide, nitric oxides and hydrocarbons are less than 0.25 percent of Source Receptor Area 18. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: I 1. Development will comply with SCAQMD rules and regula- tions. 2. All mitigation measures related to traffic and circula- tion will improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the project and will incrementally improve air emissions for non -point sources. 3. The site will be regularly watered during the grading process in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. • "'-" "" NOISE significant Effect * The increase in site occupants is an increase in noise receptors in the area from traffic and airport sources. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following:. 1. All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Lea (h) Private office, board room, 45 conference room, etc. General office, reception, 50 clerical, etc. Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. Significant Effect * Mechanical equipment required for the building will increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Finding 1. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a the Standard City level of insignificance by virtue of Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR. and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. That roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. I I GEOLOGY/SOILS Significant Effect * Development of the project will require typical engin- eering measures to alleviate settlement, possible groundwater seepage, possible expansive soils, and measures to protect the building from the impacts of groundshaking. Finding 1. changes or alterations have been' required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a • level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in ,the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if requir- be submitted and be subject to the approval of ed, shall the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommenda- tions of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproduc- ible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. I I I I SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The following effects are those determined by the City of Newport Beach to be significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. The remaining, unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable environmental effect. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Sianificant Effect * The project is anticipated to generate 2,714 additional - daily vehicle trips. Temporary congestion may occur in the immediate area and some area intersections will function beyond their design capacity. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on traffic conditions on the local circulation system. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibil- ity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings - The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circula- tion system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28-30), except at the intersection od Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer, 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersec- tion of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North propor- tionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic be by the applicant pursuant to Engineer will made Section 15.40.030(A) (i) (a) of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code. I 10 3. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, the form and content of which shall be approved by the Planning Director and the City Attorney, which commits the applicant to implement the TDM program and otherwise comply with this condition. The TDM program shall be made a part of all tenant leases in the building. All tenant leases shall provide that a failure to implement the TDM Program shall be a material breach of the lease, with the applicant having the right to obtain a court order compelling compliance. The provisions of the lease relevant to the TDM program shall be approved by the City Attorney. The Applicant shall use its best efforts, and all available legal remedies, to insure compliance with the provisions of the lease that relate to the TDM Program. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall, at a minimum, include the following features: 1. A program coordinator which shall be an employee of the property owner. The program coordinator shall have the specific assignment of developing, coordinating and overseeing the program. Each tenant with 50 or more on site employees shall designate one management employee to serve as a contact for the tenants and employees and program coordinator. 2. A goal to reduce, by 25% or more, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates, the reduction to be based upon a comparison with standard City 1 rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall identify, at a minimum, the following methods for reducing peak hour trip generation rates, and each lease for each tenant shall obligate the tenant to use one or more of the following methods in implementing the TDM Program: a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange county Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for r£desharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to partici- pants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes I 11 the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. (Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek and are subject to verification by City staff.) The report shall also discuss the extent to which the TDM Program has achieved the desired 25% reduction in a.m. and p.m, peak hour trip rates and, if the desired reduction has not been achieved, an assessment of the additional measures necessary to accomplish the goal. The city shall have the right to require the applicant, or the applicant's successor -in -interest, to modify the TDM Program, establishing a level of participation of tenants in each method of the program, in the event a 25t reduction in peak hour trip generation has not been achieved during any reporting period. All tenant leases shall contain a provision authorizing the property owner to require additional participation by each tenant in the TDM Program. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways and freeways in the region. 2. The county of Orange is responsible for the implementa- tion of the San Joaquin Rills Transportation Corridor. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The is required by the City's Fair Share applicant Traffic Contribution Ordinance (Chapter 15.38 NBMC) to provide an additional monetary contribution to the city for use in the construction of circulation system 1 12 improvements which will increase the capacity of the roadway system in the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the Ordinance is the provide funds for the construction of improvements so that traffic generated by development and redevelopment within the City will not result in unacceptable congestion of the circulation system. 4. Regarding regional roadways, the applicant is also required to participate in the City's adopted San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. The program is consistent with the Orange County San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program, established to fund the construction of the Transportation Corridor to improve regional roadway capacities and reduce congestion. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. AIR QUALITY/ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT/LAND USE/AESTHETICS Significant Effect * The project will incrementally intensify the urban character of the area and will result in increased traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise levels in the immediate vicinity. �In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on air pollution and noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibil- ity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final BIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared for the project by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. (Prior to occupancy of the structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the 13 Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the plan). 2. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Department. 3. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 4. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a health condition. 5. Development will comply with SCAQMD rules and regula- tions. G. All mitigation measures related to traffic and circula- tion will improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the • project and will incrementally improve air emissions for non -point sources. 7. The site will be regularly watered during the grading process in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. 8. All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Le h Private office, board room, 45 conference room, etc. General office, reception, 50 clerical, etc. Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. 9. That top or other mechanical equipment shall be roof sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 10. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the public walks shall be conducted. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. i. The project has been reduced in size by approximately y 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and pot the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways and freeways in the region. 2. The County of orange is responsible for the implementa- tion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I 14 3. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of national air quality standards. 4. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin air quality. 5. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent • sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in • association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. HOUSING Significant Effect * The project will result in approximately 597 additional permanent employees. While it can be assumed that a major portion of the new employees will be provided through the local labor market, a certain portion will be drawn from outside and will thus increase the demand for housing, partially in the "affordablelf range. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on housing in the vicinity of the project. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or 1 incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes -or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61$ below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. I 15 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. • PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect * Project implementation will incrementally add to demand for major new infrastructure in the area including circulation improvements, fire protection, water systems and electrical facilities. Project implementation will add to the cumulative demand for finite resources such as energy and water. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on public services and utilities. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental "effect as identified in the Final EIR. 3. specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 3. That all buildings on the site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Depart- ment. 4. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. I 16 5. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 6. That all fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment. 7. The project shall be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. I a. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation Districts that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 9. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. ..._... 10. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes, such as irrigation. 11. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during the early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. I 12. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. 13. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent ' feasible to provide for more efficient trash disposal. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this report. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of overriding Considerations and in view of 'the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. I I 17 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR evaluated alternatives for the project. The approved project is a substantial reduction from the project requested by the applicant and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The project selected is within the range of alternatives analyzed, and has similar environmental effects, although those effects have been lessened. The plan was modified during the course of public review through a series of actions including, but not limited to, those listed below: 1. The City Staff analysis of the project. 2. The responses to the Notice of Preparation. 3. The responses to the Non -Statutory Advisements. 4. The comments on the draft EIR. 5. The testimony at the public hearings on the project and EIR held before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and city Council. 6. The recommendations of the Quality of Life Advisory Committee. 7. The recommendations of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. S. The data in the Final EIR. Findings 1. The refined project has been accomplished in a manner so as to provide the greatest public involvement in the 1 planning and CEQA process. 2. The process has developed a project which is in substan- tial conformance with that described in the Notice of Preparation and for which the EIR was prepared: 3. The Certified Final EIR indicates all refinements which have been incorporated in the project. 4. The mitigation measures and standard City policies have been made a part of the refined project. 5. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives. 6. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal. 7. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below. 8. The rejection rationale is supported by the public record including, but not limited to, the Certified Final EIR. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative provides for no new development on the site. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: I 18 1. No traffic improvements will be made if no new develop- ment occurs on -site. 2. The No Project Alternative does not provide for the mixed uses on -site, which result in a significant 1 reduction in peak hour traffic generated by the project. SIX -STORY OFFICE ALTERNATIVE The six -story office alternative assumes development as currently allowed in the Planned Community Development Plan. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the six -story office alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. A significant amount of additional development is allowed in the existing Planned Community District Regulations without any additional traffic and circula- tion system improvements. 2. The six -story office alternative does not provide for the mixed uses on -site, which result in a significant reduction in peak hour traffic generated by the project. NINE AND TWELVE STORY OFFICE ALTERNATIVES Both of these alternatives involve increased development on the site which is less than requested. These alternatives are not directly rejected, but reflect the action taken by the city in approving the project. The final project lies in between these two alternatives, and was determined to most appropriated because the floor area ratio was within the maximum currently permitted in the airport area. I 1] FI I J I Exhibit 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has deter- mined that the unavoidable risks of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. The proposed project is consistent with other existing uses in the vicinity of the project and the community in general. 2. The proposed project represents infill development located in an urban area where adequate facilities and services exist. 3. The density and intensity of the project is appropriate. 4. The proposed project will contribute to a fair share of ' local and regional roadway improvements, specifically the city's Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. ' S. Revenues generated by the project will exceed costs associated with serving the project, resulting in net revenue for the City. 6. The project includes a mix of office and retail uses, which will reduce the peak hour traffic generation ordinarily anticipated from office projects. 7. The project will implement a Transportation Demand Management program with specific participation require- 1 ments and reporting procedures. The implementation of this program will enable the City to study the effec- tiveness of such programs for individual, multi -tenant office buildings. 8. The will make a number of intersection improve- project ments, which will provide capacity for this project,, as well as existing uses and future planned development and will reduce congestion in the area. 9. The size and scale of the project will allow for the retention of small employers within the community. ' PIT ED\A638FDG.EIR I I 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER SCR #85061914 Attachment No. 1 Comments and Responses City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contact: Patricia L. Temple 714-644-3225 January 1987 ICOMMENTS Copies of all comments received as of January 13, 1987, are contained in this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. The comments and responses which are included in this report will become part of the Environmental Impact Report at such time as they accepted as adequate by the certifying body. Commentators Comment/Response Series 1. Letter - August 1, 1986 DOTA - 1-3 Sandy Hesnard Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics State of California 2. Letter - August 1, 1986 10PR - 1-3 John B. Ohanian Office of Planning and Research ' State of California 3. Memorandum - July 15, 1986 RWQ - 1 Nancy A. Olson California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region State of California 4. Letter - August 6, 1986 20PR - 1-3 John B. Ghanian ' Office of Planning and Research State of California 5. Memorandum - July 29, 1986 DOT - 1-6 W.B.Ballantine Department of Transportation State of California 6. Letter - September 12, 1986 QOL - 1-4 Mary Lou Zoglin Quality of Life Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach i 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Gavmmr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1130 K STREET- 4TH FLOOR MAIL: P.O. BOX 1499 SACRAMENTo,GA 95907 (915)322.3090 NO TDD 393.7565 August 1, 1986 Ms. Patricia 'Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92655-9915 Dear Ms. Temple: City of Newport Beach's DEIR for the Bank of America/Newport Place; SCH #85061914 The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, ha reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The project consists of a 15-story office building to be located approxi- mately one-half mile southeast of the John Wayne Airport. a DOTA_ I' Because of the height of the proposed office building (248.5 feet) a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) should be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) D OT4 pursuant to FAR, Part 77. If the applicant has not already done so, they should contact the FAA's Western Regional Office at (213) 297-1538 for information concerning the obstruction ' evaluation. The Division is concerned with the cumulative impacts of roadway traffic and airport/aircraft noise. However, the measures discussed on page 31 of the DEIR should adequately mitigate the DIDTX noise impacts provided the measures in L.A. are based on cumu- lative effect. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. ' Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnard Environmental Planner ' cc: State Clearinghouse Orange County ALUC John Wayne Airport Cheri Tucker - FAA I 1E Of CAUFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET YAMENTO, CA 95614 I II I iJi I I I L� 1 F Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIV(; ED ` F11nnird D_pnrt-"'at AUG5 1986 S°` cin Subject: Bank of America/Newport Place - SCH# 85061914 Dear Ms. Temple: GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Connor August 1, 1986 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) Ware) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked IOPR-I which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse imediately. Your eight digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency skull only make substantive comments on a project which �OPK-2 are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) i These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the I0PR-3 commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, / John B. Chanian Chief Deputy Diredtor Office of Planning and Research cc: Res04rces Agency Enclosures II l� i MII NI 14w e1MN ' IV row 1VN1. M, NI. IWMAM a IYIt .. 11 NFM • Witt Yc "10,rmiNwNrwartyeIr6 y2 / 1mlJ506/9/zj i 1. MNtr null Bank of America/Nalrport Place • I. Iw4wt, CitV of Nevndrt Beach J. Court lGtN, Patricia Temp e ,. 4wt tttN(I, 11O0 Nellport BOU1eVud mn Niri Wr yc r. INru, Orange a. nG92aSB-B915 p, nw, 71e/64e-7333 .Nsv 114nr t, te+V, orange 4. c1wlM.elb,mirwiOrt ear h.(MtNMII e1NGr't •--I r. 4. 1r4N M•,��wnr N. 4Nr 1,wu)44AOArthur Blvd./Newpdrt Plo, iirw,fi:.wn/, A. Immix NIN•It A. tu4 al%.Route 731. 4rtrndOhn 'Wayne 1. WYwr1 e. CeI1Wr Mt A. I"Ant" fir 11. Y41wnr IIN • lm 11-1wni llr"M It - i"Imild. wilt 11 r it— .Illwt N XYrlul lift. 7OO.00O mi. ft. Y Wit tMl N Awrtu it" tooto, bM /.7 ("wrwi N_ftsov 01N N 14NIIeKonrelfl11416 1 Y Jrlt t11 Y fawutl« Orr witlw 0—' 1.v14 sowwwa(it 0 _rmint, fltl N—IMMVIt1, 4•n. N. Mr tell N �IrturlrP.lt urn f+ltirrt r N%NMM N torn 111f Y „-.County I'W' N((��t.W111141N N� rrI M1 rrt(ilrii, 1. 'ma M. N frlMwutl •Ill-'1' (.4 Nlnlwu 11 Vma t Y--IW114u •Iwfll r •Y.Ing N `rflr Its i„'t 11 fttri N l,ww.l N �h.rr trrrrtS No" 11lxTsaffle 9ludFr rm• "�d� ChB N —I0Fw11Y r11 11,• O4NI _ it••JIMI howl f. It1Y Wf1• it_ lW. it, Malrl "w" Ilmm It 111,1Mr N xY1W11NINr1 11 1p.1"takiwe 11 1r.r 41w1t Its III NNIf r IP11.1to l OM N DwIw.Nn Nuo, is LII "I" m W(INIIINritl r Ib eallll 10„ 41.01 IF Wt4 N-�11t11ft N WNMINI41ll11lWIOI 11 Ilrtlu N�Noll lwtlry f r N �tM1G1 tun It k Mllt 1t•f14M It r ht111411N.lrllM N Iw oml. tamov M %qn wuM m—rttrrl, N wG11N N %tM.lrh. trrtln m IwlryNltrtr 11 Ytr41NIM1 11 _ wW 4wi4e N IW ll. nniM4wr«,1 etlrri 1 1u41 4W 1 i Y• Mont uM Nf W N11MI Office use, Planned Corauriity Lone. N trnrr manna, cevelOpmant of A fifteen -story office building and an adjacent molti-level parking structure. W. 11WM(Y .W fYlC1 gWuIIINI+ •L'P/A//!O !////( 1I.LV :1WWk C'E''11'1 a r '— By=BEVY.+3LAN:1. i j`�,6 •cSl4.RVArlGN a G r AG= BGIM :0 =11 —2100 S= S=aZPLW=I S// `-5h ° AplfSiifklC 0 i— (Run= U-13) kmM1!Iewr `p U ISfate of California Il emorandurn sTo Dr. Gordon F. Snow Gate: July 15, 1986 Assistant Secretary for Resources I I VA Nancy A. Olson Sanitary Engineering Technician From : California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region 6808 INDIA14A AVENUE, SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE, CA 62506 (ATSS) 632-4130 Suoject; DEIR: BANK OF AMERICA/NEWPORT PLACE, SCH r85061918 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the Bank of America/Newport Place project. The DEIR noted the possibility that groundwater pumping would be required at the project site. If dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the discharge. It should RWGL-I -be noted that processing an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to the permit should be addressed to Mr. Gary Stewart of this office. Enclosure ' NAO:eyp r� 1, r f U JUI ?�_ 06 I Of THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 14W TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 9561A 916/445-0613 Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Bank of America/Newport Place - SCH# 85061914 Dear Ms. Temple: August 6, 1986 1 1. The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are ];tc)p4 forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. P Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions , concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may as R 3 respond promptly. Sincerely, 1, Sohn g. Ghanian Chief Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Resources Agency r. 9 r1��t �,ynF• Ip 4, N � I C State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency ,Memorandum To EXECUTIVE OFFICER Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Date • July 29, 1986 File : IGR W. B. BALLANTINE - District 7 ' From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' Subject: Project Review Comments SCH NUMBER -City of Newport Beach -Bank of America/ 85061914 Newport Place we have reviewed the EIR for the B of A/Newport Place project and have the following comments: t Page 15(A) (Item 5) should be reevaluated as the referenced POT-1 construction is now completed. (B) (Items 1-4) - it is not clear who would be responsible for PoT-2. ' indicted improvements to State highways. Page 16(A) ,(Item 9) - same as for page 15, item 5 DOT-3 (B) - same as for (B) above. DDT -H Alpo as indicated in our response to the NOP dated July 16, 198� there should be reference to Historical/Archaeological studies DOT-5 ' indicating no historic properties are subject to impact. To minimize possible delays in permit processing detailed project ' drawings for any work involving State right-of-way should be DOT-(# submitted to Caltrans for review prior to the encroachment permit application. W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 7 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Al Fisher (ATSS) 640-3935 or (213) 620-3935 rAttachment tKL I I September 12, 1986 , Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The Quality of Life Advisory Committee has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bank of America - Newport Place Office Building and has the following comments. The following information is necessary to insure the adequacy of the document for the project: 1. Further discussion of the possible growth inducing effects of the project in the Newport Place Planned QOL -I Community. 2. Additional discussion of the capacity of the local circulation system to sustain the increased traffic the QOL"l , and possible conflicts between project traffic and existing traffic in the area. Particular attention should be paid to the effect on ingress and egress from developments aDL-1 existing in the area. In addition to these comments on the Environmental Impact Report, the committee also recommends that the project be denied due to the intensity of the project, access problems GLD and the growth inducing effects of the project. , Respectfully submitted, QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mary Lou Zoglin chairman I RESPONSES ' The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise ' significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmen- tal Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers ' for their review and consideration. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS DOTA 1 Comment The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The ' project consists of a 15-story office building to be located approximately one-half mile southeast of the John Wayne Airport. ' DOTA 1 Response The. comment is, noted and included in the final record of the project for the review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. DOTA 2 Comment Because of the height of the propos@d office building (248.5 feet) a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) should be filed with the Federal Aviation Administra- tion (FAA) pursuant to FAR, Part 77. If the applicant has not already done so, they should contact the FAA's Western Regional Office at (213) 297-1538 for information regarding the obstruction evaluation. DOTA 2 Response The applicant has processed the project through the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, a body of the County of Orange overseeing the use of land and the height of struc- tures in the vicinity of John Wayne Orange County Airport. As a result of this review, the project has been reduced in height to a maximum of 167 feet, which will allow a structure of approximately eleven stories. The revised project has ' also been reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to the above referenced regulation, and received the necessary approvals. The project submitted to the City for I consideration has also been revised to reflect the lower structure height. ROTA 3 Comment ' The Division is concerned with the cumulative impacts of roadway traffic and airport/aircraft noise. However, the measures discussed on page 31 of the DEIR should adequately mitigate the noise impacts provided the measures in I.A. are based on cumulative effect. ROTA 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. The mitigation measures proposed are based on cumulative effects. ' OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 10PR 1-3 Comment The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completions to -ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not complete, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit State Clearing- house number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a respon- sible agency or other public agency shall make substantive comments on a project which are in the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your , final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. kOPR 1-3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. r� J 10 ' CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SANTA ANA REGION RWQ 1 Comment The DEIR noted the possibility that groundwater pumping would be required at the project site. If dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the dis- charge. It should be noted that processing an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to ' the permit should be addressed to Mr. Gary Stewart of this office. RWQ i Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ' 2OPR 1-3 Comment The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents ' were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these comments to you bocause they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to ' incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. 2OPR 1-3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOT i Comment Paae 15(A) (Item 5) should be reevaluated as the referenced construction is now completed. I d DOT 1 Response , Subsequent to the completion of construction and the opening of the Corona del Mar Freeway, new traffic counts were taken ' by the City of Newport Beach and a revised traffic study was prepared for the project. As a result of the new study, an additional improvement has been identified which will require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane on Campus Drive at Bristol Street North. DOT 2 Comment r (B) (Items 1-4) it is not clear who would be responsible for indicated improvements to State highways. ' DOT 2 Response All improvements identified will be funded by the project ' applicant. DOT 3 Comment Page 16 (A) (Item 9) - same as for page 15, item 5. DOT 3 , Response Subsequent to the completion of construction and the opening of the Corona del Mar new traffic counts were taken , .Freeway, by the City of Newport Beach and a revised traffic study was prepared for the project. As a result of the new study, an additional improvement has been identified which will require the conversion of a southbound through lane to make it a combined through/right turn on Birch Street at Bristol Street North. , DOT 4 Comment (B) - same as for (B) above. ' DOT 4 Response , All improvements identified will be funded by the project applicant. DOT 5 Comment Also, as indicated in our response to the NOP dated July 16, 1985, there should be reference to Historical/Archaeological studies indicating no historic properties are subject to impact. Fj ' DOT 5 Response The draft EIR clearly describes the project site as currently being occupied by a Bank of America building and by a surface parking lot. The bank structure was completed in 1981 and is of no historical significance. This finding was made during the course of the initial study conducted for the project prior to commencement of EIR preparation. The initial study is included as Appendix A of the DEIR. Since the site is ' developed, no archaeological resources exist on site. This is also documented in the initial study. DOT 6 Comment To minimize possible delays in permit processing, detailed project drawings for any work involving State right-of-way ' should be submitted to Caltrans for review prior to the encroachment permit application. ' DOT 6 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the ' project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMITTEE QOL 1 Comment ' The following information is necessary to insure the adequacy of the document for the project: Further discussion of the possible growth inducing effects of the project in the Newport Place Planned Community. ' QOL 1 Response Analysis of the growth inducing effects of the project is provided on pages 75 and 76 of the draft EIR. The discussion centers on growth inducing effects on a regional basis, rather than focused on the Newport Place Planned Community. Approval of the project could lead to further intensification in Newport Place. Apart from the,site under consideration, additional development allowed in Newport Place is approx- imately 200,000 sq.ft. of office development and 120,000 sq.ft. of commercial retail development. Beyond these established development rights, additional development would be allowed only upon approval of increased development allocations through the zone change and/or general plan amendment process. Approval of the amendment application considered as part of this project will not set "precedent" for other actions of the City in a legal sense. Any future application will be subject to the same analysis and discretionary review as the I increase subject project. Implementation of the project may the overall business growth in the vicinity resulting in additional applications for projects of a similar nature, and may also increase the possibility of approval of similar intensities of development if all other requirements are met. However, this project is not large enough to induce any significant amount of growth on its own, but is part of a ' area wide trend to more intense development in the John Wayne Airport/South Coast Metro area. If the level of intensity requested in this proposal were allowed on all office sites in Newport Place, an additional 1.5 million sq.ft. could be constructed. The numbers increase if retail or restaurant areas were converted to office use. QOL 2 ComMont ' Additional discussion of the capacity of the local circula- tion system to sustain the increased traffic and the possible conflicts between project traffic and existing traffic in the ' area (should be included). QOL 2 Response , Discussion of the local circulation system is included on page 13 of the DEIR. This section indicates that the project has three .access points which are positioned to provide adequate ingress and egress. This is important in that easy entry to and exit from the property will minimite traffic conflicts with existing traffic. specific recommendations on , access configuration are included in the DEIR to further insure adequate traffic flow. The project is expected to add 4294 average daily trips to the circulation system. Of these, 657 are anticipated to occur in the peak afternoon hour. This traffic will be distributed to the local circulation network, which is ' composed of major and secondary arterial roads and local streets. These roads operate within their design capacities, and can accommodate the additional traffic expected as a , result of the project. The traffic study also identified several intersection improvements which will be required to be constructed in order to maintain adequate levels of service. , QOL 3 Comment ' Particular attention should be paid to the effect on ingress and egress from existing developments in the area. ' I I ' QOI� 3 Response close attention has been paid in the traffic analysis to the design of ingress and egress points in order to minimize traffic conflicts between project traffic and existing traffic. The added traffic has been identified in the EIR as ' a significant environmental effect of the project. The project will incrementally increase traffic on the circula- tion system. If delays in ingress or egress occur in peak ' traffic hours, these, too, can be expected to worsen due to the projected increase in traffic. This is part of the significant traffic effect of the project. QOL 4 Comment In addition to these comments on the Environmental Impact Report, the committee also recommends that the project be denied due to the intensity of the project, access problems .,-A 4-1— .,,.,+7, ; r,A,,..; nn nfFnntc of tha nrMi r t _ 1 1 1 t 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER SCR #85061914 Attachment No. 2 Comments and Responses City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contact: Patricia L. Temple 714-644-3225 February 1987 COMMENTS Copies of all comments received subsequent to January 13, 1987 are contained in this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. The comments and responses which are included in this report will become part of the Environmental Impact Report at such time as they accepted as adequate by the certifying body. Stop Polluting Our Newport(SPON) P.O.Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 SPON 1 - 6 , ►49s 1 February 5, 1987 ' P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 CU ! Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Patricia Temple Nnvironmental Coordinator SiMECT: Amendment No. 638 Agenda Item N,�. 1, February 5 :McLachlan Investment Co. Traffic Study, Modification and EIR Please note the following comments with regard to the above noted project, Amendment No. 638. a/5/9&•the Newport Beach Planning Commission is con- , -•.on sidering a request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of this Amendment. Three approaches are suggested in the staff report. Based on information available, including these new "approaches", we do not believe the Planning Commission can justify a determination of adequacy of environmental documents and mitigations. The need for flex -time of working hours for various employers points up the serious traffic conditions which exist and will be worsened by existing permitted projects. The conditions, as proposed, provide neither adequate standards nor adequate assurances of compliance. Whereas we agree with the strategy of using Traffic System management techniques, such means cannot make the mitigation adequate when the cumulative effect of projects' traffic is simply overwhelming to the road system. The nearby roads and ' freeways are already over -subscribed now and in the future so that the AM and PM peak hours are extending throughout the day thus negating the positive effects that flex -time schedules are intended to have. Without a firm performance standard, the proposed con- ditions are meaningless. And, it is surprising that the City would only consider a goal of a 20% reduction in project traffic when the cities of Irvine and Pleasanton strive for 30% and 45% respectively. .Ae proposed in approach "C", the suggestion of using this project, which intensifies allowed development in the area, for demonstration and data gathering purposes is It 'S SPON To: Newport Beach Planning Commission 2/5/87 Amendment No. 638 page 2 at cross purposes with the guidelines for environmental reporting and documentation. This very project points up the need'for an "Airport Area Study" and consideration of the total cumulative effect before a new precedent is set for height and dbnsity. The Airport Area Study has beon terminated leaving many unknowns even though it is stated in the 1/22/87 staff report (p. 5) that "This project, along with all the existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumulatively significant." It is a well known fact that the City and regional areas are already hard pressed to meet the demands of development already permitted. Included in already permitted development is a more reasonable addition for Newport Place. We urge you to reject these proposed conditions as being inadequate to mitigate the impacts of this project and the increased intensity of development in Newport Place. Very Truly Yours, Jean Watt For SPON Steering)Cbmmittee I ,'I I I I I 1 )01 h- J RESPONSES I The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information; but are comments related to the project itself, the advisability of approval or the contents of a condition. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Acte Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknow- ledged' reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers for their review and consideration. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) SPON I - Comment On 2/5/98 the Newport Beach Planning commission is consider- ing a request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of this Amendment. Three approaches are suggested in the staff report. Based on information avail- able, including these new "approaches", we do not believe the Planning Commission can justify a determination of adequacy of environmental documents and mitigations. SPQN 1 - Response , The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. SPON 2 - Comment The need for flex -time of working hours for various employers t points up the serious traffic conditions which exist and will be worsened by existing permitted projects. The conditions, as proposed, provide neither adequate standards nor adequate assurances of compliance. SPON 2. - Response The comment is rioted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. The revised conditions drafted by staff for the consideration of the Planning Commission all include specific performance criteria and mandated participation by occupants of the project. 1J I T A ISPON 3 - Comment Whereas we agree with the strategy of using Traffic System Management techniques, such means cannot make the mitigation adequate when the cumulative effect of projects' traffic is simply overwhelming to the road system. The nearby roads and freeways are already over -subscribed now and in the future so that the AM and PM peak hours are extending throughout the day thus negating the positive effects that flex -time schedules are intended to have. SPON 3 - Response Section 15041 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "a lead agency for a project has authority to require changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment." This authority is limited by section 15040 which authorizes the agency to use its discretionary powers to mitigate "when it is feasible to do so." The suggested mitigation measure adopted .by the Planning Commission addresses both the direct environmental effects of the proposed project as well as the cumulative environmental effects which are identified in the EIR associated with the project, existing development and future growth. The purpose of the mitigation measure is to lessen the project's traffic impact in the peak traffic hours, which are the times when congestion is experienced. Generally, the roadway system in the vicinity of the project provides for an acceptable, level of .service at times other than peak traffic •hours. Additional traffic mitigation measures (that is, physical improvements to intersections) which have been required of the project will improve the level to traffic service during peak hours. SPON 4 - Comment Without a firm performance standard, the proposed conditions are meaningless. And-, it is surprising that the City would only consider a goal of a 20& reduction in project traffic when the Cities of Irvine and Pleasanton strive for 30% and 45% respectively. As proposed in approach "C", the sugges- tion of using this project, which intensifies allowed development in�the area, for demonstration and data gathering purposes is at cross purposes with the guidelines for environmental reporting and documentation. This very project points up the need for an "Airport Area Study" and considera- tion of the total cumulative effect before a new precedent is set for height and density. SPON 4 - Response Each of the mitigation alternatives presented to the Planning Commission included a firm performance criteria, either in terms of specific participation, program implementation or I l09 traffic reduction. The Planning Commission ultimately adopted approach "C", but increased the trip reduction goal to 25%. The writer of the comment suggests that the purpose of approving the project is for demonstration and data gathering purposes. The imposition of TDM program require- ments is not the singular rational for approving the project, but is proposed as a mitigation measure to reduce direct and cumulative traffic impacts of the project should it be ap- proved, and will also allow for the City to study a Traffic Demand Management Program implemented in a single, multi - tenant office building. In fact, the purpose of all mitiga- tion measures is to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects of a project, should it be approved, and are not considered the reason for the approval unless identified as an overriding Consideration in the project approval. A lead agency may deny a project in order to avoid adverse environ- mental effects of a project; or the agency may approve a project with identified significant environmental effects if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision. The approval of the project is not considered a "precedent" for height and density, Amendments to the Zoning Code are each judged by the agency on its individual merits. If this project is approved, it will not commit the City to similar amendments, if requested. SPON 5 - Comment The Airport Area Study has been terminated leaving many unknowns even though it is stated in the 1/22/87 staff report (p. 5) that "This project, along with all the existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumula- tively significant." SPON 5 - Response The Airport Area Study referenced in the comment was initi- ated by the Planning Commission and City Council in response to several requests for increased development rights in the airport area in 1986. The project under consideration has been in process since 1984, and was not a part of that study. After the referendum on the Newport Center General Plan Amendment, most of the project proponents withdrew their requests, and the study was terminated. These projects are no longer "anticipated future projects" in the manner implicit in the statement quoted from the .7anuary 22, 1987 staff report. Anticipated future projects include all planned and foreseeable future projects. SPON 6 - Comment It is a well known fact that the City and regional areas are already hard pressed to meet the demands of development already permitted. Included in already permitted development ' 1 I� i� 1 I I 1 I is a more reasonable addition for Newport Place to reject these proposed conditions as being mitigate the impacts of this project and intensity of development in Newport Place. SPON 6 - Response We urge you inadequate to the increased The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. As provided for in Sections 15042 and 15043 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may deny a project in order to avoid adverse environmental effects of a project; or the agency may approve a project with identified significant environmental effects if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision. 1 .. 1 I i LI t i 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1-1 1 1 IJ 1 1 Cr. Y OF NEWPORT BE�CH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES REGU OCODNCIL MEETING Chambers IME! 7:301 M. ntation of the flag and pledge of ntation of the flag and pledge of nce was made by Girl Scout Troop 496, r he leadership of Marti Stroman and C dray. Cox p caenced a Proclamation to Troop In recog Clon of Girl Scout Week, March ough 13, 87. plaqued Cart cocoa of AppreclaClon \Y6k presented by or Coxto: Patti -Gene on, former Arts mmissionar, andler Briggs, former uilding Code Board peals member.Present x x x x x x x ROLL CALL.Motion x The reading of the Minutes f theAyes x x x x x x Meeting of February 23, 1987, vasAbstain xwaived, approved as written, a ordered filed. Motion x C. -The-reading in full of all ordinances All Ayes and resolutions under consideration vap waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Cox opened the continued public hearing regarding: PLANNING COMISSYON AMENDMENT N0. 635 - PCA 638 A request at the MCLACHLAN INVESTMENT McLachlan COMPANY, Newport Beach, to emend the Investm/ NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY Npt Pl/PCD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS so an to allow (94) 278.489 eq. ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an cloven story building within Professional and Business Office Sit. No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses an the subject property, located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposal also includes modifications to the Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of office and bank floor area; to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document: AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request of the Traffic MCLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY. NENPORT Study BEACH, to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278.489 sq. Volume 41 - Page 96 ( TY OF NEWPORT 9; iCH COUNCIL MEMKFtS �"��k+�100' '��A\ WNUTES Q NOL CALL March 9. 1957 IN ft. of Additional bank and office floor PC,1 i atia within professional and Bwilesa 0ffice Site No. S of the Mtwport place Pleaded Commodity. Reports front the rlaonfaS Department ' Adted February 25. and Notch 9. M1. won Presented. Letters in opposition to proposed redevelopment efthe lank of Angeles building, Newpott Plus. fees Cattle 3layback. Beneath M. rands, Nolan A. Andtraoa. and Parish layl, tt$sident. 11"et Haight. Cagweity Amscetation, we* ptestated. She City Clark advised that after the agenda was printed, the following persona contacted the Clack's office by telephone to ragtotet their opposition to this project: Could Kahs.- 7ridcow Botee. Pk. serootd, Rotor Vsedttarift. Son, Houston, Brooke. Jerre and William Herrington, Jackie and Norbert Pirkle, Cynthia Houston, Shows Fredericks and Linda Stadler. She City Clark alto reported that the fatiguing latest$ in enposittee Vera received after the agenda we printed% Marilyn Rlddlo. Shirley and Rebtrt Kautsea, John W. Reader, Jr.. 1. K. Magyars Nancy Skinner, Jon D. Vanderoloot. N.D.. Dr. Elizabeth Eckhardt, Andrea Lingle. Marty Tarr" Jr.. SPDH, wand, Kephart. Barbara White. w. A. Parks. Joe V. Christy, Jalms DeLuca, Alan and Elizabeth Andtcua, H. - R. and Tolid Millet. and Paula Ceditay. She City Koester pointed out that on January 22. 1987. the Planning Cm1491on hold a public hearing on the proposed project. At the conclusion of the public hearlhg and discussion. the Planning Connissiun voted (all ayes) to approve the project subject to a reduction in the additional alloutble floor dreg from that which was taquested by the applicant. The addition of future development rights WAS reduced from the requested 218,489 sq. ft. by 169,653 sq. ft. to an additional I06.616 Sq. ft,. a 61% reduction. Of the 106.936 additional sq. ft. Approved, 55.831 sq. it. an be tonetructed for office vat and 51.010 sq. ft. can be constructed only if for ancillary cammereiAl uses within the building) such as restaurants health club and Volume 41 - Page 97 %ATY OF NEWPORT Br-ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS �GP �o� NP9G� March 9, 1987 MINUTES uunry ! retail uses, which are supportive of the PCA 638 primary office use. When combined with existing committed development rights on the site, a new building which would replace the existing Bank of America building could be a maximum of 209,700 sq. ft., of which 156,670 sq. ft. could be office. The Planning Commission also adopted a series of mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval in regards to the proposed development. The City Manager further noted that when this item was before the Council on February 23, 1987, additional information was requested regarding square footage approved, future development rights, the traffic study, and the traffic demand management program, which have been clarified in the staff report of March 9, 1987. He referenced the chart on page 2, enumerating the floor area ratio comparison for Newport Place Office Site 5, which depicted the existing, requested, and approved building sizes for each building. Discussion ensued with regard to the traffic demand management program, wherein Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, explained that in the consideration of this project, the Planning Commission went to some significant efforts to identify the ways and means by which trips produced from the project could be reduced.' The overall trip generation of a project can be reduced by encouraging such types of programs as carpooling, vanpooling and use of public transit. Also, there are ways and means to reduce traffic in peak traffic through the method of flex time. The measure adopted by the Planning Commission requires the applicant to develop a comprehensive transportation demand management program which would include all of the components that are currently being used to reduce traffic on a daily and peak hour basis. In addition, the City Attorney has refined the language adopted by the Planning Commission on this issue to strengthen it and give the City more leverage in terms of continued review and mandatory participation on into the future. In response to Mayor Pro Tom Hart, reference was made to the chart on page 2 of the staff report, wherein the Environmental Coordinator explained that Volume 41 — Page 98 l.._TY OF NEWPORT 8..-ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \1110moo+ �'`� \\ March 9. 1987 MINUTES lunev the Planning Commission approved a PCA 638 project which would increase development allocation within Newport Place Office Site 5 by 108,836 sq. ft. The original request of the applicant would have increased from the existing allocation development allowed in that black by 279,433 sq. ft., so the 61% reduction is the reduction incurred by this decrease in square footage. In response to question of Council Member Plummer, the Environmental Coordinator stated that the overall Newport Place Planned Community has development allocations of several million square feet, and the project which is under consideration, addresses only one of the office sites. Any action the Council takes on thin item does not affect any other part of the planned community. With regard to flax time, the Environmental Coordinator stated that all flex time measures would be available methods within this program, i.e., four day work weeks, staggered working hours, adjusted working hours, etc. Terry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, representing the applicant, addressed the Council and gave a brief hivtory of the proposed project, noting that Initially it was their desire to construct a 15 story structure, which has since been reduced to 11 stories. Be stated that they started out with a project of approximately 300*000 sq, ft, with a floor area ratio of 1.58 which has now been reduced to 108,836 sq. ft., not to exceed a 1.0 floor area ratio, and with all adverse environmental impacts mitigated. Ile stated that this project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and the General Pion, and meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. They do not feel this project will be precedent -setting and is nut large enough to induce a significant amount of growth on its own, as stated in the Environmental Document. lie urged the Council to support this type of development and encourage their corporate tenant to stay in Newport Beach and become a part of the traffic solution. Ice also stated that they do Volume 41 - Page 99 C. i'Y OF NEWPORT BE.~:CH COUNCIL MEMBERS 2 , ,PZ��G��� co% ,pQ��G��? March 9, 1987 MINUTES INDEX accept the findings and conditions PCA 638 Imposed by the Planning Commission, including the additional language by the City Attorney referenced earlier in the meeting regarding the Traffic Demand Management Program. In response to Council inquiries, Mr. King stated that the restaurant to be housed within this structure is an amenity to serve the tenants of the building, but is available for the general public as well. The restaurant offers an opportunity to keep employees on -site during the morning and afternoon breaks and during the noon hour. With regard to the parking ratio, he stated that they requested the one parking space for every 250 sq. ft. with the idea in mind that more spaces would not be required and that, in fact, it would be adequate parking. Pertaining to the cost per sq. ft., he stated it is estimated between $30.00 and $60.06, which includes widening of the bridge. Bill Langston, 18 Oakcrest Lane, representing the applicant, displayed a sketch depicting structures 10 stories and above in the general area of the subject proposal. He stated that they have met the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission; they feel that with the amenities proposed in the building, flex time will work very well; and that one of the reasons they want to build it stories is to create more open space. He stated that Bank of America is their prime tenant, and will utilize approximately 40,000 sq. £t. for a combination of banking and office space. Beverly Langston, 18 Oakcrest Lane, addressed the Council regarding the health club within the proposed structure. She referenced a survey she had taken in March, 1986, regarding participation in health clubs. She stated that workplace exercise facilities are becoming a "way of life." She also stated that approximately 519 of American adults are involved in some form of daily exercise program, and urged the Council to approve the subject request. In response to question raised by Council Member Turner regarding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Environmental Coordinator stated that this project did have a traffic study Volume 41 - Page 100 �,, TY OF NEWPOR'T 8,,,XCH COUNCIL MEMBERS{ March 9, 1987 MINUTES wnev prepared under the previous traffic PCA 638 phasing ordinance prior to the ordinance being amended, as well as after, and more mitigation measures were required under the amended traffic phasing ordinance because one of the revisions the City made required an analysis of intersections in the morning hours, as well as the afternoon hours. The standards, in terms of intersection impact within the traffic phasing ordinance, did not change to that the threshold remains the same. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the project: Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, referenced a letter dated March 9, 1987, and stated that the project, as approved by the Planning Commission, would still result in a project more intense than any other In the area so far, and would set a precedent for future action in the area. She also expressed her concerns with regard to the traffic that would be generated from this development. She further commented that piecemeal developer's proposals should not guide the City's general plan, or in this case, the planned Community Development Standards. Allan Beek, 1945 Sherington Place, indicated he felt the subject proposal was "spot -zoning," to which he expressed opposition. He stated he did not think there was any point in modifying the Newport Place Planned Community Development plan for one particular site, unless some deficiency is shown in the Planned Community as a whole, and in that case, the entire Planned Community should be studied and revised. He stated it is difficult to understand how an 11 story office building will reduce traffic as indicated by the applicant. He stated that the plan for this area was developed carefully many years ago, and allows 80,000 sq. ft. of building tv be constructed. The applicant has stated that their prime tenant only needs 40,000 sq. ft., so in his opinion, there is adequate square footage "for the job." He Volume 41 - Pago 101 3 -- Ci i'Y OF NEWPORT BE,,CH MINUTES d I I I P I I I I I I I \P 4* ;t\ March 9, 1987 stated that the only reason for JPCA 638 spot —zoning is to allow one particular property owner to increase his profits at the expense of the integrity of the Planned Community as a whole. He urged the Council to not approve the project. Council Member Turner indicated he did not feel this project could be interpreted as "spot —zoning," inasmuch as there are a number of similar type office buildings in the subject area. Sohn S. Miller, P.O. Box 1475, Newport Beach, indicated he felt the traffic demand management program was somewhat premature, unenforceable, and inappropriate to include in the approval of a project. He questioned whether the City really needs an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of office space, or another health club, or restaurant. Mayor Pro Tom Hart pointed out that the traffic demand management program is not voluntary, and is enforceable and will be monitored if this project is approved. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, stated that a traffic demand management program would not be needed if intensity of development was not increased. She fedla the City needs to "pull together" and listen to what the community is really trying to say. She indicated that the Council should respond to the message given when Measure A was defeated, and stop approving more development than what is really needed. Council Member Turner commented that everyone agrees traffic is a primary problem, and how you control it, as well. He noted that the subject property is located adjacent to the City's border and that surrounding cities contribute greatly to the traffic problems which affect this area. He stated that one of the issues he is hopeful of instigating is a traffic management program with the other surrounding cities. He stated that if this project is approved, and the traffic demand management program is put Volume 41 — Page 102 b,TY OF NEWPORT Bt-ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS , )A16cot March 9. 1987 MINUTES uunry .......... into effect, he would like to see PCA 638 surrounding cities initiate similar kinds of programs. Suzy Ficker, 110 9th Street, distributed copies of a letter in opposition to the proposal of which she read in fall. She Also Indicated she did not feel the traffic demand management program to realistic And does not feel the City can impose on peoples' rights In this rognrd. Wally 2lglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, read a letter in opposition to thin project from Angela Picker White, 1132 W. Bay Avenue. Dr. Christopher Lyon, 3814 Topside Lane, stated that any increase in traffic will also increase air pollution, and it behooves the Council to consider the long-range effects of any increase in building in this Area. Ile stated that the electorate have shown their foalingn by the defeat of Measure A. He Also does not feel that carpooling is fensible as referenced earlier. ,Cohn Gardner, 1924 Holiday Hood, indicated he felt the most Important issue involved in the vote on this project is "the integrity of the planning process, and whether or not the City is proceeding with development plecemeall" Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, representing Corona del Mar Community Association, stated that their Association is very much opposed to this project. Ile discussed the issue of air pollution, the Clean Air Act, and traffic. He stated that we need to get people where the work is, and that land use planning is the only viable way to snlve the problem. Council Member Turner pointed out that in the Environmental Document it states that 63% of the people employed in this City drive elsewhere to their place of work. Volume 41 - Page 103 i� _,TY OF NEWPORT E^ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS n.1113tI G PAOSt ��FP March q, 1987 MINUTES INDEX Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernardino Avenue, PCA 638 President of Newport Heights Community Association, addressed the Council neither for nor against the proposal, but did question whether there was some other way in which road improvements could be made without being tied to new development. Mr. Ring, in response to previous comments, addressed the Council again, and stated that the Environmental Document clearly stipulates to the contrary the claim of precedent -setting. Regarding the traffic demand management program and the alternatives offered in such a program, he stated that while this project may have 2400 trips per day, it is combining as many as six potential projects, which would have no traffic management plan overlay on them, into one project which is an attempt to reduce peak hour traffic. He does not feel this project is "spot -zoning," and pointed out that their project was the 20th amendment to this Planned Community text. He also noted that the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa and Santa Ana have commissioned studies with regard to a traffic demand management program on a city-wide basis. He further stated that Measure A, which was voted on by the electorate on November 25, was reflective of a project ten times the size of the net square footage that they would realize from this project. Bill Langston addressed the Council again, and gave a brief background history of Newport Place Planned Community Development going back approximately 15 years ago. He also commented that their project would not be precedent -setting or spot -zoning. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Turner stated that this project is a difficult one to assess, and has been in the planning process for over two years. He stated that looking at this development, as it was originally intended, he could not have supported it; however, it has been reduced considerably in size. He stated that this project is a mixed use type of development, which he feels will automatically help spread the traffic. He felt this type of building should be in the area where it is proposed, as it Volume 41 - Page 104 t,._ ry OF NEWPORT Ba...j1CH MINUTES Motion x March 9, 1987 tends to go along with the other PCA 638 structures in the vicinity. He pointed out that the applicant is required to comply with the City's traffic phasing ordinance and improve nine different intersections, as well as contribute other fens for improvements as required. Council Member Turner moved to approve t6a _p1mj¢ct as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the following modifications: 1) The word "should" be changed to "shell" in Condition No. 20 (page 5), 2) The word "should" be changed to "shall" in Condition No. 27 (page 6). 3) Item 2.F. (page 8) be changed from "eleven story" to "nine story." 4) The parking ratio be changed to one parking space per 225 sq. ft. (page 9, Finding No. 4), and (page 10, Condition No. 12). 5) The revised language regarding the Traffic Demand Management Program (pages 3, 4 and 5 of March 9 staff report) be included as a part of this project approval; and Adopt Resolution No. 87-29, Res 87-29 accepting, approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impnet Report; Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final rnvironmental Impact Report; Find that the facts act forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report Identifies certain unavoidable Volume 41 - Page 105 r CI i Y OF NEWPORT BENCH COUNCIL MEMBERS .. ..,'G�y��G�F�� ��t March 9> 1987 MINUTES INDFX significant environmental pCA 638 effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding • Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; Adopt Resolution No, 87-30, Res 87-30 adopting amendments to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations and Planned Community Development Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; and Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the Traffic Study and the modification to the Zoning Code for the provision of compact parking spaces. Council Member Plummer indicated her support of the motion, and expressed appreciation to those persons who testified on this issue, noting that because an expression of concern was made known at the hearing before the Planning Commission, the size of the project was reduced. She also feels the City Council has done some additional "tightening up" as shown in the foregoing motion. She stated that the City must give the private sector the opportunity to develop their sites as times and needs change. She stated she felt the request for a health club and restaurant were very reasonable. She also pointed out that the City Council has initiated a complete review of the City's General Plan, and the projects that are now on the drawing board face the same drastic reductions as was dictated to this particular project. Volume 41 - Page 106 tiTY OF NEWPORT BtACH COUNCIL MEMIARS "o\4165_SXN%�\�6 March 9, 1487 MINUTES imnKY She stated she was particularly excited ?CA 638 about the new traffic demand management program; feels the City has a reputation of being a leader in attempting to solve the traffic problem; and that the program may be copied by surrounding cities. Council Member Strauss indicated that he would not be supporting the motion as the issue of so-called piecemeal and intensity is a concern to him. He stated that this is about the first project to come before the Council since the defeat of Measure A, and it was expressed at that time that the voters did not want more office buildings. lie stated he is hopeful that the traffic demand management program succeeds; however, from his previous work experience, he feels it will be difficult. Council Member Sansone rend into the record the following prepared statements "The concerns of my constituents on this project, as expressed in letters and in telephone conversations, very closely follow the concerns that they expressed regarding the Newport Center Build -out. Namoly, the increase in traffic through Corona del Mar in particular, and throughout Newport Beach generally. "Whereas the Build -out held out some hope of traffic relief for Corona del Mar, this project does not. In foot, it adds to an almost intolerable current situation. "We are told that this project will add somewhere near 2,000 daily trips to the Airport Area. If only 10% of these trips impact Corona del Mar, that means somewhere near 200 daily trips per day. Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar cannot stand that increase. In fact, it cannot stand half that increase. The mitigations incorporated into the plan approved by the Planning Commission, includes widening southbound MacArthur from San Miguel to the Pacific Coast Highway intersection. That will get the cars to the Intersection faster, but what happens then? Granted, some will turn onto weatbound Pacific Coast Volume 41 - Page 107 C..'Y OF NEWPORT BE .CH COUNCIL�1 MEMBERS MINUTES ,,.T GPy�PG.yCod9G TJ+9y�G��P March 9> 1987 IIJ flF Y Highway, but the majority will turn ?CA 638 and be bottlenecked on Pacific Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. "My constituents are equally concerned about other developments projected for the airport area in our jurisdiction. Just last week the Planning Commission extended an amendment which will permit the Sheraton Hotel to add a 10-story, 349 room addition to their current facilities. And we are told there is no piecemealing in this area. "Lying in the wings are many other projects in our jurisdiction, i.e., Plaza de Cafe, the Sporting House, Birchers, Koll Center, Rockwell international, Campus Village, etc. "Newport residents told this Council in no uncertain terms on November 25th what it did not want, and I am sure that we would get the same message if this measure was put to a vote. The projected increases for the airport area, disregarding entirely what adjoining jurisdictions have planned, are worse than the Build -out is ever thought to be. "My constituents have told me what they want me to do and that is to vote against this plan --to vote against the Sheraton Hotel expansion and to vote against all others. If we've learned anything from the Measure A election, and from what we've heard here tonight, we cannot in all fairness and in your obligations to the residents • of this City, vote affirmatively on this plan as it now stands. "I do not want to see us face another referendum, but we are heading that way if we continue to do what we are doing tonight. I do, however, offer an alternative. I propose that prior to approval of this project, we resurrect the Airport Area Study and provide a comprehensive planning program for the area, and those areas impacted, and that the study develop main traffic route alternatives around Corona del Mar, namely Pelican Hills Road. I am cognizant that Volume 41 - Page 108 't b, ry OF NFEWPORT B►a-1CH MINUTES March 9, 1987 several of the developers declined to participate in the study previously suggested by the Council. If they will not reconsider, I suggest that we fund the study and recover those costs as future projects come before City Government. I further propose that the study include a plan for accruing funds to be used exclusively for providing traffic relief on MacArthur, Samboree and Irvine Avenue, as well no for participation in providing n bypass or bypasses around Corona del Hat. The Fair Share Ordinance provides the vehicle requested to accumulate and plan the distribution of ouch funds." The Planning bireetor, in clarifying the change In parking ratio, stated there were actually two modifications to the parking requirements that were being considered under this proposal: 1) A provision that would allow 251 compact atolls= and 2) The total number of parking spaces provided which would reduce the number of parking spaces from one parking space per 225 sq. ft. to one parking apace per 250 sq. ft. In order to make the findings consistent with the motion, in addition to changing the figure in Finding No. 4 (page 9), it will also be necessary to delete the language "and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq. ft.," due to the fact that the parking will be provided at code which is one space per 225 sq. ft. Therefore, the only modification is for the compact stalls. There being no objections to the foregoing, it was so ordered. Mayor Pro Tom Hart commented that every time a project is reviewed, traffic is a major consideration, and in this particular project possibly the City can sat an example. She stated that with all the development in the southern part of the County which is impacting old Corona del Mar, traffic continues to Increase. However, as new roads are built, which fill up quickly with traffic, often it seems as though we are worse off than before, so we must try and limit traffic by other methods. She stated that the strategy to encourage people to change their driving babits is desirable, and to consider Volume 41 — Page 109 PCA 638 I I I I I, Ct 1"Y OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 2 March 9. 1987 MINUTES INf1FY mass transit is not realistic at this PCA 638 time. She also felt that adding new freeways to keep commuting traffic out of our residential areas would not be achievable at the present time. She stated that one way to encourage a change in our driving habits, and a matter the City can control and implement with this project as a test case, is the traffic demand management program. She stated she was also hopeful that other cities will initiate such a program. She stated that she usually would not be supporting a project of this size, but with the reduction in square footage; with the model traffic management program; the traffic improvements which will come as a result of the project; the reduction to nine stories; the 25% reduction in traffic; and the change in parking requirements; she will support the proposal. Ayes x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. x I x COMMENTS: CALENDAR: Motion x g actions were taken as All Ayes xcept for those items removed. CES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to i reading on March 23, 1987: ro sod ORDINANCE NO. 87-5, being, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF Ord 87-5 N PORT BEACH AMENDING Fire Dpt SEC IONS IN CHAPTER 9.04 OF (41) THE EWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE D ADDING A SECTION PERTAI NG TO FEES AND DELETIN PROVISIONS IN THE UNIFORM FFRE CODE. (Report from the F re Chief) (b) Proposed ORDINANC N0. 87-6, being, AN ORDINANCE 0 THE CITY OF Ord 87-6 NEWPORT BEACH NDING SECTION Fire Dpt 1.12.020 OF THE WPORT BEACH (41) MUNICIPAL CODE BY RANTING FIRR DEPARTMENT EMP OYEES THE POWER TO MAKE MISDE ANOR ARRESTS FOR VIOLATION PERTAINING TO THE FIRE Volume 41 - Page 110 \ (G, i Y OF NEWPORT B6,ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 'A March 9. 1987 MINUTES IM-1TW4 .......... PREVENTION, FIRE SUPPRESSION, AND THE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. (Refer to agenda item F-1(a)) NS FOR ADOPTION: 2\(bi)Resolution ved from the Consent Calendar. No. 87-31 of rho City of OC/TrepCmen ort Beach opposing the Rea 87-31 bliehment of q freeway(54) ority. lution No. 87-32 of the City of PSng/Marnrs ort Beach directing the Nile SAP sing Commission to consider Res 87-32 dments to Mariners Mile (68) Specoic Area Plan. (Report from the Planning Department) 3. CONTRA CTS/A\REEMENTS: (a) Authorthe Mayor and the City 0/C/Orchrd Clerk execute Cooperative Or Rsrfcg AgreemNo. D87-021 with the C-2640 County o£\Orange regarding Orchard (38) Drive ResJxfacing. (Report from the Public!Works Department) t (b) Authorize the Mayor and the City rCAA/JtFwrs Clerk to execute Amendments to the Agrm/CNB Joint Powers �greement (C-2542) and C-2542 the Operating 8reement of the (38) Inter -County A rport Association; and instruct th Cityfs representative to the Governing Board of the 7CM to initiate appropriate actions to accomplish same. (Report fr4 the Executive Assistant to the C ty Manager) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as Indicated: (a) To Pending Legislatio and Legislation Procedural Ethics Comm ttee, (48) request for support of B 7-11 which will permit a cit to regulate by ordinance th public display of material de£inpd as sexually explicit, so as to protect the morals of minors, from President of (C.L.F..A.N.) itizens Leading Effective Action Now. :1 Volume 41 - Page III C : Y OF NEWPORT BE ^.CH (SeP1:[WR MINUTES , Present x x x x x x Absent I I I I I I I x Motion I I I x All Ayes Motion I I I x All Ayes REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 23, 1987 Mayo2-&ox presented a Proclamation to Walter E. Howal of Coastline Community College in reeognitio of their 40th Anniversary and the month of FebkgQry being 'California Community College Month A. ROLL CALL. B. The reading of the Minu s of the Meeting of February 9, 19 was waived, approved as written, and ord ad filed. C. The reading in full of all ordina ee and resolutions under consideration s waived, and the City Clerk was direct to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing regarding: PLANNING CO@MIISSION AMENDMENT NO. 638 - A request of the MCLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, Newport Beach, to amend the NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED POMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS so as to allow 278,489 sq. ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the subject property, located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposal also includes modifications to the , Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of office and bank floor area; to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request of the MCLACH INVESTMENT COMPANY, Newport Beach, to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq. ft. of additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Volume 41 - Page 77 PCA 638 Npt P1 PCD, MCLachlan (94) Study LJ r '-Orion .11 Ayes %.-,TY OF NEWPORT B"CH MY AES February 23, 1981 INDEX The City Clerk advised that after the PCA 638 agenda use printed, a letter was received from Jerry King, representing , the applicant, requesting continuance of this hearing to March 9, 1987, so that the applicant can revise the plans submitted in the initial application. The City Clerk also reported that she had received telephone calls from the following individuals in opposition to the proposed project: ' Joan Seltzer, Phyliss Okrand, Louise Creelay, Richard Spearman, Melanie Bennatt and Roy and .Jean Jiodano. , x Motion wall made to continue the subject hearing to_Nercb 9,'1997, and to also , request the,stnfr to: 1) Prepare language whereby the traffic management program is monitored, evaluated and a record kept of its progress; and 2) Add a condition of approval whereby any approved project , within this development be required to utilize all the existing development rights and that no carryovers be allowed; and 3) Report on the revisions that will be made to the Traffic Study as a result of the , action by the Planning Commission. T BUSINESS: , no objections from the Council, equested Agenda Item J-4 be at this time.from \orrequested the public Works Director ocean Fret a, Beaches and Recreation sdwlk Impry me concerning OCEAN FRONT (74)ALK ROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY, resents Letters from Dr. and Mrs. Don Chrisensen in oeposition to* proposed Ocean , front path,\ nd Mrs. Maria G. ' Coen with suggestion in lieu of the proposed altarestit bypath, were presented, \` , Volume 41 - Page 78 CI i Y OF NEWPORT BE„CH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES n�'4GC�f ��9Gsy�F�9G��P February 9. 1987 iunRY COMMISSION REPORTS - il information and approval: rt from the City Attorney O/C -John rding request of Orange County Wayne Arprt tion Council for \Memora (54) nforcement of condition rding opposition to John Wayne rt Expansion. ra um from Police Chief PD mmen ing three used police (70) rcycl a be donated to enwest College for use in their ining academy. police more\Depart (c) Removed froent Calendar. (d) Water Commies of January Utilities 30, 1987, tth report and (89) recommendatublic Works and Utilitiants. (a) Reports from the Police\Department PD/Audit concerning Department Audit - Case (70) , Management System 23A and\23B; and Community Relations. '_ I 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING Febru\;y 23,_. 1987: \ (a) APPEAL APPLICATION - Alex Lovera%and U/P 3248 Jim Parker regarding USE PERMIT N0. ' (88) 3248 on property located at 2632 \ West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, from Planning Commission denial on January 8, 1987. (b) PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. PCA 638 638 - A request of MCLACHLAN (94) INVESTMENT COMPANY, Newport Beach, to amend the NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS so as to allow 278,489 sq. ft.'of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Professional and Businers , Office Site No. 5; and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the subject property which is located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place; zoned P-C; AND Volume 41 - Page 64 (., fY OF NEWPORT BLACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ens , ra�G�y'p`G�'7+•� rod �'G����� February 9. 1987 11 im J TRAFFIC STUDY . A request of MCLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, Newport Beach, to approve a traffic aSWdy in conjunction with the construction of a 278,480 sq.'ft. office -commercial building in Newport Place. (Report from the Planning Department) , , BDIVI5ION NO. 736 - Accept the v , Resub 736 ic improvements constructed in (84) unction with Resubdivisfon No. 736 4 and portions of Lots 5 and 6, t No. 443 located at 504 North \0C5CP1,rJ'1 , ort Boulevard, on the northeasterly , er of North Newport Boulevard and ge Avenue in the Old Newportific Plan Area); authorize the City to release the Faithful Perf anc0 Bond (0B464104); and release the L or and Materials Bond (PB464104) in six ontha in accordance with applies a sections of the Civil Coda. ' (Report rom Public Works Department) 12. RESUBDIVIS ON NO. 831 - Approve a Resub 831 Subdivision Agreement guaranteeing (84) , completion a the public improvements 'required with Resubaivision No. 831 [a portion of Lot 1 and 3, Block 640, Corona del Mar, located at 6tl1 narcissus Avenue, on the n rthwesterly corner of , Narcissus Avenue nd Third Avenue in Corona del Mat[; a cept offer of dedication of a 10 t, radius corner cutoff of the inter ceion of Narcissus ' and Third Avenue, an authorize the Mayor and City Clerk execute subject agreement. (Report fr Public Works Department) 13. WATER, SEWER AND ALLEY ENT Wtr/Swr/Aly (C-2504) - Accept the w \tofIla Rplcm authorize the City Clera C-2504Notice of Completion ane thebonds 35 days after Notompletion has been recorded, and licable sections of the Civil Code. (t[Eport from from Public Works Department) \\ , 14. SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION NO. 86 90 - Permit/ Approve temporary street closure £ r "In 086-290 the Water goat Shod' at Via Oporto i the (65) Lido Marina Village on March 31 to A it 13, 1987, subject to conditions list! in the staff report. (Report from Business License Supervisor) , , 11 I ' City Council Meeting March 9, 1987 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office ' floor area in an eleven story building within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the ' subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank ' floor area; and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces and the acceptance of an environmental document. ' AND ' B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq.ft. of ' additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. ' LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the Northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT:•,.+ McLachlan;Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant I 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i 1 1 1 TO: City Council - 2 Background At the February 23, 1987 City Council meeting, the public hearing on this item was opened and continued to March 9, 1987. This report provides additional information requested by the City Council in regards to the project and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The report prepared and distributed for the City Council meeting of February 23, 1987 provides a detailed analysis of the project and the suggested action. Square Footage Approved and Future Development Rights. The following chart outlines the existing, requested and Planning Commission recommended project for the subject site. Should the City Council approved the project as recommended by the Planning Commission, no additional allowable development will be included in the development limitations of the Planned Community Text beyond that needed to construct the project. Any development proposed for the site in the future must go the same amendment procedure as this application. FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPARISON - NEWPORT PLACE OFFICE SITE 5 BUILDING SIZES ------------------------ (BUILDING 1 0.63 FART 1.58 FAR 10.82/1.0 FARE (Existing) (Requested) I (Approved) 1CONTINENTAL 1 70,500 SF 1 70,500 SF 1 70,500 SF -------------------- I ------------ I------------I------------I BANK OF AMERICA 1 20,567 SF 300,000 SF 209,700 ------------ SF -------------------- IMC LACHLAN ------------I------------ 14,400 SF 14,400 ------------ SF 14,400 ------------ SF I-------------------- JADDITIONAL ALLOWED -------------------- ------------ 80,297 ------------I------------ SF 80,297 SF 0 ------------ SF ITOTAL 185,764 SF 465,197 SF 294,600 SF ]INCREASED ALLOCATION] ------------------------------------------------------------ 0 SF 279,433 SF 108,836 SF The increase approved by the Planning Commission is res- tricted in that only 55,806 sq.ft. can be used for office development. The remaining 53,030 sq.ft. is limited to ancillary commercial uses which would support the office use such as the health club, restaurant, tobacconist, etc. Therefore, if the existing Bank of America building is removed and a new building is constructed in its place, it would contain a maximum of 209,700 sq.ft. and have a floor area ratio of 1.0. If the ancillary uses were not con- structed, the building would contain 156,670 sq.ft. and have a floor area ratio of 0.82. 1 ' TO: City Council - 3 ' Traffic Study. A question was raised regarding the state- ments in the staff reports to the Planning Commission on the need to revise the Traffic Study. The first Planning ' Commission hearing was continued for one month. During this time, the City Traffic Engineer reviewed the Traffic Study and determined that the reduction in the project recommended by staff did not eliminate any of the critical intersections identified, and did not eliminate any of the recommended intersection improvements. I Traffic Demand Management Program. Questions have been raised regarding the specificity and level of detail in the Planning Commission adopted condition on the Traffic Demand Management System. This condition was designed to require the implementation of a comprehensive traffic reduction program which will result in both a peak hour and daily trip reduction. The program sets forth mandatory participation requirements, a trip reduction goal, and a detailed assess- ment and reporting procedure. Refinements to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission has been requested to assure early development and implementation of the program. A revision to the condition prepared by the City Attorney is presented below, with new language underlined. These changes strengthen the language in the areas lease requirements, program coordination and performance evaluation, as well as giving the City the ability to require additional tenant participation in the program if the 25% trip generation reduction goal is not achieved. "Prior to the issuance of the Oeeup&rrey Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. shall n. The TDM program all tenant leases in The Transportation Demand Management Program shall, at a minimum, include the following features: 1. Tke-4�rans}�es�at}en-�-���rb-�rc�ram-sl°ral-� }rteI-m e A program coordinator which shall be an I TO: 1 1 1 City Council - 4 coordinator snali nave w&L-n the specific assignment of developing, coordinating and overseeing the program. fin-add#t#eny Each tenant with 50 or more on site employees shall designate a-eantaet-person for-bath-employees-nel- the-c=ocrrcii�tor one manage- G&AB- A goal to reduce, by 25% or more, the re&uetien-}n a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip genera- tion rates, the reduction to be based upon a comparison with standard City rates. when-eempared With -eity-sband&r& rates - METHODS: The TDM program shall Program: rove er-m ees- a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to partici- pants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. TO: City Council - 5 ' This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. ' 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the ' various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period ' during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. iCounts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek and are subject to verification by City staff.) The report shall ' also discuss the extent to which the TDM Program 1 goal. ..aic aura rivyiaui. A question was raised as to the propriety of the 25% goal for trip reduction, since adopted programs in the Cities of Pleasanton and Irvine have defined higher goals. It is important to note that these other programs apply to area wide programs which have many large employers. Large employers are more effective in reducing trips through transportation demand management techniques than small employers, many of whom are unable to implement any traffic reduction techniques. A single, multi -tenant office building is not likely to have a high percentage of large employers, therefore a smaller trip reduction requirement is appropri- ate. Respectfully submitted, ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jame D. Hewicker, Director By PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/Council 3-9A638.CCR I ICity Council Meeting February 23, 1987 ' Agenda Item No. D-1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' T0: City Council FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development ' Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Profes- sional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restau- rant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of ' one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area; and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental document. ' AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) ' Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construc- tion of 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the New- port Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as applicant ' Applications If approved as requested by the applicant, the applications under consideration will allow the construction of a 300,000 sq.ft., eleven story office building on the site currently occupied by the Bank of America building on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place. An amendment to the Development ' Standards and square footage allocations contained in the Newport Place Planned Community is required, as well as modifications to the Development Standards to allow parking to be provide4 at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of ' floor area, and to allow a portion of the required parking spaces to be compact spaces. The acceptance of a Traffic Study and an environmental document are also required. Amendment procedures for Planned Communities are contained in l T0; City Council - 2, ' Section 20.51.045, Modification procedures are contained in Chapter 20.81, and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The same applications are required for the project recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, which reduced the increase in development ' to 108,836 sq.ft, from the 278,489 sq.ft. requested. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearings if desired, by Planning A. Approve the project as recommended the Commission and 1. Adopt Resolution No. , accepting, approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact; 3. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Consid- erations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; , 4. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environ- mental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an accept- able level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Over- riding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; 5. Adopt Resolution No. , adopting amendments to the Newport Place ' Planned Community District Regulations and Planned Community Develop- ment Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; 6. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the Traffic Study and the modification to the Zoning Code for the provision of compact parking spaces and the provision of parking at a ratio of one , space for each 250 sq.ft, of net floor area for office uses in the structure. OR ' B. Continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 9, 1987, and direct staff to prepare the Findings and Facts required to approve the , project as submitted by the applicant. OR , C. Continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 9, 1987. OR ID. Deny the project. LEI r TO: City Council - 3. ' Planning Commission Action on January 22, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. At the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted (all ayes) to approve the project subject to a ' reduction in the additional allowable floor area from that which was requested by the applicant. The addition of future development rights was reduced from the requested 278,489 sq.ft. by 169,653 sq.ft. to an additional 108,836 sq.ft. ' (a 61% reduction). Of the 108,836 additional square feet approved, 55,833 sq.ft, can be constructed for office use and 53,030 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for ancillary commercial uses within the building] such as restaurant, health club and retail uses, which are supportive of the primary office use. When combined with existing committed development rights on the site, a new building which would replace the existing Bank of America building could be a maximum of 209,700 sq.ft., of which 156,670 sq.ft. could be office. The Planning Commission also adopted a series of mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval in regards to the proposed development. One of these measures, relative to flex -time requirements, was further clarified and refined by the ' Commission at the February 5, 1987 meeting at the request of staff. For the ease of Council review, the complete and final Findings and Conditions of Approval are listed below: A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. ' 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feas- ' ible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation mea- sures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: i1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be ap- proved by the Building and Planning Departments. '• 2. That .a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 1 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. TO: City Council - 4. 1 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submit- , ted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed land- scape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. ' 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought - resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Leg (h) ' Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, , clerical, etc. 5o Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 ' 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. ' I r� TO: City Council - 5. ' DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; c) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protec- tion. 15. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire sup- ' pression systems approved by the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connec- tions) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. ' 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular ' basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written ' verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - ' saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 1 I 1 TO: City Council - 6. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution , facilities required by the new development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the r proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. Prior to the issuance of the occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Manage- ment Program. The TAM program shall be included in all tenant leases in , the building. The program shall include the following features: a) The Transportation Demand Management Program shall include a coordin- ator with the specific assignment of developing and overseeing the program, In addition, each tenant with fifty or more on -site employ- ees shall designate a contact person for both employees and the coor- dinator. b) GOAL: 25% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared with City standard rates. c) METHODS: The TDM program shall provide for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically identify one or more methods) for implementation with its employees. , 1) Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. 2) Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharinq computer match program. Public transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees, 3) Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by ' employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling, including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to participants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. ' 4) Varpooling: This method is similar to carpooling except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. r TO: City Council - 7. ' d) EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a repre- sentative day during midweek. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Findings: been the impact of the 1. That a Traffic Study has prepared which analyzes proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing morning or afternoon 2.5 hour peak period on a leg of fourteen critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at nine critical intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests several circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause, nor make worsen unsatisfactory level of traffic service at on any major, primary -modified, or primary street. 5. That all identified intersection improvements shall be made by the appli- cant, except for the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North. The time and money necessary to complete the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is clearly disproportionate to the size of and traffic generated by the project in that the improvement will require widening of a bridge over the Corona del Mar Freeway. It would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of this improvement. r6. That the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is a part of the improvement program of the County of Orange associated with John Wayne -Orange County Airport, and is anticipated to commence construction in three years. The County of Orange is currently conducting necessary studies and design work, along with cost estimates for this improvement. The improvement is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 7. That the project will be required to pay a fee to fund construction of the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North and that the fee will be proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this loca- tion, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This fee is in addition to any other fees, contributions or conditions imposed on the project. h TO: City Council - 8. , S. That the project's contribution towards construction of major improvements substantially outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. Conditions: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circulation system ' improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28-30), except at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersection at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be made by the applicant pursuant to section 15.40.030 A.i(c) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. NO. 638: , C. AMENDMENT Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "*Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" *If commercial uses are constructed which are ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, addition development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft, may be developed, so long as the office use does not exceed 241#570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5...1,267 cars..." MODIFICATION: Findings: 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. ' 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces constitutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any , easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. I TO: City Council - 9. 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh- borhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legis- lative intent of Title 20 of this Code. ' Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. 1 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. I TO: City Council - 10. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of drive- ways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. , 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13, That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. 14. Deleted. 15. That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking struc- ture. This landscape program shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the informa- tion provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. Discussion Analysis of the proposed project is contained in the staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission and attached to this report. Specific issues or changes to the project addressed by the Planning Commission are discussed in this report. ' Floor Area Reduction. The Planning Commission reduced the project from that ' which was requested by approximately 61%. The primary concern of the Planning Commission in taking this action was the overall floor area ratio of Office Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community. In addition to the proposed new structure, two existing buildings will remain; the Continental Insurance Building and the McLachlan investments Building. In reducing the allowable building size, the Commission did not specifically require a reduction in the height of the building, which was approved by the Federal Aviation Administra- tion and the Airport Land Use Commission, to be a maximum of 167 feet in height. This height limit will still allow for a building design envelope of eleven stories. This is a height similar to the nearby Mitsui Manufacturers Bank, which is ten stories. I r� TO: City Council ' Intersection Improvements. The Planning Commission approved the Traffic L Study, requiring nine intersection improvements to be made by the applicant and contribution to a tenth improvement being made by the County of Orange, consistent with the provisions of Section 15.40.030(A) (i) (c) of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This improvement, which requires the widening of the bridge 1 over the Corona del Mar Freeway at Campus Drive, was found by the Planning Commission to be clearly disproportionate to this project in terms of time and money necessary to complete, that the improvement is anticipated to commence construction within three years, that the project will pay a fee proportionate to the ratio of project traffic at this intersection and that the project's contribution towards construction of major improvements substantially outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. Transportation Demand Management Program. In the original consideration of the project, the Planning Commission imposed a requirement for the employers of the building to make flexible working hours available to employees in the building. In imposing this condition, the Commission did not define minimum participation or performance standards. Subsequent to the approval, staff requested clarification by the Planning Commission in regards to the intent of the condition. The Planning Commission refined the condition applied to require development of a comprehensive Traffic Demand Management Program in the structure, which will make use of a wide variety of traffic reduction measures, including public transportation, flexible working hours, carpooling and van - pooling. Compact Parking Percentage. In reviewing and approving projects, the City has retained some discretion in the design standards of parking areas. Provision of compact parking requires the approval of a modification, and has typically ' been approved up to a maximum of 25* compact parking spaces. The Newport Place Planned Community requires parking to be provided at a ratio of one space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area, but allows a reduction of this standard to one space for each 250 sq.ft. upon the approval of a modification. Public Works Department design standards govern the width and depth of parking spaces, and aisle widths in parking lots. Generally speaking, parking spaces for office uses (considered to be long-term parking) are required to be 8-1/2 ft. in width, is ft. in depth, with an aisle width of 24 ft. Compact parking spaces are 7-1/2 ft. in width, 15 ft. in depth, and can have aisles as small as 20 ft., depending on the parking lot configuration. The City Council recently approved an amendment in the Newport Place Planned Community allowing construction of a 54,000 sq.ft. office building on the former Victoria Station Restaurant site. In approving that project, the City Council allowed provision of compact parking up to 25%. A modification from the one space for 225 sq.ft, was also granted, but the City Council required that standard parking spaces be converted to compact parking spaces, up to a maximum of,401, compact, in order to provide additional parking spaces on site beyond that which would result from that achieved by one space for each 250 sq.ft. If a similar standard were applied to the project, the following would be the difference in parking provided the conversion: I TO: City Council - 12. ' PARKING SPACE COMPARISON Standard Compact Total Ratio 25% Compact 729 243 972 1/250 40% Compact 593 396 989 1/244 Difference -136 +153 +11 Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director , by IQ PATRICIA LEE LEIF Environmental Coordinator PLT/kk CC20 Attachments for City Council Only: 1. Planning Commission Minutes - January 22, 1987 2. Planning Commission Minutes - February 5, 1987 3. Planning Commission Staff Report - January 22, 1987 4. Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report - January 22, 1987 5. Planning Commission Staff Report - February 5, 1987 6. Attachment No. 2 to the Draft Environmental Impact Report Attached Separately: 7. Plans and Elevations S. Draft Environmental Impact Report 9. Traffic Study I I I MINUTES COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL 7. That the existing automobile and boat electronics ' facility has violated City Codes and Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 3121. ' 8. That approval of Use Permit No. 3250 will, under be detrimental to the circumstances of this case the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City. iA Amendment No 638 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community A638 Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story "Professional Business Offices Site TS — building within and No. 5" and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, Approved and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor areas; to allow 25 as compact percent of the required parking spaces spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND ' B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 278,489 sq.ft. office -commercial building in Newport Place. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resub- division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- westerly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. P-C ZONE: ' -28- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 ry��? CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I FTTTM INDEX APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator. in response to questions that had been posed by members of the Planning Commission to staff prior to the public , hearing, Me. Temple reviewed the supplemental staff report for the subject Amendment: the comparison of the proposed project's floor area ratio to MacArthur Court; the clarification of floor area calculations; a recommended condition of approval if a reduced project is approved requiring additional parking for the athletic club; if the ancillary used would be converted to office use; a recommended condition requiring a landscape program for the roof of the parking structure; revised findings for denial; and modified Condition No. 12 in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C" due to , errors and omissions in the suggested conditions. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King outlined the proposed project. He advised that the applicant has reduced the project from the original application of 1.56 floor area ratio to 1.20 floor area ratio. He said that the reduction of the floor area ratio enables the applicant to construct the project without financially threatening the project; however, if the floor area ratio would be reduced further the project would require the same mitigation measures and improvements, and would seriously threaten the project's ability to provide the area traffic improvements. to 24 story , Mr. King Compared the proposed project a office building in downtown San Diego as similar to the 11 story proposed bank and office building. Mr. King stated that in addition to the office use, the project includes a restaurant, service deli, a full service health club, newspaper stand, tobacco shop, florist shop, and dry cleaner. Mr. King further stated that , the lobby would also be used for "after -hour" events such as charitable events. `29- ' *COMMISSIONERS - . - .-I _. MINUTES January 22, 1987 CALL C I I I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. King concluded his presentation by stating that the self-contained fully serviced work place would reduce trips from the building further by offering conference room facilities to the tenants and executive office suites. Mr. King stated that the proposed project would replace the Bank of America building, and that Bank of America would combine their various operations into a regional office and would occupy several floors and a portion of the main lobby. McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder -Langston Construction Company would also be housed on site, totalling approximately 50 percent of the square footage proposed. Mr. King stated that McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder -Langston Construction Company have a traffic management concept that has been employed by their companies in the past to reduce trips and manage traffic in their companies, and the principals of the companies are willing to write language in the lease to encourage new tenants to join with them in doing the same, resulting in a total traffic management program similar to the concept that many cities are introducing and which staff has required the applicant to do as a condition. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman regarding proposed square footage for ancillary uses, Mr. Bill Langston, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that 8,000 square feet is proposed for the restaurant, 8,000 square feet is proposed for the athletic club, and 8,000 square feet is proposed for the lobby. Chairman Person asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval stating that if the project would be approved by the Planning Commission, that any conversion of the retail, restaurant, or athletic club, or the ancillary services would not be possible without further' review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that the applicant would agree to the condition; however, any conversion would be unlikely because the athletic club is in the basement, the lobby is a huge lobby, and the restaurant is located in the basement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the size of the proposed project if the project would be reduced to .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio from the requested 1.31 Floor Area Ratio, staff replied that 1.31 Floor Area Ratio would be 300,000 square -30- INDEX I COMMISSIONERS }yam} CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES I January 22, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX feet, and .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio Would be 209,700 square feet, which could be eight stories as opposed to ' eleven stories. In comparison to the proposed project, Mr. Langston commented that Mitsui Manufacturer's Bank is 10 stories. , Ms. Temple referred to Chairman Person's previous remarks regarding a condition of approval prohibiting the conversion of ancillary uses without the Planning Commission's approval. Ms. Temple advised that the revised Planned Community text in the "reduced project alternative .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio", states that any conversion of the ancillary Uses would require an amendment to the Planned Community text and would require the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. ' Mr. Bill Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Langston stated that there are 7 buildings in Newport teach that are 10 to 15 storiest in Irvine there are 15 buildings completed or under construction ranging from 10 to 17 stories and that there are 15 other projects in Irvine that range from 10 to 29 stories that are in process. Mr. Langston explained the reason for the delay of the process is that the FAA has arrived at a new criteria for ' evaluating heights of structures to insure no interference with the navigation signal. He advised that the signal allows for a quiet approach to a slope of 1.3 degrees away from the airport which is the height limit that the FAA would approve and not interfere With the signals. Mr. Langston indicated that the 1.3 degree slope caused the proposed project to be reduced from a proposed 15 stories to 11 stories, and that the applicants have been the only developers to work with the FAA to lower the project to fit within the FAA criteria relative to the signal. Mr. Langston stated that the applicants have mot the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission and have received their approval by lowering the building. ' Mr. Langston commented that the subject site is the most dramatic location for the proposed project. He emphasized that the ancillary uses will be subsidized by the building so as to confine the tenants to the building's services in order to encourage the tenants not to travel in their automobiles to seek services , elsewhere. ' -31- COMMISSIONERS �G 9N 999f 'O.o yt^ 9yd`„ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 OLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Beverly Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, appeared ' before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and and in reference to the health club. Mrs. Langston's presentation consisted of the results ' of a survey of 100 men and women who work out regularly in Newport Beach. She referred to the research that indicated that the increasing need for companies to keep the employees productivity up by providing daily exercise, and also that exercise has become a "way of life" for the majority of American executives. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy health club to the comparing the proposed aforementioned San Diego health club, Mrs. Langston replied that a restaurant facility is contemplated for ' the health club. She further replied that one-half of the members of the health club's come from the outside but that she has not determined if the members were related in some'way to the building's employees or if the members were arriving within walking distance of the building. Mr. Allan Beek appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Beek stated that he admires the concepts of a self-contained building which reduces outside traffic; however, he felt that the project should be moved to an area where the employees are coming from. He questioned the need for more office space in Newport Beach; that the ' development does not have the amenities that other recent Newport Beach proposals have had; that the project is the first of many steps for increased office space in the airport vicinity; the site has the highest Place; and that the subject floor area ratio in Newport development is the 'first of piecemeal development in the area. Mr. Beek referred to staff's comment in the staff report that "based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, all adverse environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. This project, along with all existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumulatively significant." Mr. Beek contended that the project should not be considered any more than any other project to be considered until making an over-all decision, and he remarked that the Planning Commission should contemplate "are we going to increase the -32- I/7 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1 F January 22, 1987 G 'f Ti C 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX intensity all around the airport area?" Mr. Beek concluded that the project should be denied, that the , recommendation is reasonable and is consistent with staff's findings. Commissioner Koppelman referred to Mr. Beek's statement regarding the recent airport study that was withdrawn recently by the Planning Commission and she asked Mr. Beek if he felt that a study of the airport area and the intensity should be implemented? Mr. Beek replied yes, and further stated that when that study was withdrawn, the implication was that the intent of the City for its planning had been read and that the intensity in the airport area was not to be increased. He opined that was not the intent after all, that the intent was circumvent because projects would be brought , in piecemeal. Commissioner Koppelman advised that the subject project pre -dated the projects included in the studies, that the proposed project has been in the , planning stages for approximately two years. Commissioner x6ppelman pointed out that along with this project, if it was approved, there would be $3.5 million of traffic improvements in the area, and if the project was not approved, then a 100,000 square foot project could be built on the subject with no traffic , mitigations or traffic improvements. Mr. Beek replied that he could accept a 1000000 square foot project if traffic studies show that there would not be unsatisfactory intersection problems. Ms. Temple stated that in addition to the existing Bank of America, there are approximately 80,000 square feet of development which has been previously vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance through the approval of the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan and two subsequent amendments to that Plan. She said that 100,000 square feet has passed through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' and is considered a committed vested project. in summary, Commissioner Koppelman concluded that the Planning Commission has the option to deny a project and not obtain any traffic mitigation measures and end up with a 100,000 square foot building on the subject site, or approve the project And obtain the mitigation measures and the $3.5 million worth of traffic improvements. Mr. Beek rebutted that the traffic mitigation measures proposed by the project would do nothing to help the 55 Freeway and San Diego Freeway, and the other things that are so impacted by the r -33- ,r fi COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX intense development in the airport area. Mr. Beek ' concluded that the City has developed and adopted a General Plan, reconciled the development with the traffic capacity, and he questioned what is the point of developing general plans and specific area plans if i they are going to be eventually modified and built much larger? Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Beek to clarify his statements regarding office space vacancy. Mr. Beek replied that he was aware of the office space vacancies by visible rental signs and what he has read in the has differentiated between newspapers; however, he not between three story buildings and buildings above three 1 stories. Mr. Dick Nichol, 519 Iris, appeared before the Planning he Commission. Mr. Nichol commented that as a resident was concerned about the density in the airport area and the change in the life style from a residential area to a metropolitan area. As a Director of the Orange County Chapter of the Air Pollution Control Association, Mr. Nichol commented that the projects in the airport area have affected the air pollution in the that to slow ' South Coast region. Mr. Nichol emphasized down air pollution, buildings must be built closer to the population centers where people live, and he opined that is the opposite of what is happening around the 1 airport area. He opined that the air pollution could eventually shut down all industry in the area. In reference to "LOR", the standard navigational aid for Nichol explained aircraft throughout the nation, Mr. the bounce that arises from buildings in the airport and Newport Beach areas, and he commented on air traffic safety. Mr. Nichol stated that the FAA has put a lid on the buildings in the airport area for safety reasons very significantly. before the Planning ' Mr. Jerry King reappeared Commission in response to statements made previously by Mr. Allan Beek and Mr. Dick Nichol. Mr. King commented that as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Orange County Transportation Commission, he stated that a member of the EPA has indicated that emission standards applicable to the region have -not been that the EPA has discussed enforceable. He said reducing the standards for automobiles and that there has been an attempt to "get a handle" on automobile pollution. Mr. King expanded upon the -34- w COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I II I I INDEX S affordable development that is taking place in Newport Beach and the demand for affordable housing by the people who work in the area. Mr. King explained that , in an effort to build membership in the athletic club in San Diego, that the athletic club has been taking members from outside of the building; however, as soon , as the building is fully occupied and the demand for the health club increases from the building's tenants, the preferred members will come from the occupants of the building. Mr. King presented closing statements by describing the project's consistency with the city's hand use Element and the General Plan, and the Traffic Phasing ordinance. There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Winburn asked if there would be any , reduction of traffic mitigation measures if the project would be as staff is recommending to 0.82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio? Ms. Temple replied that the Traffic Engineer reviewed the Traffic Study and indicated that the reduction in the project would not eliminate any of the proposed mitigation in the traffic study. Winburn in response to questions posed by Commissioner regarding a 50/50 mitigation from future projects in the area, Ms. Temple replied that the Planning Department has not received requests for any significant development in the airport area. Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the bridge would be widened through the County airport expansion and that the County is doing significant work on Campus Drive. He said that the scheduling for the County work should be within two to three years, and he said that there could be a 50/50 mitigation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Webb replied that the bridge widening project could cost between $1 million to $1.5 million. chairman Person stated that there is a difference between the proposed project and the projects that were included in the Airport Study that was terminated by the Planning Commission. He commented that he was aware of the proposed development during the past two years; however, the proposed project was partly delayed -35- ' COMMISSIONERS �G t^ �p�9iC9 A� Fy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 BOLL CALL INDEX because of the change in the Traffic Phasing ordinance. ' Chairman Person added that with those thoughts in mind, and realizing that there are entitlements of almost 100,000 square feet that could be built with no ' mitigation, he believed that a project which would measures is provide the City with some mitigation appropriate. He opined that if there are to be tall buildings in Newport Beach, than the airport area is the appropriate place for such buildings. In response to a statement made previously during the public hearing, Chairman Person responded that the waterfront residential area would not be affected by the out that the metropolitan airport area. He pointed applicant would be required to expend a great deal of money for mitigation. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Traffic Phasing ordinance and requirements that make the developer provide the road requirements, she opined that the that is necessary for the project intensifies because developer to come out on the development economically. She pointed out that the proposed project requires expensive improvements because of the overpass and intensifies the project in order to get the improvements in. In summary, she said that 100,000 ' square feet would not require traffic improvements, and 0.82/1.0 Floor that if the Planning Commission approved Area Ratio as recommended by staff which would add an additional 100,000 square feet or two-thirds of that requested by the applicant. Then the City would receive an additional $3.5 million of road improvements which is not just to satisfy the in and out traffic but would satisfy the traffic that is brought into the community outside of Newport Beach. In consideration of the aforementioned remarks, motion Motion x was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". The maker of the motion confirmed with staff that the concern previously stated regarding the conversion of ancillary uses is in the Planned Community text and is not necessary as an added condition. In regard to an added condition in terms of mitigation required, Mr. Webb stated that at the present time -36- COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ■ there are no other developmen to do it. Chairman Person sai other development would occur entitled to a reimbursement ui of the bridge improvement. Mi the bridge will take a long processing. He asked if it Planning Commission that the the occupancy of the building! that it is the intent of the the bridge be widened as conjunction with the start up said that if this is an impro, the developerp it would req nmmnleted nrior to occupancy :s that would be required d that until such time as the applicant would be to one-half of the costs Webb said that widening time period because of was the intent of the bridge be widened before Chairman Person replied Planning Commission that soon as possible in of the project. Mr. Webb ,ement that is required of Ure that the bridge be unless the project is too expensive to do himself, and then he would have to be willing to bond the improvement. Ms. Temple said that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does address improvement which are beyond the scope of the project. She said that there are four findings which must be made: (1) That the cost disproportionate generated by the of t to the project. (2) That construction commence within 48 project approval. he improvement is size of any traffic of the improvement shall months from the date of (3) That the approval of the project is conditioned upon payment of the fee to fund construction of the improvements with the amount of the fee to bear the same proportion to the estimated cost of the improvement as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. (4) That the financial contribution toward the construction of the major improvement outways the projects temporary adverse impact on unimproved intersections. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the engineering for the said bridge is underway and there have been meetings with Cali -Trans and the County and adjacent land developers with respect to the circulation improvements. He pointed out that the building will not be 300 percent leased from the time the doors are opened. He said that the -37- COMMISSIONERS NAX��, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 ROLL CALL INDEX square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public ' area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code."; add Condition No. 15 to Amendment No. 638t "That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and , approval of the Planning Director."I add Condition No. 16 to Amendment No. 638: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and , restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director." chairman Person stated that his motion does not reflect his feelings concerning the sites that have been identified as the "Airport Study Area". He reasoned that he is relating specifically to the subject site and this particular square footage that has been allotted and allocated for the subject site with the knowledge that the proposed project has been within the city's process for approximately two years; that the project is not precedent setting in respect to any of the Airport Study Area offices which were identified in the staff report in the December 4, 1986, Planning , Commission meeting; that this is a separate and different project and he opined that the proposal balances the additional square footage in view of the mitigation involved based upon the existing "on the ground" square footage and is justified. In reference to the Environmental Impact Report, Condition No. 28: "The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service.", Commissioner Koppelman asked if the City had implemented any traffic management programs over and , above what is in the condition on any other project? Ms. Temple replied that a traffic systems management program was made a condition of approval of General Plan Amendment 80-3 and General Plan Amendment 85-1B which were ultimately denied; however, the City has -39- rCOMMISSIONERS c^� 7y Fw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 L CALL INDEX imposed specific rideshare conditions on OCTD ' participation. Commissioner Koppelman referred to previous testimony regarding writing a traffic management into the building leases, and she asked if the program for Newport Center is one that would be applicable to a building of this size? Ms. Temple replied that staff feels that a building of the subject project's size does not provide a large enough base for sustaining a traffic management program. In further response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Temple replied that with some modification to the wording, the terms of said Condition No. 28 could be incorporated into the leases, and that the wording change would simply require that the subject of the lease would contact and participate in the OCTD rideshare programs which are currently in existence. The maker of the motion agreed with Commissioner Koppelman to add Condition No. 29 to the Environmental Impact Report which would require the applicant to incorporate the language of Condition No. 28 into the building leases. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion, and she pointed out that it was a difficult decision to decide exactly what is appropriate for the site. Commissioner Koppelman further stated that the ' project concept of ancillary uses on -site for the employees is a good point, and that the subject site is an appropriate place to develop any sort of high-rise structure. In reference to Chairman Person's previous testimony, Commissioner Koppelman agreed that the subject project is not a criteria for any further development in the area. Commissioner Winburn stated that she has had difficulty supporting the project as far as increasing the density to provide for the traffic mitigation measures. She reasoned that the project has been reduced and that with the measures that have been taken as far as the pro-rata share of the large $3.5 million or the $1.5 million as previously stated by Mr. Webb, for the cost of the bridge at that location, she felt that she could approve the project. Commissioner Winburn further stated that she felt that the applicant has been going through the "pipeline" for the past two years, and for one reason or another, the project has not been able to come forward to the Planning Commission. ' -40- i as a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1 January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill referred to Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28, and stated that the condition should be amended to "the project shall establish a rideshare , program..", instead of "the project should establish a rideshare program...". Commissioner Merrill suggested that staggered starting times should be addressed. Chairman Person stated that he would accept an amendment to the motion to modify Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28 from "should" to "shall". , Ms. Temple requested that Condition No. 14 of the Modification be deleted because the condition required , a subsequent traffic study. Chairman Person accepted the recommendation as a part of the motion. Commissioner Merrill addressed the issue of flex -time , and the success that flex -time has had in other areas of the state. He pointed out that the concept has to start somewhere, and that if the concept is impossible , to implement at this time, then there should be a condition that would encourage the applicant to initiate the flex plan. , Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the success of flex time during the Olympics when there were better traffic conditions, and he pointed out how well the plan can ' work if it is planned, and that people cooperated. Chairman Person stated that he would agree to a condition that the applicant submit a flex -time program to the Traffic Engineer for approval as part of the proposed project as Condition No. 30. , Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if the condition would mean that from now on that office development of any size would be obligated to have flex -time? Chairman Person replied that the Planning Commission would look at the plan on a project by project basis. Commissioner Eichenhofer contended that the uniqueness of the commercial services in the proposed building are going to accomplish some traffic management which is one of , the reasons that she stated that she would support the motion. She questioned if making flex -time that strong would be appropriate for this project, and she said that she is having difficulty with the condition as much as she would like to see the concept implemented. -41- , M NJ •� UVMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 v • p 7 '9 t^ •Z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WLL CALL INDEX I I I I r I I Commissioner Koppelman addressed the flex plan as a condition to be approved by the Traffic Engineer and the different uses in the building automatically become a flex plan, and she questioned if it would be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer to leave it alone if it seems to be working, and let the Traffic Engineer make the determination? Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that many times flex time is resisted by management but is virtually always highly well received by the employees, and that if the concept is a part of the program of the office and mentioned in the terms of the lease, then the plan will induce people to come there who will accept and embrace the concept. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not know if Commissioner Merrill intended the flex -time to be a part of the leases however, she said that she felt that it would be a good idea along with the OCTD. In response to a concern of Chairman Person, Commissioner Eichenhofer replied that she would accept the condition as long as the applicant would not be locked in. Chairman Person included aforementioned Conditions No. 29 and No. 30 to the motion. In response to statements made by Chairman Person and Commissioner Merrill regarding Revision No. 2 to Amendment No. 638 pertaining to the proposed project's 241,570 square feet and eleven stories, Ms. Temple advised that staff did not delete "eleven story" because it reflected the maximum level the FAA and the Airport Land Use Commission were willing to consider. She explained that if the reduced project is, in fact, constructed, the developer may build anywhere within this height limit that is appropriate for his project. Ms. Korade confirmed with Chairman Person that the wording of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 15.040.030 A (i) (C) 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been included as Findings in the Traffic Study as applied to the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street. Mr. Webb presented the following Condition as the condition relates to the aforementioned Findings: "That the designated Traffic Phasing Ordinance improvements to Campus, Drive and Bristol Street North intersection -42- I COMMISSIONERS G'� ��fpyCyy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 I ROLL CAL, INDEX falls under section 15.040.030, and that the Ipplirant would contribute his fare share to the construction of those improvements." Mr. Hewicker referred to the discussion regarding , flex -time, and he asked if the Planning Commission had a specific trip reduction to achieve so that when the plan is approved by the Traffic Engineer and monitored, the City can measure the plan and see if the plan is achieving the intended reduction. Chairman Person indicated that the maximum is what the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman if the traffic management program as proposed for Newport Center consisted of flex -time, Ms. Temple replied that the trip management program required of Newport Center was a part of a mitigation measure and was not a part of any specific Traffic Phasing ordinance or traffic circulation system requirement. She said that it was a combination of many methods as is the condition the Planning Commission is proposing. She pointed out that no specific performance standard , was included because based on the criteria of the Traffic Phasing ordinance, the project was anticipated to comply with all of the ordinance standards. Ms. Temple emphasized that in a project of this size it , becomes more and more difficult to identify what would be an appropriate levels however, when dealing with a very large scale where one entity has control over a great number of employees, it is easier to identify goals than when dealing with a multi -tenant office building. Commissioner Eichenhofer suggested that information be collected and re-evaluated at a later time. She commented that if flex -time is encouraged the City ' should assess what the different hours are and then make the determination of compliance with the condition. She concluded that it is difficult to make that determination at this time. In summary, ' Commissioner Eichenhofer said that what the Planning Commission is trying to do is reduce peak traffic. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that flex -time is , going to be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, and she expressed that what the Planning Commission may do is take up the issue as to what kind of criteria ' should be set, and since the discretion of the Traffic -0- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BOLL CALL I I I I I I I I I I INDEX I I 1i lAll Ayes I I I I [1 I Engineer will be doing this, perhaps the Planning Commission could give him that input at a later time after the Commission has taken the plan under study. Chairman Person advised that "appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date" will be added to Condition No. 30. Motion was voted on to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following revisions: Mitigation Measures: modify Measure No. 28, add Measures No. 29, and No. 30; Traffic Study: Findings No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8 and Condition No. 2; Modification: modify Condition No. 12 and delete Condition No. 14 and add Conditions No. 15 and No. 16. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. -44- -91 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1 0 a January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the ' site, Watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on , recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of ' the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- , tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. S. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. ' 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. ' -45- ' COMMISSIONERS ■ROLL- CALL f MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Leg (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; C.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. -46- INDEX '31 COMMISSIONERS MINLTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I( I I I INDEX 15. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by ' the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by , the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire , Department. 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, , Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancv of any building, the applicants t shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. , M Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. ' 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new , development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent ' feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. -47- 3� COMMISSIONERS as' G t^ No 9i �7 F mti 9y `y �� yyp� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 L CALL INDEX 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project shall establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service. ' 29. The requirement to establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD shall be made a provision of tenant leases for the project. 30. Tenants of the project shall be required to make flexible working hours available to their employees. The flex -time program shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, and appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date. ' B. TRAFFIC STUDY: ' Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which the ' analyzes the impact of the proposed project on circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates' that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one 2.5 ' percent of the existing morning or afternoon hour peak period on a leg of fourteen critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at nine critical ' intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. several 3. That the Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause, nor make -48- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES , January 22, 1987 NOON11%CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX worsen unsatisfactory level of traffic service at on any major, primary -modified, or primary street. 5. That all identified intersection improvements shall be made by the applicant, except for the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North. The time and money necessary to complete the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is clearly disproportionate to the size of and traffic generated by the project in that the improvement will require widening of a bridge over the Corona del Mar Freeway. It would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of this improvement. 6. That the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is a part of the improvement program of the County of orange associated with John Wayne -Orange County Airport, and is anticipated to commence construction in three years. The County of Orange is currently conducting necessary studies and design work, along with cost estimates for this improvement. The improvement is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 7. That the project will be required to pay a fee to fund construction of the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North and that the fee will be proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this location, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This fee is in addition to any other fees, contributions or conditions imposed on the project. 8. That the project's contribution towards construction of major improvements substantially outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection, Conditions: 1, That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circulation system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28-30), except at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation i 1 1 i 1 1 1 F 1 1 -49- I 1 A r 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersection at Campus Drive and Bristol Street ' North proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be ' made by the applicant pursuant to section 15.40.030 A.i(c) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. AMENDMENT NO. 638: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "*Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" *If commercial uses are constructed which are ancillary to and in the same building as office ' uses, addition development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as the ' office use does not exceed 241,570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5... 1,267 cars..." MODIFICATION: Findings: ' 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. ' -50- a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES' y �LFf }�0 January 22, 1987 G,1 �'Yf`py ;yy , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per ' 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general ' welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required ' by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. , 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be ' designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical , locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. S. That an easement be provided between parcels , within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. , +51- , N COMMISSIONERS yA �;�^Z9ZG'o y � ZOZ9iC9 .off �y y0,� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 OLL CALL INDEX 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works ' Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain ' facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be 1 required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access ' is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one ' parking space for each 250 square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area for the ' restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. 14. Deleted. ' 15. That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program -52- �n L J COMMISSIONERS MINUTES' January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I I I I I I I INDEX shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and , shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a , complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 P.M. Use Permit No. 3249 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the construction of a single family UP3249 dwelling on property located in the R-1 District which exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Continue Limitation Districts and the acceptance of an environ- to 2-19-87 mental document, and renotice LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C-33, Corona del as a Mar, located at 2717 Shell Street, on variance the southwesterly side of Shell Street between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane in China Cove. ZONE: R-1 ' APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del Mar ' OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that a copy of a letter to Brion Jeannette, Architect, dated January 21, 1987, has been received from the Coastal Commission staff attached with a copy of a letter from Donald Bright of Bright & Associates, dated January 12, , 1987, regarding the Coastal Commission's action of the ' -53- roxw COMMISSIONERS qp�r� MINUTES ®RA F T February 5, 1987 9y�o� y ��xyG�C•;9yo� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX ' Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item No.l; Request to consider and/or modi�y a condition applied A638 ' to the approval of the application of McLachlan Invest- ment Company for Amendment No. 638, and the associated Traffic Study, Modification, and Environmental impact allyition�ll Report. The approved project will amend the Newport Aporoved Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 108,836 sq.ft. of additional office and bank floor area within Professional and Business Office Site ' No. 5. The condition to be reconsidered is regarding the requirement for a flex -time program in the develop- ment. ' LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and ' No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resub- division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- westerly corner of Newport Place Drive ' and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the purpose for the subject item is for the reconsideration of the condition of approval regarding flex -time which ' was approved by the Planning Commission at the January 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker referred to the letter from SPON dated February 5, 1987, in response to the staff report. ' Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, stated that staff has submitted three alternatives to modify the condition that was placed for the use of flex -time for ' the building. She explained that two of the alternatives involve placing a specific percent participation or trip reduction factor into the ' condition, and the third alternative would modify the condition as applied by the Planning Commission to impliment a more extensive traffic demand management ' system for the building in a manner so -that, the i IIIIII11 -2 COMMISSIONERS W+� fi y fi f� MINUTE February 5, 1987 " ~ �o',y�^� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDE Planning Department and the Public Works Department ' could measure and assess the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs for multi -tenant office buildings. , The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of , the applicant. Mr. King referred to the City of Irvine's 30% to 40% traffic reduction goals and he said that the goals make reference only to two new projects. , He pointed out that the development coming into the two projects start on equal ground, and it is geographically and developmentally a more equitable system in their particular case. Mr. King stated that , he met with the City of Irvine and discussed their follow-up while they are imposing the goals, and their participation with the participants has been basically voluntary because they do not now have the staff or mechanism to insure the compliance nor do they do any testing. Mr. King indicated that it is the City of Irvine's long range goal to work towards a traffic ' management system that can be applied throughout the City. ' Mr. King indicated that the applicants concern is that the project is in an area where there is redevelopment, and there is existing development on -site. He said that , the applicant feels that an alternative that is too restrictive places the project at a unique disadvantage. Mr. King advised that the- applicant agreed to a condition previously and expressed ' willingness to comply with a traffic information program, tie stated that two of the major tenants of the building who are principals in the project have had , a time management program for the past two years. He maintained that the Bank of America And future tenants will be approached to comply with a flex -time program. ' Mr. King further stated that OCTD literature will be available in the lobby area for distribution. In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Ms. ' Temple replied that most projects that are involved in trip reduction programs use more than one method, and that she is not aware of any other projects within the ' City that are currently using only flex -time. In reference to Alternative Condition C.3.a. Chairman Person asked if a specific minimum goal could be implemented for trip reduction so that a maximum goal , COMMISSIONERS. MINUTES February 5, 1987 Jc e noolr&R0060 00CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH IDLL-CALL INDEX ' could be looked at in the future. Ms. Temple replied that staff has set a traffic reduction goal of 20 percent; however, the Planning Commission could change that percentage to a mandatory reduction and choose ' whatever percentage they feel is appropriate. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that the Planning Commission should postpone setting a minimum traffic reduction because the subject project is the first project imposed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated his concern is that Alternatives A and H just relate to flex -time, proposing a traffic reduction of 20 percent. He explained that Alternative C allows four methods to be used at the same time in order to achieve the same traffic reduction. As such, the proposal won't be ' an effective measure of flex -time, and he opined that if the project is going to act as a test a higher minimum standard should be achievable with all four alternates included. The public hearing was closed at this time. 'Motion x Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 638, Alternative "C" as Measure No. 28, which would delete previously approved Mitigation Measures No. 28, 29, and ' 30. Commissioner Winburn reasoned that a realistic performance criteria is needed before establishing specific percentages, and also that the building will have a mixed use which will reduce the peak hour ' traffic time. Commissioner Pomeroy requested the maker of the motion to amend Alternative C.2 to 25% reduction ' instead of 20% reduction. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Motion voted on to approve Alternative C as Measure No. 28, amending No. 2 from 20% reduction to 25% reduction, ,Ayes x x x x x and to delete previously approved Measures No. 28, 29, Absent x x and 30. MOTION CARRIED. No. 28. Prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit the applicant shall submit to the Planning ' Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The TDM program shall be included in all tenant leases in the building. The program shall include the ' following features: I I I I I I I 11 1 41 COMMISSIONERS MINUTE February 5, 1987 1 " - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 1. The Transportation Demand Manage- ' ment Program shall include a coordinator with the specific assignment of developing and overseeing the program. In ' addition, each tenant with 50 or more on -site employees shall designate a contact person for both employees and the coordinator. 2. GOAT,: 25% reduction in a.m. and ' p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared with City standard rates. 3. METHODs: The TDM program shall , provide for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically identify one or more ' method for implementation with its employees. a. Flex -time: May consist of ' assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable ' to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex -time also ' includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each ' tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ' ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made ' available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized ' transit passes available to all employees. ' C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES February 5, 1987 dG � 9N pp ! A F �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L CALL Jill I I INDEX ' promote Carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to participants. The ' project shall be required to provide structure parking to ' carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with ' information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be sub- mitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic ' counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a representative day during ' midweek. I Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1987 Agenda Item No. 5 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 638 (Continued Public , Request` to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within ' Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the ' subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking ' space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area, and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces. ' AND B. Traffio 8tudY (Continued Public Hearina) ' Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area within ' Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. t LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the Northwesterly , corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C ' APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as applicant A ' TO: Planning Commission - 2 ' Discussion ' This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 1986. A copy of the previous report is attached for the convenience of the Planning Commission. Since the last discussion of this item, the City Council has ' taken two actions which may be of interest to the Commission. On January 12, 1987, the City Council responded to the ' recommendation of the Planning Commission and terminated further consideration of the Airport Area Study (General Plan Amendment 86-1). This action necessitates revision to one of ' the potential actions of the Planning Commission on this item. One possible action is denial of the proposed project. The findings for denial presented in the previous staff report recommends deferral and inclusion in the airport area ' study. This is no longer applicable. Revised findings for denial are attached to this report. ' At the same City Council meeting, the Planning Commission recommendation in regards to Amendment No. 637 (Victoria Station conversion) was considered. After discussion, the City Council approved the project at the square footage ' originally requested by the applicant, 54,000 sq.ft. This represents a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75. If the project under consideration in this application were allowed a ' similar FAR, total development on the site would be 220,950 sq.ft. and the new building would be 114,737 sq.ft. ' In taking action on this amendment, the City Council also overruled the Planning Commission in regards to the provision of parking on -site. The modification to allow parking to be provided at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. was ' approved, with the requirement that some additional parking be provided by converting standard parking spaces to compact spaces, up to a maximum of 40% compact. Staff has estimated ' that this conversion will result in the provision of approx- imately 213 parking spaces, or a ratio of one space for each 244 sq.ft. ' Additional Environmental information Staff has completed preparation of Attachment No. 1 to the ' draft Environmental Impact Report, which includes the comments made on the EIR and formal responses. A copy of EIR Attachment No. 1 is provided for information of the Planning ' Commission. 41, TO: Planning Commission - 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' JAMES D. H&ICKER, Director PATRICIA TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator ' Attachments: ' 1. Planning Commission Report, December 4, 1986 2. Revised Findings for Denial 3. Attachment No. 1 to the DEIR plt 'wp/c2a638.per I I Planning Commission Meeting December 4. 1986 ' Agenda Item No. io CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: A Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq-ft- of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within ' Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the ' subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of office and bank floor area; and to allow '25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic study (Public Hearing) ' Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq.ft. of ' additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. ' LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the Northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport ' Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach 1 OWNER: Same as applicant I TO: Planning Commission - 2 , "M cations ' if approved, the applications under consideration will allow the construction of a 300,000 sq.ft., eleven story office ' building on the site currently occupied by the Bank of America Building on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place. An amendment to the development standards and square footage allocations contained in the Newport Place Planned Communfty is required, as well as modifications to the development standards to allow parking to be provided at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of floor area and to , allow a portion of the required parking spaces to be compact spaces. The acceptance of a Traffic Study and an environmen- tal document is also required. Amendment procedures for Planned Communities are contained in Section 20.51.045, ' Modification procedures are contained in Chapter 20.81 and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' Environmental 8ignifioanoo ' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City council Policy K- ' 3, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Project. Environmental issues evaluated in the report include Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, Acous- tics, Land Use, Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils, Housing, Aesthetics and Public Services/Utilities. Based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, all adverse environmental effects are mitigated to a level of ' insignificance. This project, along with all existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumula- tively significant. formance with the General Plan ' The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. Included in this category are , offices (either ancillary or separate), services, hotels and motels, and convalescent homes, with some limited retail uses (such as restaurants) which are supportive of the predominant uses. The Land Use Element further limits development to that which is consistent with the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project will provide areas for bank ' and general purpose office, as well as retail uses ancillary to the main use, such as restaurant, athletic club and convenience retail. The project is consistent with the General Plan. 1A I TO: Planning Commission - 3 ' subject Property and surrounding Land Use The site proposed for the eleven story building is currently ' occupied by the Bank of America building. The parking structure site is occupied by surface parking. Other structures on the site which will remain are the Continental Life Insurance building (78,500 sq.ft.) and the McLachlan ' Headquarters building (15,670 sq.ft.). To the north, across Dolphin Striker Court are restaurant and office uses. To the east, across MacArthur Boulevard, are office and related uses in Koll Center Newport. Southerly and easterly of the site, across Newport Place and Dove Street, are additional office developments. At the end of Newport Place is the tallest structure in the Newport Place Planned Community, the eight story Mitsui Bank Building. ' Analysis The project under consideration will, if approved, increase ' the allowed development rights and height limits currently set forth for Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community. The applicant has requested that the square footage necessary to construct the building in excess of that which is currently represented by the Bank of America structure be established as new develop- ment rights. This would allow the "carry over" of previously committed square footage within the site. Three separate approvals have established the vested future development rights which currently remain in the block. These are the original Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan which allows for an additional 65,508 sq.ft., the Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment for 1400 Dove Street allowing an additional 10,659 sq.ft., and a Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment allowing transfer of 4,130 sq.ft'. to this block. The total amount of square footage which is approved but not yet constructed is 80,297. The analysis of this project includes discussion of ' the relationship of this project to other planning studies, the scale of the project in relation to the planning concept originally approved for the Newport Place Planned Community and the traffic impacts of the project. ' statistical summary. The following summary describes the project in relation to the current standards of the Newport ' Place Planned Community. Standard P-C Text Proposed Maximum Development 185,764 sq.ft. 464,253 sq.ft. Floor Area Ratio 0.63 FAR 1.58 FAR Maximum Height 6 floors 11 floors ' (375 feet) (167 feet) F TO: Permitted uses Planning Commission - 4 Setbacks MacArthur Boulevard Newport Place Dove Street Dolphin Striker Court Side Yard Parking Offices 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 0 1577 spaces (1/225 sq.ft.) offices with support retail 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 20 feet 1460 spaces (1/250 sq.ft.) The Amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community Text is necessary to establish the maximum development permitted for the Site, to allow for an increased number of floors and to provided for support commercial uses within the building. Land Use. As indicated in a previous section of this report, the project is consistent with the Land Use Klement of the General Plan. it should be noted, however, that the airport area in general is the subject of a general plan amendment which has been initiated by the City Council, and is discus- sed in Planning Commission Item on the agenda of this meeting. This amendment will consider appropriate develop- ment intensities in the overall area north of Bristol Street. While this project is not a part of this study, an action of the City on this project could influence the analysis of the larger project. Office site No. 5 currently allows the highest permitted development intensity in Newport Place, Permitted Floor Area Ratios for the other office and indus- trial sites in the P-C District are listed below: RM Ind.Site 1-A 0.39 FAR Ind.Site 2-B 0.60 FAR Ind.Site 3-A 0.50 FAR Ind.Site 4 0.39 FAR off.Site 1+2 0.44 FAR Off.Site 3-A 0.52 FAR Off.Site 4 0.55 FAR Off.Sits S 0.63 FAR Off.Site 6 0.40 FAR Off.Site 7 0.52 FAR The overall intensity of the industrial and office Sites in the P-C District is 0.47 FAR. It should be noted that this analysis excludes the Retail, Restaurant and Hotel Sites which have lower intensity limits. The most recent action of the Planning Commission in Newport Place (A637, approved 11- 20-86) will, if sustained by the City Council, allow a floor area ratio of 0.66. Additional comparisons can be made to r I I I I F 1 g-a R r ' TO: Planning Commission - 5 ' the permitted development in Koll Center Newport (0.53 FAR) and Newport Center commercial, institutional and office sites (0.45) [GPA 85-1(B)). ' Staff has a concern regarding taking an action on this project prior to the consideration of the overall Airport Area Study. Approval of the project as submitted could set a precedent for future action in the area. If a floor area ratio of 1.58 were applied to the Industrial and Office Sites in the Newport Place Planned Community, planned development would increase by approximately 4.5 Million additional square feet. If Koll Center Newport were also to be approved for a similar floor area ratio, permitted development in this area would increase by approximately 6.1 Million square feet. It is possible that the area can sustain high levels of develop- ment on some sites. Absent a comprehensive assessment of the area, however, staff is not prepared to identify this or any other specific site for development at this level of inten- sity. Alternative projects may warrant consideration. The follow- ing paragraphs outline three projects of varying levels of intensity: 1) Use of existing development rights; 2) In- crease to development intensity similar to highest in the general vicinity; and 3) Approval for proposed building using all vested but undeveloped rights in Office Site 5. Alternative 1. As previously discussed, there are develop- ment rights which have been previously approved pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These rights total 80,297 sq.ft. If this limit is maintained and the existing Bank of America building eliminated, a new structure of 101,800 sq.ft., or approximately one-third of the proposed structure could be constructed. This level of approval would maintain the existing floor area ratio permitted. Neither an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations nor a Traffic Study would be required. Alternative 2. Sites throughout both the Newport Place and Koll Center Newport Planned Communities have varying permit- ted levels of development, ranging from a low of 0.19 FAR (KCN Site G) to a high of 0.82 FAR (KCN Site C). The Planning Commission may wish to consider approving the ' proposed project to the same level of intensity permitted on the most intense site in the area, or 0.82 FAR. If the project were approved at this level, an additional 57,125 sq.ft. of development would be permitted in addition to that ' which is currently allowed. The total for the new structure to replace the existing Bank of America building would then be 158,925 sq.ft., or slightly over one-half the size of the ' proposed project. Were this project approved, a revised Traffic Study would be required, in order to apply traffic mitigation commensurate with the reduced project. TO: Planning Commission - 6 ' Alternative 3. The Planning Commission may wish to approve a , project which would allow construction of the proposed building, but not allow the previously approved development ' rights to be maintained for future use. in this alternative, the unbuilt development rights contained in the block would be used to offset the increase needed to construct the , proposed office building. The increase in square footage required to accommodate the construction of the 300,000 sq.ft. building in Office Site 5 is 198,192 sq.ft., or a total allowable in Office Site 5 of 383,956 sq.ft, if this , level of development is approved, the floor area ratio of office Site 5 would be increased to 1.30. Were this project approved, a revised Traffic Study would be required, in order , to apply traffic mitigation commensurate with the reduced project. Proposed Uses. In addition to office uses, the proposed , project includes provision of restaurant, retail and athletic club uses. Restaurant use would be subject to the approval of a Use Permit, These -uses are to be provided within the overall square footage of the 300,000 sq.ft. building. The ' applicant has constructed an office building with similar support uses in downtown San Diego, the Imperial Hank building. Planning Department staff has visited this ' building to gain an understanding of the operation of the building and the way in which the occupants of the building utilize the accessory uses. , The proposed restaurant would be a full service, "dinner house" facility with a cocktail lounge. The proposed P-C Text requires approval of a Use Permit for the restaurant. ' In addition to a restaurant, the site in San Diego also includes a service deli which is'part of the overall restaur- ant operation. it appears that this deli operation is heavily used by the office workers. The main part of the restaurant appears to be used by building users, both occupants and visitors. It is also likely that walk-ins also use the main restaurant operation. Staff has no objection to ' the inclusion of a restaurant within the proposed building. The use would have the advantage of reducing the daily traffic generation of the project, most particularly in the , noon hour. In addition to the restaurant, it would also be advisable to provide a deli -type operation in conjunction with the restaurant. This would provide opportunities for less formal food service for the office workers. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed inclusion of a cocktail lounge in conjunction with the restaurant, and has indicated no problems with the request. , The retail uses are proposed to be supportive of the primary office use, and would include such uses as a tobacco shop, , newspaper stand, florist shop, dry cleaner, and similar uses 114 r ' TO: Planning Commission - 7 which can be supported by an office worker clientele. A small athletic club is also proposed. If operated in a manner similar to the athletic club in the Imperial Bank ' building in San Diego, this facility will be used primarily by building occupants. As is the case of athletic clubs in general, the provision of this use in the building can be expected to change the traffic generation characteristics of the project, not by reducing traffic, but by reducing the morning and afternoon peak traffic due to club use before and after working hours. Staff has no objection to the inclusion ' of retail and athletic club uses within the building, so long as membership rules are structured so as to require building occupants to have priority in gaining memberships. The inclusion of a variety of commercial support uses in the building appears to have advantages in the areas of building ' use and peak hour traffic generation. These uses function primarily for the convenience of building occupants. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of these uses in the proposed project. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission to significantly reduce the project to one of the land use alternatives previously described, staff would recommend that these ancillary uses be allowed in addition to the floor area limit established for the office use, in that the used do not add to the anticipated peak traffic generated by the project. Building Height. The proposed height of the building is 167 feet accommodating an eleven story building. Heights in the Newport Place Planned Community range from two to eight ' stories. Generally, the higher structures are in the center of the Planned Community, in Professional and Business offices Sites 1 & 2. The project site is currently limited 1 to a maximum six stories, but structures are generally built to three or four stories. As requested, the proposed building would be the tallest structure in Newport Place. It would also be higher than most structures in Koll Center Newport. Only MacArthur Court, KCN Site C, has a higher permitted height limit at ' twelve stories and 215 feet. The project has been reviewed by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Airport Land Use Commission, and has received approval for the requested height. Parkins. The Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations require the provision of parking for office ' projects at a ratio of one space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area. The District also provides for the reduction of the ratio to one space for each 250 sq.ft. upon review and ' approval of a modification in each case. The applicant originally requested in the project submittal a modification to allow parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. TO: Planning Commission - 8 However, in two major revisions to the project and the preparation of the revised traffic study pursuant to the new , Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the parking provided for the project has been revised. As currently proposed, the project would require 1420 parking spaces if a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. is enforced, plus additional parking for the restaurant use. The site plan for the project shows provision of 1400 parking ' spaces on -site. In order to approve the project in its current form, the Planned Community District Regulations for Newport Place must be revised to include the ability to , provide parking based upon a demonstrated formula for mixed use projects. The traffic study includes an analysis of the parking proposed for the project. This analysis uses the , methodology presented in a report entitled Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the shared parking program proposed for the struc- ture and concurs with the findings. The study indicates that the parking demands of the project will be 1154 spaces plus the 22 spaces required for the E1 Torito Restaurant. The proposed provision of 1400 parking spaces in conjunction with ' the project will adequately serve the various uses within the building. The following outline sets forth information regarding each , Modification for parking approved in the vicinity of the project: Modification No. 624 - 110o Quail Street (subject property) One space for each 234 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of three spaces from 95 required spades , to 92 spaces provided. Modification No. 757 - 1600 Dove Street one space for each 233 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of eight spaces from 231 required to 223 spaces provided. This was considered minor in nature, and would provide better on -site vehicular circulation. Modification No. 2309 - 1301 Dove Street , One space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 93 spaces from 931 required spaces to 838 spaces provided. This item was approved , inasmuch as the parkin was in excess of the need for the 209,500 sq.ft. ten story building on the property as demonstrated by a study performed by Weston Pringle and Associates. Furthermore, the ' approval provided approximately 5% additional area in landscaping. u 1 1 I I I 1 I TO: Planning Commission - 9 Modification No. 2535 - 1501 Quail Street One space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 22 spaces, from 212 spaces required to 190 spaces provided. The primary factor in approving this request in conjunction with the engineering office complex on the site was that the proposed development included many non -office areas and a large employee cafeteria-. Modification No. 2657 - 1500 Quail Street One space for each 229 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 7 spaces from 364 spaces required to 357 spaces provided. This was considered minor in nature, and would increase the amount of landscaping on the site. Modification No. 2663 - 4001 MacArthur Boulevard The Planning Commission approved a parking ratio of one space for each 247 sq.ft of net floor area, a reduction of 19 spaces, from 209 spaces required to 190 spaces provided. It was the determination of the Planning Commission that there would be an adequate number of parking spaces provided on -site for the expanded 47,000 sq.ft.- building, as demonstrated by a study performed by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. Modification No. 2839 - 4120 Westerly Place One space for each 238 sq.ft. of net floor area for the office uses was approved, a reduction of 56 spaces, from 1,015 spaces required to 959 spaces provided. It was determined in this case that the entire site was under one ownership, all of the parking spaces were accessible to all employees and visitors, and significant portions of the structures were devoted to warehouse space. Should the Planning Commission desire to reduce the project, the use of a formula for parking becomes less appropriate. In this case, it is suggested that the project be required to provide parking at a level of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, including the support commercial uses. Additional parking should be provided for the restaurant at a ratio of one space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area. Compact Parking. Compact parking is allowed by the Newport Beach Municipal Code upon review and approval of a modifica- tion in each case. The applicant has requested approval to provide 25% of the required parking spaces as compact spaces. The requested amount of compact spaces is consistent with the previous actions of the Planning Commission, and staff has no objections to this request. r TO: Planning Commission - 10 A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1988. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1989. The City Traffic Engineer identified thirty (30) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a it 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 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. The it volume analysis identified nineteen (19) intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria, eighteen (18) in the morning peak hour and sixteen (16) in the afternoon peak hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the project, including the ICU ratios with the suggested improvements described later in the report. ICU SUMMARY - 1989 EXISTING 89 EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED +GROWTH CRITICAL PEAK +COMMITTED +GROWTH +PROJ"ECT Campus MacArthur/ Birch MacArthur/ Jamboree MacArthur/ Bison MacArthur/ Ford MacArthur/ San Joaquin MacArthur/ Newport Place i7J, �Y AM PM AM PM FO W AM PM 0.76 1.10 0.56 0.75 0.99 1.16 0.91 1.08 0.70 1.20 0.84 0.66 0.47 0.77 1.11 0.56 0.75 1.00 1.16 0.92 1.09 0.72 1.21 0.85 0.71 0.54 NA 0.99 NA NA 0.78 NA 0.64 1.02 NA 0.86 NA NA NA �J I I i r I TO: ' CRITICAL 1 J J Planning Commission - 11 ICU SUMMARY - 1989 Con't EXISTING 89 EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED +GROWTH PEAK +COMMITTED +GROWTH +PROJECT HOUR +GROWTH +PROJECT +IMPROVEMEN AM 0.64 0.65 NA 2 San Miguel PM 0.90 0.91 0.7 Jamboree/ AM 1.02 1.03 0.86 Campus PM 0.80 0.82 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.59 0.59 NA Birch PM 0.61 0.64 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.76 0.76 NA Eastbluff Jamboree/ AM 0.77 0.78 NA San Joaquin PM 0.91 0.91 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.70 0.71 NA Santa Barbara Campus/ AM 0.76 0.79 NA Bristol North PM 1.09 1.11 1.01 Birch/ AM 0.82 0.88 NA Bristol North PM 1.03 1.07 1.03 Jamboree/Bristol PM 0.79 0.79 NA Campus -Irvine/ AM 0.78 0.82 NA Bristol PM 0.93 0.93 NA Birch/ AM 1.19 1.29 1.12 Bristol PM 0.88 0.89 NA MacArthur/ PM 1.12 1.12 NA Coast Hwy. In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the project worsens ICU'S over 0.90. Mitigation of the traffic impacts at these intersections are required. IMPROVEMENTS. The following list identifies the intersection improvements described by the traffic study: �J 1 To: Planning Commission - 12 Intersection Improvement MacArthur/Campus Add second eastbound left turn lane MacArthur/ Jamboree Add second southbound left , turn lane MacArthur/Bison Add third northbound through lane (AM) Add third eastbound left turn lane (PM) , MacArthur/Ford Add third southbound through lane ' MacArthur/San Miguel Add third southbound through lane Jamboree/Campus Add second westbound left , turn lane Campus/Bristol Street North Add second northbound left ' turn lane Basch/Bristol Street North Change the configuration of ' the southbound through lane to make it a combined through/right turn lane , Birch/Bristol Add second northbound through lane , Conclusions and Recommendations does r The proposal to construct an office project on the site not present any conflicts from a land use standpoint, except as a high intensity project in an area where office develop- ment has generally occurred at a less intense level. The project meets the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing ordinance. The City has previously approved a project in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at a floor area ratio of 0.82. Staff recommends that a project approval be granted to a level of intensity no greater than this level for office uses on the site. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of ancillary uses in addition to this level of development. , should the Planning Commission concur and approve a reduced project, staff suggests that the office development be limited to 0.82 FAR with ancillary uses permitted not to ' exceed an overall ratio of 1.0 FAR. This would allow a new structure to be 200,425 sq.ft., or approximately two-thirds of the original request. Exhibit "A° includes findings and ' conditions for approval of this revised project, revisions to C5A tf ' TO: Planning Commission - 13 the proposed Planned Community Text, and the provision of parking at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq. ft. of net floor area. It should be noted that the traffic study will have to be revised to define the traffic mitigation program for the reduced project. This application can be processed separately when the study is completed. ' Approval of the project could set a precedent for future, actions of the Planning Commission in the consideration of requests to intensify development in the airport area. Approval of the project could also prejudice the ability of ,. thq Planning Commission to consider the Airport Area Study which will commence in 1987. Should the Commission desire to deny the project without prejudice and defer and incorporate of the project into the Airport Area Study. Findings for denial are attached as Exhibit "B". ' Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the project, that the request to it is the opinion of staff preserve future development rights is unwarranted. Any project approval should utilize all existing development rights in Professional and Business Offices Site 5. If the 300,000 sq.ft. building is accepted by the Commission (Alternative 3 in the land use discussion), the public hearing should be continued with the direction to staff that revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations be drafted to provide for the provision of parking for mixed use project based upon a demonstrated formula, and the public hearing be renoticed tp describe the revised project description. If the appli- cant desires, the Traffic Study should also be revised to reflect the reduced project size, as this may affect the ' traffic improvement program required by the project. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Temple( Environmental Coordinator Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Vicinity Map 3. Revised Planned Community Text 4. Plans and Elevations 5. Environmental Impact Report (previously ' distributed) 6. Revised Traffic Study plt/wp wp/A638.per 11 VICINITY MAP Amendment No. 638 1 F 1 17 i 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A7 J u EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 638 MODIFICATION ' A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT , Findings: 1, That the environmental document has been prepared ' in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and city Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Measurest ' Mitigation 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and , Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to , minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on ' recommendations of a soil engineer and an Exhibit "A" - 2. ' engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation ' of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- ' tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department ' and approval of the Planning Department. �. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise ' criteria: Typical Use Leg (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 ' Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne - 2 - 1" W� Exhibit "A" - 3. '1 Airport shall be leases for space included in any strictions which undeveloped site. included in all leases or sub - in the project and shall be Covenants, Conditions, and Re - may be recorded against any DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 15. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department, 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle planter islands, Department. 1 I I I I I access, including the proposed , shall be approved by the Fire 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 21 I -3 1 I ' Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. ' 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized as irrigation. for non -contact purposes such 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. ' 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employ- ees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing ' demand management strategies for this service. B. AMENDMENT NO. 638: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "*Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" *If commercial uses are constructed which are as office ancillary to and in the same building uses, addition development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as the ' office use does not exceed 241,570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5... 1,267 cars..." -4- ul Exhibit "A" - 5. MODIFICATION: ' Findings: 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with ' the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and ' provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or it jurr.oas to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 , of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. ' 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. of , 3. That the on -site parking (including signing compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of ' 35 miles per hour. slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight 5 - Exhibit "A" - 6. ' distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line. shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic ' Engineer. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and ' parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur ' Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and sidewalk along the replaced with curb, gutter and Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works ' Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. S. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain ' facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm ' drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will ' be required if more than a single, two-lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer ' finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. ' 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one space for each 225.3 sq.ft. of net floor area, as ' defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the ' parking spaces provided. - 6 - ^�1 Exhibit "A" ^ 7. 14. That a revised Traffic study shall be prepared and ' reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building and/or grading permits. I SR17 I 7 - G- 1 i II I II II II II Exhibit "A" - 8. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AMENDMENT NO. 638 W/MODIFICATIONS AMENDMENT NO. 638 Findings: 1. The project as proposed is more intense than other developments with a similar land use in the area. 2. That approval of this project may prejudice the ability of the Planning Commission to consider the comprehensive Airport Area Study which has been initiated by the City Council. 3. That consideration of this project should be in conjunction with the comprehensive Airport Area Study. 4. That this denial is made without prejudice to its further consideration as part of the comprehensive Airport Area Study. 5. That Environmental Documents are not required for projects which are denied. 6. That a Traffic Study is not required for projects which are denied. SR17 - 8 - P Exhibit "A" - 9. EXHIBIT "C" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 638 MODIFICATION A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)I the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Development of the grading permit to be Planning Departments. I 1 1 I I site shall be subject to a ' approved by the Building and 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. S. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- d - 9 - Exhibit "A" - 10. ' neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of ' the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnisned to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the ' occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. S. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on ' the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. ' 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department ' and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- ' larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to ' achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: T-ypical Use Leg (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne -10- �1 Exhibit "A" Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. , DISCLOSURE STATEMENT , The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: ' a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services ' b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airports ' c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, , the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. ' 15. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by ' the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. ' 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by ' the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire ' Department. 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant ' shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be , conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title ' 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. ' - 11 - 7� Exhibit "A" - 12. ' 21: Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. i 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. ' 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site ' water distribution facilities required by the new development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent trash disposal. feasible to provide more effective 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to ' MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. i28. The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employ- ees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing for this service. demand management strategies B. AMENDMENT NO. 638: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: ' 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "Site 5.... 383,956 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" ' "Site sq.ft. 2. Page 6 5.... 383,956 F. Eleven story ' D. Site 5... 1,577 cars..." ' MODIFICATION: i Findings: ' - 12 1_�/ Exhibit "A" - 13. 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with , the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of ' property within the proposed development. 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and , provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the ' health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- m8ntxl or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 ' of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the public Works Department. ' 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of ' compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. ' 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of , 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four ' inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at none -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic , Engineer. -13- '71 Exhibit "A" - 14. ' 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur ' Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and ' replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works ' Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. g. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance,pf any building permits. ' 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will ' be required if more than a single, two-lane access Approval of access is proposed for any street. points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer ' finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with ' Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one space for each 225.3 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the ' parking spaces provided. be and 14. That a revised Traffic Study shall prepared reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building and/or grading ' permits. - 14 - x r r r r r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER , SCR #85061914 Attachment No. i Comments and Responses City of Newport Beach , 33QO Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 r Contact: Patricia L. Temple r 714-644-3225 r January 1987 , r r r 11 I COMMENTS ' Copies of all comments received as of January 13, 1987, are• contained in this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. The comments and responses which are included in this report will become part of the Environmental ' Impact Report at such time as they accepted as adequate by the certifying body. ' Commentators Comment/Response Series 1. Letter - August 1, 1986 DOTA - 1-3 Sandy Hesnard Department of Transportation ' Division of Aeronautics State of California ' 2. Letter - August 1, 1986 IOPR - 1-3 John B. Ohanian Office of Planning and Research State of California 3. Memorandum - July 15, 1986 RWQ - 1 Nancy A. Olson ' California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region ' State of California 4. Letter - August 6, 1986 20PR - 1-3 John B. Ohanian ' office of Planning and Research State of California ' 5. Memorandum - July 29, 1986. DOT - 1-6 W.B.Ballantine Department of Transportation ' State of California 6. Letter - September 12, 1986 QOL - 1-4 Mary Lou Zoglin ' Quality of Life Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach H LI ' If STATE OF CAUFORNIA-6USINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AOENCY GEORGE DEUKMEDAN, Gcwmo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1130 K STREET • 4TH FLOOR MAIL:- P.O. BOX 1499 SACRAMENTO, CA 95807 (916) 322.3090 NO TOO 323.7885 August 1, 1986 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92655-9915 Dear Ms. Temple: City of Newport Beach's DEIR for the of America/Newport Place. SCH #85061914 The Department of Transportation] Division of Aeronautics, ha reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The project consists of a 15-story office building to be located approxi- mately one-half mile southeast of the John Wayne Airport. �ffV 1wi DOrA-1 Because of the height of the proposed office building (248.5 feet) a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) should be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT# pursuant to FAR, Part 77, if the applicant has not already done so, they should contact the FAA's Western Regional Office at (213) 297-1538 for information concerning the obstruction ' evaluation. The Division is concerned with the cumulative impacts of roadway traffic and airport/aircraft noise. However, the measures discussed on page 31 of the DEIR should adequately mitigate the DOTX noise impacts provided the measures in 1,A. are based on cumu- lative effect. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. ' Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnard Environmental Planner ' cc: State Clearinghouse Orange County ALUC John Wayne Airport Cheri Tucker - FAA I SJJTE OF CAUFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TAW TENTH STREET SIRAMENTO, CA 958I4 I 1 I� I I R Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport'Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED `(� RUGS clr; ;•. Subject: Bank of America/Newport Place - SCH# 85061914 Dear Ms. Temple: GEORGE DEUKMFJIAN, Go� o w It. August 1, 1986 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked IOFR-I which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice df Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit State Qlearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other po4jq agency ,**J only Wke,substantive comments on a project which are within the area, of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities ►oPR=2 which twit agency taut carry out or approve. (AB 25832 Ch. 151,4; Stats.• 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use In preparing your final EIR. If you need morr information or clarification, we suggest you contact the lopg-3 commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contalct Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, John B. Chanian Chief Deputy Dire&tor Office of Planning and Research cc: Resources Agency Enclosures till al lu4 CIWUgwW. Has DIM ann. in. III. l4nnM. K nnA ..1�yafdl wiKa tw,tilp r wltlettlKpl,tYt I/eI / !� I O la l$So6l9/y 1. Mlwt f1lla Ban[ of America/Newport Place I Iwllw11 _City of Newport Batch ,, a,wtlryla, Patrlt a Temp e 4. mna w fit,3300 NewporC Boulevard N4, NewporC M44ch As. Ono, Orange a. t4193858-8915 4, M,,, 719/694-0315 aWttla,np I. t.*. Orange 4. Llwltwlallr, NewporC Baar6 y.(MIWII NI4w', 7wa14.— k. 1. sw Gnondo, U. , lulw}IaCArthur Blvd./NewP0rt Pla. niirwi t I. YlW, lain Nl t. 1wa Y.I h,Bouta 731. IItAttlJohn Nlynta t, Qww " r. r , I4t I. � UUM Np II. VAbew "I UK II Donl lla Yal4 a _,f117tn41, 1a1M Ann II w 4 a_ . V., a XNllm pn. .300,000 sq. Tt�� a, wl,b is wane ran 4«rn sun 6.7 ylb a_ W a Y,tk ft. a WNll9(LIY.aYl11, 11 it. — as Ajkm at a— Y,IIM Mn1 I.*M r`kn lit a --- tatentfla Is IynWNleat. (it N, 7nA IN f N.. WWIW , Mn w14M I r%Iww N /rwl lei 7ti p �vllaallw, p lW lwllln p�WwIM ,,a, h1. e4.1 r�rlwlWtl �1411�1' 7r�ilnali Yw1.4V II a. 4M, p MIM,1 teVl�l ",it, 3 i -nnc J" _J r Mat Ilf It pawl ,1 n11er., N „Mwr O.-M Y♦S tt LX raffle Study, rm a74O4d •.�i" O „ a mx.rut. aU a seller, it 11414pwn f. w41INu 11 �n jl. Irwer 1tW, Ituaw . Yse.srr is X„Mwttuawl a XMInItt41r4 if f DWI'? M Nw4 11 a rlulwnW a XwtIM11M W. 1/ kil InWIW Into tl ,II.m. a�Jw Deady is �fewNl it X41tl W14 21—jam1 a w4ulaluinl,wi41 11 XM4 11 _,Aw..WM n—unt, fWtI�,4 r—twain lW w�,t 11%Ma.a Ito II 7th,lIItWM4,Iq..Y,�I4Ywiwawlif•;' a^ Ian olio 11 _10wh a,-Jw4NN V2E p..ul. al.N a �,IWuyYIIY,,, It —Met, I"on it _Ww attar a_IIM� It. nMl.t(III.M.1 7Wr11 1 144 1 t141 1 • a. m. Mato o4 Ntw MM Office use, Planned Cowunity zone. N. "MI, aWllllal Development of A fifteen -story office building and an adjacent multi -level PAtking Structure. Op ,1. IIWMt a ,w ,wrtt NrWarub6 L I d/tJIpD7zi= cma=t >�A� SfA'a: PEVI..9 3�Ati1 F / 17 ��+� MT. Pmm -0 =r-111 ,^%� j / IDV AGO= PCIM 0 ❑Y.II 7/ seC2tKLk=: cj;//;`dS IU G (eAn= u-43) [state of California Imi emoraredum 1To : Dr. Gordon F. Snow 0atet July 15, 1986 Assistant Secretary for Resources I I Ir9f u �-•-' � 1. �..a G'1 J Nancy A. Olson Sanitary Engineering Technician From : California Regional Plater Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region 6609 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200, RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 (ATSS) 632-4130 subject: DEIR: BANK OF AMERICA/NEWPORT PLACE, SCH s85061914 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the Bank of America/Newport Place project. The DEIR noted the possibility that groundwater pumping would be required at the project site. If dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to rgceiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the discharge. It should RW Q-1 _be noted that processing an HPDES permit may take as Tong as '12O'day's."'Any"'• questions pertaining to the permit should be addressed to Mr. Gary Stewart of this office. Enclosure NAO:eyp rp 9 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DRUKA VIAN, CeWrw OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH MW TENTH STREET SACKAMENTO, CA 9$814 916/445-0613 Patricia Temple August 6, 1986 1 City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 LJ Subject: Bank of America/Newport Place - SCH# 85061914 1 Dear Ms. Temple: The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are a OPR� forwa>;ding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review, To ensure the adequacy of the final document you my wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. P -� Plage, contact GXenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions 1 concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this d0 -3 matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we my respond promptly. Sincerely, 1 -VB. Ghanian Chief Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Resources Agency 1 R E� „oV� �i\' ' C1ft_�JK�CH. �.� rleh�raJe• /2 Fv � rState of California Business, Transportation and Mousing Agency 'Memorandum To EXECUTIVE OFFICER Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Date : July 29, 1986 File : IGR W. A. BATLANTINE - District 7 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'Subject: Project Review Comments .... SCH NUMBER -City of Newport Beach -Bank of America/ 85061914 Newport Place We have reviewed the EIR for the of A/Newport Place project and have the following comments: Page 15(A) (Item 5) should be reevaluated as the referenced DOT-) construction is now completed. (B) (Items 1-4) - it is not clear who would be responsible for DDT-7- indicted improvements to State highways. Pa a 16(A) (Item 9) - same as for page 15, item 5. DOT-3 (B same as for (B) above. DoT N Also as indicated in our respdnte to the NOP dated July 16, 198� there should be reference to Historical/Archaeological studies DOT-5 ' indicating no historic properties are subject to impact. To minimize possible delays in permit processing detailed project ' drawings for any work involving State right-of-way should be VOT-to submitted to Caltrans for review prior to the encroachment permit application. W�BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 7 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact Al Fisher !..J (ATSS) 640-3935 or (213) 620-3935 Attachment I 1 1 September 12, 1986 , Newport Beach City Council , 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The Quality of Life Advisory Committee has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Bank of America - Newport Place Office Building and has the following comments. The following information is necessary to insure the adequacy of the document for the project: ' 1. Further discussion of the possible growth inducing effects of the project in the Newport Place Planned Community. QOL 2. Additional discussion of the capacity of the local circulation system to sustain the increased traffic and the possible conflicts between project traffic" and existing traffic in the area. Particular attention should be paid to the effect on ingress and egress from developments GIOL-1 existing in the area. In addition to these comments on the Environmental Impact Report, the committee also recommends that the project be denied due to the intensity of the project, access problems QbL� and the growth inducing effects of the project. ' Respectfully submitted, QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMITTEE , Mary Lou Zoglin Chairman I ' RESPONSES The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Several comments do not I address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmen- tal Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers for their review and consideration. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS DOTA 1 Comment The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. The project consists of a 15-story office building to be located approximately qne-half mile southeast of the John Wayne Airport. DOTA 1 Response The comment is noted ,4pd #iclud'ed' ih' the final 'reco-rd oi'irtig project for the review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. DOTA 2 Comment Because of the height of the proposed office building (248.5 feet) a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) should be filed with the Federal Aviation Administra- tjon (FAA) pursuant to FAR, Part 77. If the applicant has not already done so, they should contact the FAA's Western Regional Office at (213) 297-1538 for information regarding the obstruction evaluation. DOTA 2 Response The applicant has processed the project through the Orange County Airport sand Use Commission, a body of the County of Orange overseeing the use of land and the height of struc- tures in the vicinity of John Wayne Orange County Airport. As a result of this review, the project has been reduced"in height to a maximum of 167 feet, which will allow a structure of approximately eleven stories. The revised project has also been reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to the above referenced regulation, and received the necessary approvals. The project submitted to the City for I consideration has also been revised to reflect the lower structure height. DOTA 3 Comment The Division is concerned with the cumulative impacts of roadway traffic and airport/aircraft noise. However, the measures discussed on page 31 of the DEIR should adequately mitigate the noise impacts provided the measures in I.A. are based on cumulative effect. DOTA 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. The mitigation measures proposed are based on cumulative effects. IOPR 1-3 Comment The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments -of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented, Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not complete, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit State Clearing- house number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a respon- sible agency or other public agency shall make substantive comments on a project which are in the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, State. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. IOPR 1-3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. I F I I I r I I y J ' CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SANTA ANA REGION tRWQ 1 Comment ' The DEIR noted the possibility that groundwater pumping would be required at the project site. If dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the dis- charge. It should be noted that processing an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining,to the permit should be addressed to Mr. Gary Stewart of this office. RWQ 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 20RR 1-3 Comment The enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these ,comments to.you because t�e�, provide �pformation or raise issues which may assist you n project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to ' incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. 20PR 1-3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOT 1 Comment Page 15(A) (Item 5) should be reevaluated as the referenced construction is now completed. DOT 1 Response Subsequent to the completion of construction and the opening of the Corona del Max Freeway, new traffic counts were taken by the City of Newport Beach and a revised traffic study was prepared for the project. As a result of the new study, an additional improvement has been identified which will require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane on Campus Drive at Bristol Street North. DOT 2 Comment (B) (Items 1-4) it is not clear who would be responsible for indicated improvements to State highways. , DOT 2 Response All improvements identified will be funded by the project , applicant. DOT 3 Comment ' Page 16 (A) (Item 9) - same as for page 15, item 5. DOT 3 Response Subsequent to the completion of construction and the opening of the Corona del Mar ,Freeway, new traffic counts were taken by the City. of Newport Beach and ,a revised traffir•study-was prepared for the project. As a result of the new study, an additional improvement has been identified which will require the conversion of a southbound through lane to make it a combined through/right turn on Birch Street at Bristol Street North. ; DOT 4 Comment (B) - same as for (B) above. , DOT 4 Response , All improvements identified will be funded by the project applicant. DOT 5 Comment , Also, as indicated in our response to the NOP dated duly 16, 1985, there should be reference to Historical/Archaeological studies indicating no historic properties are subject to impact. 1 ' DOT 5 Response The draft EIR clearly describes the project site as currently being occupied by a Bank of America building and by a surface parking lot. The bank structure was completed in 1981 and is of no historical significance. This finding was made during the course of the initial study conducted for the project prior to commencement of EIR preparation. The initial study is included as Appendix A of the DEIR. Since the site is 1 developed, no archaeological resources exist on site. This is also documented in the initial study. 1 DOT 6 Comment To minimize possible delays in permit processing, detailed project drawings for any work involving State right-of-way should be submitted to Caltrans for review prior to the encroachment permit application. DOT 6 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMITTEE QOL 1 Comment The following information is necessary to insure the adequacy of the document for the project: Further discussion of -the possible growth inducing effects of the project in the Newport Place Planned Community. QOL 1 Response Analysis of the growth inducing effects of the project is provided on pages 75 and 76 of the draft EIR. The discussion centers on growth inducing effects on a regional basis, rather than focused on the Newport Place Planned Community. Approval of the project could lead to further intensification in Newport Place. Apart from the site under consideration, additional development allowed in Newport Place is approx- imately 200,000 sq.ft. of office development and 120,000 sq.ft. of commercial retail development. Beyond these established development rights, additional development would be allowed only upon approval of increased development allocations through the zone change and/or general plan amendment process. Approval of the amendment application considered as part of this project will not set "precedent" for other actions of the City in a legal sense. Any future application will be ' subject to the same analysis and discretionary review as the I ,1 increase subject project. Implementation of the project may the overall business growth in the vicinity resulting in additional applications for projects of a similar nature, and may also increase the possibility of approval of similar intensities of development if all other requirements are met. However, this project is not large enough to induce any significant amount of growth on its own, but is part of a area wide trend to more intense development in the Uohn Wayne Airport/South Coast Metro area. If the level of intensity requested in this proposal were r allowed on all office sites in Newport Place, an additional 1.5 million sq.ft. could be constructed. The numbers increase if retail or restaurant areas were converted to , office use. QOL 2 Comment Additional discussion of the capacity of the local circula- tion system to sustain the increased traffic and the possible conflicts between project traffic and existing traffic in the area (should be included). QOL 2 Response Discussion of the local circulation system is included on page 13 of the DEIR. This section indicates that the project has three access points which are positioned to provide adequate ingress and egress. This is important in that easy entry to and exit from the property will minimize traffic conflicts with existing traffic. Specific recommendations on ' access configuration are included in the DEIR to further insure adequate traffic flow. The project is expected to add 4294 average daily trips to the circulation system. Of these, 657 are anticipated to occur in the peak afternoon hour. This traffic will be distributed to the local circulation network, which is Composed of major and secondary arterial roads and local streets. These roads operate within their design capacities, and can accommodate the additional traffic expected as a result of the project. The traffic study also identified several intersection improvements which Will be required to be constructed in order to maintain adequate levels of service. QOL 3 Comment I Particular attention should be paid to the effect on ingress and egress from existing developments in the area. 41 QO71 3 Response Close attention has been paid in the traffic analysis to the design of ingress and egress points in order to minimize traffic conflicts between project traffic and existing 1 traffic. The added traffic has been identified in the EIR as a significant environmental effect of the project. The project will incrementally increase traffic on the circula- tion system. If delays in ingress or egress occur in peak 1 traffic hours, these, too, can be expected to worsen due to the projected increase in traffic. This is part of the significant traffic effect of the project. QOL 4 Comment In addition to these comments on the Environmental Impact Report, the committee also recommends that the project•be denied due to the intensity of the project, access problems and the growth inducing effects of the project. QOL 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. r I I I 1 I 11 1 i Planning Commission Meeting January 22. 1987 ' Agenda Item No. 5 , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: supplemental information for Amendment No. 638 Subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, several questions and requests for clarification have been requested by the Planning Commission. , Consideration of Parking structure in Floor Area Ratio In the past, the Planning Commission has discussed the overall visual impact of projects which include parking... structures. One way of quantifying bulk of a project is to include parking structures in a floor area ratio comparison. It should be noted that the discussions of floor area ratios in the main staff report relate to intensity of use on building sites, rather than visual intensity. The inclusion of parking structures in a floor area ratio evaluation requires some consideration of the issues which the commis- sion wishes to address. As a purely visual issue, it may make sense to exclude below grade portions of both the parking structure and the buildings on the site. However, , singe the overall amount of development permitted is directly related the amount of parking which can be provided on site, it may be appropriate to include all floor and parking areas, whether above or below grade. Ultimately, if the Planning Commission wishes to consider a system of intensity limits which includes parking, several questions must be addressed, such as inclusion of open, roof top parking, inclusion of surface parking which is covered by a portion of the build- ing, and inclusion of surface as well as structured parking. It is the opinion of staff that this question cannot be resolved when considering a single development proposal, but should be considered for application on a city-wide basis, since the problem relates to all commercial areas of the , city. Staff has developed the following comparison for the informa- tion of the Planning Commission. The analysis can be made only for proposed project less the carry-over entitlement (1.31 FAR), since this is the only scenario for which plans ' are available. The other project in the comparison is 1' r I I L� TO: Planning Commission - 2 MacArthur Court, on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard •and Campus Drive. For the MacArthur Court Project, the total structural area plus the square footage of the parking structure including the roof top parking has been figured in the FAR. Since the parking structure for this project does not include any subterranean parking or building elements, only one FAR figure is presented. The Newport Place Tower project in office Site and below grade floor therefore, calculated deletes a]l below grade rahean parking level ar and structure parking. the area of parking p structure and the two k on Office Site 5. MacArthur Court Offige Site 5 less Office Site 5 less Office Site 5 plus 5 includes both subterranean parking area in the building. Staff has, :hree floor area ratios, one which areas, one which deletes the subter- d one which includes all floor area Each of these calculations includes =ovided, on the roof of the parking uilding which are proposed to remain 1.55 FAR areas below grade 2.35 FAR parking below grade 2.45 FAR parking structure 2.75 FAR IClarification of Floor Area Calculations Various members of•the Planning Commission have noted that the floor area of the project is represented by different figures }n,various port$ of the report. This �s due the use gross,, ngt and net leasable- figures for differing areas of analysis. Additiopally, staff has noted the floor area used a gross floor axea calculation for the existing Bank of Amerjga building in parts of the report which otherwise use net floor area calculations. The following chart has been developed to clarify and correct floor area numbers which are in the various reports on the project. All numbers on this chart are net floor area, as calculated by the City for the purposes of calculating the parking requirement. IFLOOR AREA RATIO COMPARISON - NEWPORT PLACE OFFICE SITE 5 ...... BUILDING SIZES FOR VARIOUS FLOOR AREA RATIOS loovee=oo====v=ems co..p=e=vo_ _� �==eo=vvoee===e=_ o_o=ovveoe====v=ee=_ =eve _eeo=veo_oeeeeevvcl JBVJLDING 1 0.63 FAR[ 0.75 FART 0.82 FARJ0.82/1.0 FAR) 1.31 FART 1.58 FART [CONTINENTAL [ 70,500 SF) 70,500 SFJ 70,500 SFJ 70,500 SFJ 70,500 SFJ 70,500 SF1 �................ I............ [ ------------ I ------------ I ............ I ------------ I ............. (BARK OF AMERICA 1 20,567 SFJ 136,050 SFJ 156,670 SFJ 209,700 SF1 300,000 SFJ 300,000 SFJ I................ I ---- ,.... ... I ----------- .l.----------- [------------ I ---------- ..1 ------------ 1 [MCA LAGHLAN 1 14,400 ............. SFJ I 14,400 ------------ SFJ 1..---------- 14,400 SFJ 14,400 I. ------- .--- SFJ I..---------- 14,400 SFJ I 14,400 .... .------- SFJ I I................ [CARRY-OVER 80,297 SFJ 0 SFJ 0 SFJ 0 SFJ 0 SFJ 80,297 SFJ I--? ............. TOTAL ............ 1 1$5,764 I SFJ ------------ 220,950 I SFJ ------------ 241,570 .---I--....._.._.I._.__...----I I ------------ SFJ 294,600 I SFJ ------------ 384,900 I SFJ ------------ 465,197 I SFJ ...,...,. ...................................................................... N s � To: Planning Commission - 3 Parking Requirements Concern has been expressed that, if the project is signifi- cantly reduced in size, the pool of potential users of the proposed athletic club will be insufficient, resulting in a high level of use by persons outside the office building. If this were to occur, the parking demands of the building will be proportionally higher than for the larger project. Athletic Clubs are currently allowed in the Newport Place Planned Community with parking provided based upon a demon- strated formula subject to the review of the Planning Dixeotpr. if a reduced project is approved, it is suggested that a condition of approval be added requiring parking in addition to that required for the office, retail and restau- rant uses subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director, as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational character- istics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the city for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required- by.,..•• the city Traffic Engineer and the Planning Direc- tor." converaion of'Retail, Restaurant and Athletic club Space ; Concern has been expressed about the potential for the space allocated to ancillary uses to convert to office space at a later date. This concern is mainly in regards to the future parking demand of the project. The conditions of approval, as , recommended by staff will require the provision of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area for retail uses, one space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area for restaurant and lounge area and the possible provision of additional parking for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. Office space requires parking at a ratio of one $pace for each 250 sq.ft. It can be anticipated that conversion of the retail and restaurant spaces to office will require no additional parking. Conversion of the athletic facility may incur some additional parking requirement. It is important to note, however, that the restaurant, lounge, and athletic club are currently proposed to be below grade. It is questionable as to whether these spaces would ever be converted to office uses. Additionally, any such conversion would be subject to the review of the City for conformance with all applicable zoning requirements during plan check. , J u TO: Planning Commission - 4 Parking'Structure Landscaping ' Staff hap been investigating systems for providing land- scaping on the roof of parking structures. The Koll Company has developed a system for use in Koll Center Irvine for 1 landscaping four to five story parking structures. Repre- sentatives of the Koll Company have indicated that a raised planter box and trellis system has proved successful, and 1 adds approximately 5% to the cost of constructing an 800 to 1400 space structure. Staff recommends that an additional mitigation measure be required to address the aesthetic effects of the parking structure, as follows: r"That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program shall be prepared prior the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director." Revised Findings for Denial The revised Finding for Denial prepared by staff for this project Were inadvertently omitted from the attachments to the staff report. These findings are attached to this report. eorrections. to suggested conditions of Approval staff has noted some errors and omissions in the suggested conditions of approval, Exhibits "A" and "C", Modification Condition No. 12. The condition should be revised to read: "That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of net. public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code." PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director p6trici4 Temple Env#onmental Coordinator Attachment; plt wp/supa638.per 1. Revised Findings for Denial I 9.5, ' Findings for Denial Amendment No. 638 , Findings: 1. That the project is inconsistent with the urban design intent of the Newport Place Planned Community. 2. That the intensity of development proposed is higher than that generally permitted in the surrounding area and that the increase in planned development is not necessary or desirable from a planning standpoint. , 3. That the traffic impacts engendered as a result of the project will inhibit the flow of traffic in the general vicinity. 4. That the visual mass and bulk of the eleven story office building in combination with the four level parking structure is inconsistent with the aesthetics found in the Newport Place Planned Community. A638.fnd I Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 1987 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of the application of McLachlan Investment Company for Amendment No. ' 638, and the associated Traffic Study, Modification, and Environmental Impact Report. The approved project will amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 108,836 sq.ft. of additional office and bank floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5. The condi- tion to be reconsidered is regarding the requirement for a flex -time program in the development. ' LOCATION: parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-3X (Resubdivision No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwest- erly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Background At the January 22, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Amendment No. 638 with a related Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study and Modification. In establiphing the mitigation measures for the project, the Commission added a requirement regarding the use of flex -time working hours for the various employers which will occupy the building. During the discussion of the condition, the 1 11 TO: Planning Commission - 2. 1 I Planning Department staff requested some guidance from the Commission as to the intended effect of the requirement, and , whether there was some level of traffic reduction which the project should achieve. The Planning Commission did not have a standard in mind, but required that the staff develop a standard for compliance with the condition to be reviewed by the Commission at a later date. The actual condition reads as follows: "Tenants of the project shall be required to make flexible working hours available to their em- ployees. The flex -time program shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, and appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date." Staff has reviewed the condition as adopted by the Commission and has determined that the intent of the condition is not sufficiently clear for the staff to convey the effect of the , condition to either the applicant or the City Council. The purpose of this report is to discuss the various ways the condition could be implemented, and to identify the problems of establishing compliance criteria given the mixed use nature of the project. , Discussion Transportation systems Management is a new strategy being. ' used to address the traffic impacts of development through a more effective use existing infrastructure, rather than relying on road improvements to accommodate new development. Flex -time is one of a number of traffic management techniques , which can be used to reduce the traffic impacts of develop- ment. Other traffic management measures include use of public transit, local shuttles, ridesharing, varpooling and , park -and -ride programs. Flex -time is an effective measure to reduce traffic generated by a project in morning and after- noon peak hours. It's effect does not reduce overall daily , trips, as ridesharing and carpooling would, but results in traffic trips during hours other than those where congestion is experienced. Where use of Transportation Systems Management has been mandated in development projects, a percentage of peak hour trip reduction is sometimes established as a performance , standard by the mandating agency. An example is Pleasanton, California, where an ordinance requires developers and employers to reduce by 45% over four years single -occupant 1 n qJ TO: Planning Commission - 3. auto trips made during peak periods. The City of Irvine has established a goal of 30� peak hour traffic reduction for the Spectrum project and 40% for the Irvine Technological Center. 1 Voluntary participation or experimental programs usually do not have identified performance standards but may have identified goals. It is important to note that each of these programs apply tp large areas involving many buildings, and 1 do not apply to individual structures. The City of Newport Beach has twice mandated implementation of Traffic Management Programs for expansion projects in Newport Center. The approval of both of these projects was subsgquently rescinded. Neither of the conditions applied established a performance standard for peak hour traffic 1 reduction. At the time of approval of General, Plan Amendment 80-3, it was anticipated the a Development Agreement to be processed after the approval would include a peak hour traffic reduction requirement of approximately 20%. While not a condition of any approval, the Irvine Company has continued with the implementation of the °Centeride" program. The project which was approved by the Planning Commissiorr••is a mixed use project which will naturally result in a reduc- tion of peak hour traffic. The intent of the staff in requiring participation in the OCTD rideshare program was to encourage a reduction in overall traffic from. .the__proj:ectzy;:: both peak hour and daily. The iesue of this discussion,- is the intent of the Commission in adding an additional.require- ment speci.f'.ic4lly in regards to flex -time, as opposed to 'a comprehensive Traffic Management Program. There are several ways compliance with this condition could be quantified. A set percentage of building occupants'or employers using flex -time could be established, although ' staff knows of no projects which are regulated in this way. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed materials which he has been collecting regarding the use and effectiveness of traffic management programs. Based on this information it is suggested that a goal, of 20% peak hour traffic reduction, be established, if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to establish a specific performance standard. ' If the Commission wishes to achieve a 20% reduction in peak hour trips, it might then make sepse to require 20% of the building occupants to be on flex -time. The problems associ- ated with this approach are a lack of knowledge as to whether thi* is a reasonable requirement (that is, will employers Actually agree to implement the program in such a ratio), and the attendapt problems of enforceability. I I 12 To: Planning Commission - 4. I The Commission could simply set a peak hour traffic reduction requirement, such as 20*. This could be enforced through a requirement that peak hour traffic counts be made by the management of the building on a periodic basis. These counts could then be compared to the estimated peak hour traffic included in the traffic study. Should the Commission adopt this approach, staff would need direction as to whether the measurements should be compared for the one -hour peak or the two and one-half hour peak. Problems which are associated with this approach are the fact that the direct effect of the flex -time cannot be separated from any other traffic manage- ment techniques -which the occupants of the project may utilize or traffic reductions which are attributable to the mixed use nature of the project, and the question of the project status if the goal is not achieved. In each of these options, the Planning Commission would have to establish the desired goal in traffic reduction. it is the position of staff that, while the use of flex -time is definitely an effective peak hour traffic reduction techni- que, there is not sufficient data currently available based on actual experience to know what are appropriate standards for the City to apply, particularly in a project of this size. Angther approach to clarification of this condition is more programmatic in nature,. with the intent- of using this project..-, for demonstration and data gathering purposes. This.program'- could require the building to utilize all traffic management. . techniques available, for the building management to include a Traffic Management coordinator with responsibilities to develop and oversee the program and to conduct periodic participation studies and traffic counts, identify required and voluntary components of the program, and to maintain contact with City staff in regards to the evolution of the program. " Revisions to the conditions of approval for each of the three approaches described in this report are presented below: A. The project shall employers to make programs available traffic reduction program is 20%, wb traffic counts ente for each fifteen mix two and one-half he evening. Counts ar be required to encourage flexible working hours to their employees. The to be achieved by this ich shall be verified by ring and leaving the site ute period during the peak ur period for morning and a to be taken on.a repre- 1 I 11 I I 10i TO: Planning Commission - 5. sentative day during midweek. The traffic counts shall be taken at six-month intervals for two years following full occupancy of the project, with yearly counts taken thereafter. Full occupancy of the project shall be defined i to be ?0% of the net leasable area. Traffic counts shall be conducted under the supervi- sion of the City Traffic Engineer and the reports shall be submitted to the City for review. If the required level for peak hour traffic reduction is not achieved, the applicant or his successors in interest in perpetuity shall require additional employers to participate in flexible working hours programs as a lease condition, at such time as new leases or renewals are granted, until the mandated peak hour trip reduction is achieved. B. 20% of all occupants of the building shall participate in flexible working hours pro- grams. Requirements to achieve this level of participation in these programs shall be placed in tenant, leases. In order to verify compliance with this condition, the applicant and all successors in interest in perpetuity ' shall conduct a survey of all building occupants at six month intervals for the first two years following the issuance of the ' occupancy permit, with yearly reports there- after, and submit the Ytesults to the Newport Beach Planning Department. C. Prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit, the, applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Managgment Program, The TDM program shall be included in all tenant leases in the building. The program shall include the following features: 1. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall include a coordinator with ' the specific assignment of developing and overseeing the program. In addition, each tenant with 50 gr more on site ' employees shall designate a contact the person for both employers and coordinator. 1 TO: Planning Commission - 6. 2. GOAL: 20% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared ' with City standard rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall provide , for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically .identify one or more method for implementation with its employees. a. Flex -time: May Consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow , employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reduc- tions. Flex -time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant ' shall be required to participate in the orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. ' Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each ' tenant shall make subsidized.transit 'passes available to all employeed. , C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to. participants. . The ' project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition , and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provi- sion of vehicles, 1Olt ' TO: Planning Commission - 7. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. 1 The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek. If the Planning Commission adopts alternate "A" or "B", the condition will replace mitigation measure number 30. if alternative "C" is adopted by the Commission, it will replace mitigation measures 28-30. It should be noted that alterna- tive "C" only establishes a goal of traffic reduction, where ' alternatives "A" and "B" include specific performance criteria. Alternative "C" is more in the nature of a demonstration project from which the City can obtain data to ascertain realistic performance criteria for multi -level, multi -tenant office buildings. PLANNING DEPAI,TMENT DAME$ V. HEWICCKER,� Director By aa-1) C1F/ PATRICIA TEMPLEIF Environmental Coordinator 2-5a638.per I I 1 ,Oa ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWPORT PLACE TOWER SCR #85061914 Attachment No. 2 Comments and Responses City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport BouleVard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contact: Patricia L. Temple 714-644-3225 February 1987 r r .r r r i z «. i r r II I I I I COMMENTS Copies of all comments received subsequent to January 13, 1987 are contained in this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. The comments and responses which are included in this report will become part of the Environmental Impact Report at such time as they accepted as adequate by the certifying body. Stop Polluting Our Newport(SPON) P.O.Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 - 6 105- P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator February 5, 1987 CALIFORNIA - -- Si'BUECT: Amendment No. 638 Agenda Item.Na. 11 February 5 .McLachlan Investment Co. Traffic Study, Modification and EIR Please note the following comments with regard to the above noted project, Amendment No. 638. On 2/5/96 the Newport Beach Planning Commission is con- sidering a request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of this Amendment. Three approaches are suggested in the staff report. Based on information available, including these new "approaches", we do not believe the Planning Commission can justify a determination of adequacy of environmental documents and mitigations. The need for flex -time of working hours for various employers points up the serious traffic conditions which exist and will be worsened by existing permitted projects. The conditions, as proposed, provide neither adequate standards nor adequate assurances of compliance. Whereas we agree with the strategy of using Traffic System Management techniques, such means cannot make the mitigation adequate when the cumulative effect of projects' traffic is simply overwhelming to the road system. The nearby roads and freeways are already over -subscribed now and in the future so that the AM and PM peak hours are extending throughout the day thus negating the positive effects that flex -time schedules are intended to have. without a firm performance standard, the proposed con- ditions are meaningless. And, it is surprising that the City would only consider a goal of a 20% reduction in project traffic when the cities of Irvine and Pleasanton strive for 30% and 45% respectively. Ag proposed in approach "C", the suggestion of using this project, which intensifies allowed development in the area, for demonstration and data gathering purposes is I I 1 I I d i1 SPON To: Newport Beach Planning Commission 2/5/87 Amendment No. 638 page 2 ' at cross purposes with the guidelines for environmental reporting and documentation. This very project points up ' the need*for an "Airport Area Study" and consideration of the total cumulative effect before a new precedent is set for height and density. The Airport Area Study has been terminated leaving many unknowns even though it is stated in the 1/22/87 staff report (p. 5) that "This project, along with all the existing and ' anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumulatively significant." It is a well known fact that the City and regional areas are already hard pressed to meet the demands of development already permitted. Included in already permitted development is a more reasonable addition for Newport Place. We urge you to reject these proposed conditions as being — inadequate to mitigate the impacts of this project and the increased intensity of development in Newport Place. ' Very Truly Yours, 1 I I 1 e 4414107— - Jean Watt For SPON Steering )Committee 1 101 RESPONSES ' The following section responds to all comments related to the ' Draft Environmental Impact Report. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the EIR, do not raise , significant environmental issues, or request additional information; but are comments related to the project itself, the advisability of approval or the contents of a condition. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate ' within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknow- ledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be ' forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers for their review and consideration. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT ($PON) , SPON 1 - Comment ' On 2/5/98 the Newport Beach Planning Commission is consider- ing a request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of this Amendment. Three approaches are suggested in the staff report. Based on information avail- able, including these new "approaches", we do not believe the Planning Commission can justify a determination of adequacy ' of environmental documents and mitigations. SPON 1 - Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision- makers. , SPON 2 - Comment The need for flex -time of working hours for various employers points up the serious traffic conditions which exist and will be worsened by existing permitted projects. The conditions, as proposed, provide neither adequate standards nor adequate ' assurances of compliance. SPON 2 - Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. The revised conditions drafted by staff for the consideration of the Planning Commission all include specific performance criteria and mandated participation by occupants of the project. 11 I iSPON 3 - Comment ' Whereas we agree with the strategy of using Traffic System Management techniques, such means cannot make the mitigation adequate when the cumulative effect of projects' traffic is simply overwhelming to the road system. The nearby roads and freeways are already over -subscribed now and in the future so that the AM and PM peak hours are extending throughout the day thus negating the positive effects that flex -time ' schedules are intended to have. SPON 3 - Response ' Section 15041 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "a lead agency for a project has authority to require changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment." This authority is limited by section 15040 which authorizes the agency to use its discretionary powers to mitigate "when it 1 is feasible to do so." The suggested mitigation measure adopted by the Planning Commission addresses both the direct environmental effects of the proposed project as well as the cumulative environmental effects which are identified in the 1 EIR associated with the project, existing development and future growth. The purpose of the mitigation measure is to lessen the project's traffic impact in the peak traffic hours, which are the times when congestion is experienced. Generally, the roadway system in the vicinity of the project provides for an acceptable level of service at times other than peak traffic hours. Additional traffic mitigation measures (that is, physical improvements to intersections) which have been required of the project will improve the level to traffic service during peak hours. iSPON 4 - Comment ' Without a firm performance standard, the proposed conditions are meaningless. And, it is surprising that the City would only consider a goal of a 20% reduction in project traffic when the Cities of Irvine and Pleasanton strive for 30% and 45% respectively. As proposed in approach "C", the sugges- tion of using this project, which intensifies allowed development in the area, for demonstration and data gathering ' purposes is at cross purposes with the guidelines for environmental reporting and documentation. This very project points up the need for an "Airport Area Study" and considera- tion of the total cumulative effect before a new precedent is set for height and density. SPON 4 - Response Each of the mitigation alternatives presented to the Planning Commission included a firm performance criteria, either in 1 terms of specific participation, program implementation or 1 joq 7#, traffic reduction. The Planning Commission ultimately adopted approach °C", but increased the trip reduction goal to 25%. The writer of the comment suggests that the purpose of approving the project is for demonstration and data , gathering purposes. The imposition of TDM program require- ments is not the singular rational for approving the project, but is proposed as a mitigation measure to reduce direct and cumulative traffic impacts of the project should it be ap- proved, and will also allow for the City to study a Traffic Demand Management Program implemented in a single, multi- , tenant office building. It fact, the purpose of all mitiga- tion measures is to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects of a project, should it be approved, and are not considered the reason for the approval unless identified as ' an overriding Consideration in the project approval. A lead agency may deny a project in order to avoid adverse environ- mental effects of a project; or the agency may approve a project with identified significant environmental effects if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision. The approval of the project is not considered a "precedent" for height and density. Amendments to the Zoning , Code are each judged by the agency on its individual merits. If this project is approved, it will not commit the City to similar amendments, if requested. ' SPON 5 - Comment The Airport Area Study has been terminated •leaving many, ' unknowns even though it is stated in the 1/22/87 staff report (p. 5) that "This project, along with all the: existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on ' transportation and circulation in the area which is oumula- tively significant.$' ' SPON 5 - Response The Airport Area Study referenced in the comment was initi- ated by the Planning Commission and City Council in response to several requests for increased development rights in the airport area in 1986. The project under consideration has ' been in process since 1984, and was not a part of that study. After the referendum on the Newport Center General Plan Amendment, most of the project proponents withdrew their requests, and the study was terminated. These projects are ' no longer "anticipated future projects" in the manner implicit in the statement quoted from the January 22, 1987 staff report. Anticipated future projects include All planned and foreseeable future projects. SPON 6 - Comment ' It is a well known fact that the City and regional areas are already hard pressed to meet the demands of development already permitted. Included in already permitted development PC) ', ' is a more reasonable addition for Newport Place. We urge you to reject these proposed conditions as being inadequate to ' mitigate the impacts of this project and the increased intensity of development in Newport Place. 1 I SPON 6 - Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decision - makers. As provided for in Sections 15042 and 15043 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may deny a project in order to avoid adverse environmental effects of a project; or the agency may approve a project with identified significant environmental effects if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision. 11 City Council Meeting February 9, 1987 TO: FROM: ' SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. F-10(b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning.Department Amendment No. 638 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Profes- sional and Business Offices Site No. 5 and to establish a res- taurant, an athletic club, and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifica- tions to the Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area, to allow 25% of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental document. Traffic Study PAN®R Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the con- struction of a 278,489 sq.ft. office -commercial building in Newport Place. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resubdivision No. 319), and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwest- erly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Application This application is a request to amend the Planned Community Development Standards of the Newport Place Planned Community. Planned CorFaunity amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Suggested Action If desired, schedule for public hearing on February 23, 1987. TO: City Council - 2. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of January 22, 1987, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council the approval of Amendment 638. The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission and an excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will be distributed at the time of the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/k CC19 Attachment: Vicinity Map I i 1 VICINITY MAP Amendment No. 638 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 u i 1 1 i i ' COMMISSIONERS GZ c^�No y�l9 FFy Z o� ZZ�,D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 ?TOLL CALL INDEX ' Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item No.l A638 Request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of the application of McLachlan Invest- ment Company for Amendment No. 638, and the associated Condition - Traffic Study, Modification, and Environmental Impact Report. The approved project will amend the Newport ally Approved Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 108,836 sq.ft. of additional office and bank floor area within Professional and Business Office Site ' No. 5. The condition to be reconsidered is regarding the requirement for a flex -time program in the develop- ment. ' LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resub- ' division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- westerly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport ' Place Planned Community. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach ' OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the ' purpose for the subject item is for the reconsideration of the condition of approval regarding flex -time which was approved by the Planning Commission at the January 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hewicker ' referred to the letter from SPON dated February 5, 1987, in response to the staff report. ' Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, stated that staff has submitted three alternatives to modify the condition that was placed for the use of flex -time for the building. She explained that two of the alternatives involve placing a specific percent participation or trip reduction factor into the condition, and the third alternative would modify the ' condition as applied by the Planning Commission to impliment a more extensive traffic demand management system for the building in a manner so that the -2- COMMISSIONERS C MINUTES' February 5, 1987 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Department and the Public works Department ' ' could measure and assess the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs for multi -tenant office buildings. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, 3187 Airway, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of , the applicant. Mr. King referred to the City of Irvine's 30% to 40% traffic reduction goals and he said that the goals make reference only to two new projects. He pointed out that the development coming into the two t projects start on equal ground, and it is geographically and developmentally a more equitable system in their particular case. Mr. King stated that ' he met with the City of Irvine and discussed their follow-up while they are imposing the goals, and their participation with the participants has been basically voluntary because they do not now have the staff or ' mechanism to insure the compliance nor do they do any testing. Mr. King indicated that it is the City of Irvine's long range goal to work towards a traffic ' management system that can be applied throughout the City. Mr. King indicated that the applicants concern is that ' the project is in an area where there is redevelopment, and there is existing development on -site. He said that the applicant feels that an alternative that is too ' restrictive places the project at a unique disadvantage. Mr. King advised that the applicant agreed to a condition previously and expressed willingness to comply with a traffic information program. He stated that two of the major tenants of the building who are principals in the project have had a time management program for the past two years. He t maintained that the Bank of America and future tenants will be approached to comply with a flax -time program. Mr. King further stated that OCTD literature will be available in the lobby area for distribution. ' In response to questions posed by Chairman Person, Ms. Temple replied that most projects that are involved in , trip reduction programs use more than one method, and that she is not aware of any other projects within the City that are currently using only flex -time. In reference to Alternative Condition C.3.a. Chairman ' Person asked if a specific minimum goal could be implemented for trip reduction so that a maximum goal ' -3- COMMISSIONERS yG 99� .09 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 5, 1987 L CALL INDEX could be looked at in the future. Ms. Temple replied ' that staff has set a traffic reduction goal of. 20 percent; however, the Planning Commission could change that percentage to a mandatory reduction and choose whatever percentage they feel is appropriate. Commissioner Kurlander suggested that the Planning Commission should postpone setting a minimum traffic reduction because the subject project is the first project imposed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated his concern is that Alternatives A and B just relate to flex -time, proposing a traffic reduction of 20 percent. He explained that Alternative C allows four methods to be used at the same time in order to achieve the same traffic reduction. As such, the proposal won't be ' an effective measure of flex -time, and he opined that if the project is going to act as a test a higher minimum standard should be achievable with all four ' alternates included. The public hearing was closed at this time. M Iotion x Motion, was made to approve Amendment No. 638, Alternative "C" as Measure No. 28, which would delete approved Mitigation Measures No. 28, 29, and ' previously 30. Commissioner Winburn reasoned that a realistic performance criteria is needed before establishing specific percentages, and also that the building will have a mixed use which will reduce the peak hour traffic time. Commissioner Pomeroy requested the maker of the motion to amend Alternative C.2 to 25% reduction instead of 20% reduction. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Motion voted on to approve Alternative C as Measure No. 28, amending No. 2 from 20% reduction to 25% reduction, x x x x x and to delete previously approved Measures No. 28, 29, ,Ayes Absent x x and 30. MOTION CARRIED. ' No. 28. Prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The TOM program shall be included in all tenant leases in the building. ' The program shall include the following features: -4- COMMISSIONERS { MINUTES' February 5, 1987' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 1. The Transportation Demand Manage- ' ment Program shall include a coordinator with the specific assignment of developing and ' overseeing the program. In addition, each tenant with 50 or more On -site employees shall designate a contact person for both employees and the coordinator. 2. GOAL: 25% reduction in a.m. and ' p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared with City standard rates. 3. METHODS: The TAM program shall provide for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically identify one or more method for implementation with its employees. a. Flex -time: May consist of ' assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their Own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex-tima also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b, Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the ' building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to ' -5- ' COMMISSIONERS G�y�o oy9� yy � yy MINUTES February 5, 1987 'I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L CALL INDEX promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to participants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial ' assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be sub- mitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter.. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek. r -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I CALL A I I I 11 i I I I I I I I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. That the existing automobile and boat electronics fa'city has violated City Codes and Conditions of Annrov`al of Use Permit No. 3121. 8. That approval 'o$ Use Permit No. 3250 will, under the circumstances `of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, puce, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons"re,�siding and working in the neighborhood and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the<ighborhood and the general welfare of the City. 111%R A. Amendment No. 638 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story building within "Professional and Business Offices Site No. 5" and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor areas; to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 278,489 sq.ft. office -commercial building in Newport Place. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resub- division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- westerly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C -28- INDEX Item No.5 A6 38 TS Approved I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FELL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX I I I I I I� I H H- I I I APPLICANT: OWNER: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, introduced Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator. In response to questions that had been posed by members of the Planning Commission to staff prior to the public hearing, Ms. Temple reviewed the supplemental staff report for the subject Amendment: the comparison of the proposed project's floor area ratio to MacArthur Court; the clarification of floor area calculations; a recommended condition of approval if a reduced project is approved requiring additional parking for the athletic club; if the ancillary uses would be converted to office use; a recommended condition requiring a landscape program for the roof of the parking structure; revised findings for denial; and modified Condition No. 12 in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C" due to errors and omissions in the suggested conditions. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King & Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King outlined the proposed project. He advised that the applicant has reduced the project from the original application of 1.56 floor area ratio to 1.30 floor area ratio. He said that the reduction of the floor area ratio enables the applicant to construct the project without financially threatening the project; however, if the floor area ratio would be reduced further the project would require the same mitigation measures and improvements, and would seriously threaten the project's ability to provide the area traffic improvements. Mr. King compared the proposed project to a 24 story office building in downtown San Diego as similar to the 11 story proposed bank and office building. Mr. King stated that in addition to the office use, the project includes a restaurant, service deli, a full service health club, newspaper stand, tobacco shop, florist shop, and dry cleaner. Mr. King further stated that the lobby would also be used for "after -hour" events such as charitable events. -29- LJ COMMISSIONERS ymGgt�,�m�'�y� A 9� 9y9G1-Gy f�9ya� ;yyoT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 L CALL INDEX Mr. King concluded his presentation by stating that the self-contained fully serviced work place would reduce trips from the building further by offering conference room facilities to the tenants and executive office suites. Mr. King stated that the proposed project would replace the Bank of America building, and that Bank of America would combine their various operations into a regional office and would occupy several floors and a portion of the main lobby. McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder -Langston Construction Company would also be housed on site, totalling approximately 50 percent of the square footage proposed. Mr. King stated that McLachlan Investment Company and Snyder -Langston Construction Company have a traffic management concept that has been employed by their companies in the past to reduce trips and manage traffic in their companies, and the principals of the in the lease to companies are willing to write language encourage new tenants to join with them in doing the same, resulting in a total traffic management program similar to the concept that many cities are introducing and which staff has required the' applicant to do as a condition. by Commissioner In response to a question posed Koppelman regarding proposed square footage for ancillary uses, Mr. Bill Langston, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that 8,000 square feet is proposed for the restaurant, 8,000 square feet is proposed for the athletic club, and 8,000 square feet is proposed for the lobby. Chairman Person asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval stating that if the project would be approved by the Planning Commission, that any conversion of'the retail, restaurant, or athletic club, or the ancillary services would not be possible without further review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Langston replied that the applicant would agree to the condition; however, any conversion would be unlikely because the athletic club is in the basement, the lobby is a huge lobby, and the restaurant is located in the basement. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn if the regarding the size of the proposed project project would be reduced to .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio from the requested 1.31 Floor Area Ratio, staff replied that 1.31 Floor Area Ratio would be 300,000 square -30- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 bNVIIV0001 yyy v, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MOLL CALL INDEX I P, 1 I I I 1 I I I i I feet, and .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio would be 209,700 square feet, which could be eight stories as opposed to eleven stories. In comparison to the proposed project, Mr. Langston commented that Mitsui Manufacturer's Bank is 10 stories. Ms. Temple referred to Chairman Person's previous remarks regarding a condition of approval prohibiting the conversion of ancillary uses without the Planning Commission's approval. Ms. Temple advised that the revised Planned Community text in the "reduced project alternative .82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio", states that any conversion of the ancillary uses would require an amendment to the Planned Community text and would require the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Bill Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Langston stated that there are 7 buildings in Newport Beach that are 10 to 15 stories; in Irvine there are 15 buildings completed or under construction ranging from 10 to 17 stories and that there are 15 other projects in Irvine that range from 10 to 29 stories that are in process. Mr. Langston explained the reason for the delay of the process is that the FAA has arrived at a new criteria for evaluating heights of structures to insure no interference with the navigation signal. He advised that the signal allows for a quiet approach to a slope of 1.3 degrees away from the airport which is the height limit that the FAA would approve and not interfere with the signals. Mr. Langston indicated that the 1.3 degree slope caused the proposed project to be reduced from a proposed 15 stories to 11 stories, and that the applicants have been the only developers to work with the FAA to lower the project to fit within the FAA criteria relative to the signal. Mr. Langston stated that the applicants have met the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission and have received their approval by lowering the building. Mr. Langston commented that the subject site is the most dramatic location for the proposed project. He emphasized that the ancillary uses will be subsidized by the building so as to confine the tenants to the building's services in order to encourage the tenants not to travel in their automobiles to seek services elsewhere. -31- I COMMISSIONERS .p N� ?!�'fG Z0 n 9 9 G� BZ NO r Z 0\ y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 BOLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Beverly Langston, 18 Hillcrest Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and and in reference to the health club. Mrs. Langston's presentation consisted of the results of a survey of 100 men and women who work out regularly in Newport Beach. She referred to the research that indicated that the increasing need for companies to keep the employees productivity up by providing daily j, exercise, and also that exercise has become a "way of life" for the majority of American executives. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy comparing the proposed health club to the aforementioned San Diego health club, Mrs. Langston facility is for replied that a restaurant contemplated the health club. She further replied that one-half of the members of the health club's come from the outside but that she has not determined if the members were related in some way to the building's employees or if the members were arriving within walking distance of the building. Mr. Allan Beek appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Beek stated that he admires the concepts of a self-contained building which reduces outside traffic; however, he felt that the project should be moved to an area where the employees are coming from. He questioned the need in Newport Beach; that the for more office space development does not have the amenities that other recent Newport Beach proposals have had; that the project is the first of many steps for increased office space in the airport vicinity; the site has the highest floor area ratio in Newport Place; and that the subject development is the first of piecemeal development in the area. Mr. Beek referred to staff's comment in the staff report that "based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, all adverse environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. This project, along with all existing and anticipated future will have a cumulative effect on projects, transportation and circulation in the area which is cumulatively significant." Mr. Beek contended that the project should not be considered any more than any other project to be considered until making an over-all decision, and he remarked that the Planning Commission should contemplate "are we going to increase the -32 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I I I 1, U H 1� u I I I I 1_! I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH intensity all around the airport area?" Mr. Beek concluded that the project should be denied, that the recommendation is reasonable and is consistent with staff's findings. Commissioner Koppelman referred to Mr. Beek's statement regarding the recent airport study that was withdrawn recently by the Planning Commission and she asked Mr. Beek if he felt that a study of the airport area and the intensity should be implemented? Mr. Beek replied yes, and further stated that when that study was withdrawn, the implication was that the intent of the City for its planning had been read and that the intensity in the airport area was not to be increased. He opined that was not the intent after all, that the intent was circumvent because projects would be brought in piecemeal. Commissioner Koppelman advised that the subject project pre -dated the projects included in the studies, that the proposed project has been in the planning stages for approximately two years. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that along with this project, if it was approved, there would be $3.5 million of traffic improvements in the area, and if the project was not approved, then a 100,000 square foot project could be built on the subject with no traffic mitigations or traffic improvements. Mr. Beek replied that he could accept a 100,000 square foot project if traffic studies show that there would not be unsatisfactory intersection problems. Ms. Temple stated that in addition to the existing Bank of America, there are approximately 80,000 square feet of development which has been previously vested under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance through the approval of the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan and two subsequent amendments to that Plan. She said that 100,000 square feet has passed through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and is considered a committed vested project. In summary, Commissioner Koppelman concluded that the Planning Commission has the option to deny a project and not obtain any traffic mitigation measures and end up with a 100,000 square foot building on the subject site, or approve the project and obtain the,mitigation measures and the $3.5 million worth of traffic improvements. Mr. Beek rebutted that the traffic mitigation measures proposed by the project would do nothing to help the 55 Freeway and San Diego Freeway, and the other things that are so impacted by the -33- INDEX I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IbLL CALL INDEX I P, I I 1 U I I I . I I I I I intense development in the airport area. Mr. Beek concluded that the City has developed and adopted a General Plan, reconciled the development with the traffic capacity, and he questioned what is the point of developing general plans and specific area plans if they are going to be eventually modified and built much larger? Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Beek to clarify his statements regarding office space vacancy. Mr. Beek replied that he was aware of the office space vacancies by visible rental signs and what he has read in the newspapers; however, he has not differentiated between between three story buildings and buildings above three stories. Mr. Dick Nichol, 519 Iris, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Nichol commented that as a resident he was concerned about the density in the airport area and the change in the life style from a residential area to a ' metropolitan area. As a Director of the Orange County Chapter of the Air Pollution Control Association, Mr. Nichol commented that the projects in the airport area have affected the air pollution in the South Coast region. Mr. Nichol emphasized that to slow down air pollution, buildings must be built closer to the population centers where people live, and he opined that is the opposite of what is happening around the airport area. He opined that the air pollution could eventually shut down all industry in the area. In reference to "LOR", the standard navigational aid for aircraft throughout the nation, Mr. Nichol explained the bounce that arises from buildings in the airport and Newport Beach areas, and he commented on air traffic safety. Mr. Nichol stated that the FAA has put a lid on the buildings in the airport area for safety reasons very significantly. Mr. Jerry King reappeared before the Planning Commission in response to statements made previously by Mr. Allan Beek and Mr. Dick Nichol. Mr. King commented that as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Orange County Transportation Commission, he stated that a member of the EPA has indicated that emission standards applicable to the region have not been enforceable. He said that the EPA has discussed reducing the standards for automobiles and that there has been an attempt to "get a handle" on automobile pollution. Mr. King expanded upon the -34- I COMMISSIONERS �c .o RIO CyoC�Zo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 L CALL INDEX affordable development that is taking place in Newport Beach and the demand for affordable housing by the people who work in the area. Mr. King explained that in an effort to build membership in the athletic club in San Diego, that the athletic club has been taking members from outside of the building; however, as soon as the building is fully occupied and the demand for the health club increases from the building's tenants, the preferred members will come from the occupants of the building. Mr. King presented closing statements by describing the project's consistency with the City's Land Use Element and the General Plan, and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. There being no others to address the Planning time. Commission, the public hearing was closed at this Commissioner Winburn asked if there would be any reduction of traffic mitigation measures if the project would be as staff is recommending to 0.82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio? Ms. Temple replied that the Traffic Engineer reviewed the Traffic Study and indicated that the reduction in the project would not eliminate any of the proposed mitigation in the traffic study. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding a 50/50 mitigation from future projects in the area, Ms. Temple replied that the Planning Department has not received requests for any significant development in the airport area. Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that the bridge would be widened through the County airport expansion and that the County is doing significant work on Campus Drive. He said that the scheduling for the County work should be within two to three years, and he said that there could be a 50/50 mitigation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Webb replied that the bridge widening project could cost between $1 million to $1.5 million. Chairman Person stated that there is a difference between the proposed project and the projects that were terminated by included in the Airport Study that was the Planning Commission. He commented that he was aware of the proposed development during the past two years; however, the proposed project was partly delayed -35- a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o o Z January 22, 1987 F� �Z GP 0 y GF �oZi F FEZ ZZ�011- Z !! ZO!'�' y�T �,�9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LL CALL v INDEX because of the change in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairman Person added that with those thoughts in mind, and realizing that there are entitlements of almost 100,000 square feet that could be built with no mitigation, he believed that a project which would provide the City with some mitigation measures is to be tall _ appropriate. He opined that if there are buildings in Newport Beach, than the airport area is the appropriate place for such buildings. In response to a statement made previously during the public hearing, Chairman Person responded that the waterfront residential area would not be affected by the metropolitan airport area. He pointed out that the deal applicant would be required to expend a great of money for mitigation. Commissioner Winburn referred to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and requirements that make the developer provide the road requirements, she opined that the project intensifies because that is necessary for the developer to come out on the development economically. She pointed out that the proposed project requires expensive improvements because of the overpass and intensifies the project in order to get the improvements in. In summary, she said that 100,000 square feet would not require traffic improvements, and that if the Planning Commission approved 0.82/1.0 Floor Area Ratio as recommended by staff which would add an additional 100,000 square feet or two-thirds of that requested by the applicant. Then the City would receive an additional $3.5 million of road improvements which is not just to satisfy the in and out traffic but would satisfy the traffic that is brought into the community outside of Newport Beach. in consideration of the aforementioned remarks, motion Motion x was made to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" The maker of the motion confirmed with staff that the concern previously stated regarding the conversion of Planned Community text and is ancillary uses is in the not necessary as an added condition. In regard to an added condition in terms ok mitigation required, Mr. Webb stated that at the present time -36- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RILL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX I I I I 11 I I I 1, hI I I I I there are no other developments that would be required to do it. Chairman Person said that until such time as other development would occur, the applicant would be entitled to a reimbursement up to one-half of the costs of the bridge improvement. Mr. Webb said that widening the bridge will take a long time period because of processing. He asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission that the bridge be widened before the occupancy of the building? Chairman Person replied that it is the intent of the Planning Commission that the bridge be widened as soon as possible in conjunction with the start up of the project. Mr. Webb said that if this is an improvement that is required of the developer, it would require that the bridge be completed prior to occupancy unless the project is too expensive to do himself, and then he would have to be willing to bond the improvement. Ms. Temple said that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance does address improvement which are beyond the scope of the project. She said that there are four findings which must be made: (1) That the cost of the improvement is disproportionate to the size of any traffic generated by the project. (2) That construction of the improvement shall commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. (3) That the approval of the project is conditioned upon payment of the fee to fund construction of the improvements with the amount of the fee to bear the same proportion to the estimated cost of the improvement as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. (4) That the financial contribution toward the construction of the major improvement outways the projects temporary adverse impact on unimproved intersections. Mr. King reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the engineering for the said bridge is underway and there have been meetings with Cal -Trans and the County and adjacent land developers with respect to the circulation improvements. He pointed out that the building will not be 100 percent leased from the time the doors are opened. He said that the -37- r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX I I I I H H I I I I I i I I applicant would agree to bond the improvements if staff could determine expenditures. Ms. Temple said that the findings provided in the staff report were made in anticipation that all improvements would be made requirements of the project. She said that the alternate findings would be a summary of the statements made to the Planning Commission. In response to Chairman Person, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the wording of the specific conditions has been left to staff's direction provided that the Planning Commission has given the parameters and the intent so that the answer would be that the exact findings could be refined by staff but the concepts would have to be presented at the meeting. Ms. Korade pointed out that Ms. Temple has presented the concept at the public hearing. Chairman Person said that the intent is that the applicant bond for and pay for the improvement with the right of reimbursement up to one-half of.that improvement. Mr. Webb said that the Ordinance calls for a proportionate contribution. Mr. Hewicker added "if determined by the Traffic Engineer". He explained whatever this particular project's contribution would be, which does not require that the improvement be in place prior to the time that the building is open but that the Planning Commission is making a finding that the improvement as planned by the County and to which the application is making a contribution, will be on the ground and in place in four years from this public hearing. Commissioner Koppelman questioned the need for an added condition to be determined by the Traffic Engineer. Ms. Temple said that the proper way would be to identify the intersection as not being a project requirement but being subject to a separate finding, and the condition of proportional contribution. Mr. Webb added that the Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection is the one referred to as being fair share which requires the widening of the bridge. Approval of Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification are subject to the recommended conditions contained in the Supplemental Staff Report as follows: to modify Condition No. 12, Amendment No. 638 Modification: "That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 S:Za H COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LL CALL INDEX square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code."; add Condition No. 15 to Amendment No. 636: "That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director."; add Condition No. 16 to Amendment No. 638: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director." Chairman Person stated that his motion does not reflect his feelings concerning the sites that have been identified as the "Airport Study Area". He reasoned that he is relating specifically to the subject site and this particular square footage that has been allotted and allocated for the subject site with the knowledge that the proposed project has been within the City's process for approximately two years; that the to project is not precedent setting in respect any of the Airport Study Area offices which were identified in the staff report in the December 4, 1986, Planning I Commission meeting; that this is a separate and different project and he opined that the proposal balances the additional square footage in view of the mitigation involved based upon the existing "on the ground" square footage and is justified. In reference to the Environmental Impact Report, Condition No. 28: "The project should establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service.", Commissioner Koppelman asked if the City had implemented any traffic management programs over and above what is in the condition on any other project? Ms. Temple replied that a traffic systems management program was made a condition of approval of General Plan Amendment 80-3 and General Plan Amendment 85-1B which were ultimately denied; however, the City has -39- a COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 vA. Po py qL �C yY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILL CALL I I I I I I I IINDEX I J I I I 11 I I I I I L I I imposed specific rideshare conditions on OCTD participation. Commissioner Koppelman referred to previous testimony regarding writing a traffic management into the building leases, and she asked if the program for Newport Center is one that would be applicable to a building of this size? Ms. Temple replied that staff feels that a building of the subject project's size does not provide a large enough base for sustaining a traffic management program. In further response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Ms. Temple replied that with some modification to the wording, the terms of said Condition No. 28 could be incorporated into the leases, and that the wording change would simply require that the subject of the lease would contact and participate in the OCTD rideshare programs which are currently in existence. The maker of the motion agreed with Commissioner Koppelman to add Condition No. 29 to the Environmental Impact Report which would require the applicant to incorporate the language of Condition No. 28 into the building leases. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she would support the motion, and she pointed out that it was a difficult decision to decide exactly what is appropriate for the site. Commissioner Koppelman further, stated that the project concept of ancillary uses on -site for the employees is a good point, and that the subject site is an appropriate place to develop any sort of high-rise structure. In reference to Chairman Person's previous testimony, Commissioner Koppelman agreed that the subject project is not a criteria for any further development in the area. Commissioner Winburn stated that she has had difficulty supporting the project as far as increasing the density to provide for the traffic mitigation measures. She reasoned that the project has been reduced and that with the measures that have been taken as far as the pro-r-ata share of the large $3.5 million or the $1.5 million as previously stated by Mr. Webb, for the cost of the bridge at that location, she felt that she could approve the project. Commissioner Winburn further stated that she felt that the applicant has been going through the "pipeline" for the past two years, and for one reason or another, the project has not been able to come forward to the Planning Commission. -40- 11 COMMISSIONERS - �y�o� y f�9yo �yyoT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 LL CALL INDEX Commissioner Merrill referred to Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28, and stated that the condition should be amended to "the project shall establish a rideshare program..", instead of "the project should establish a rideshare program...". Commissioner Merrill suggested that staggered starting times should be addressed. Chairman Person stated that he would accept an amendment to the motion to modify Mitigation Measure, Condition No. 28 from "should" to "shall". Ms. Temple requested that Condition No. 14 of the Modification be deleted because the condition required a subsequent traffic study. Chairman Person accepted the recommendation as a part of the motion. Commissioner Merrill addressed the issue of flex. -time and the success that flex -time has had in other areas of the state. He pointed out that the concept has to start somewhere, and that if the concept is impossible I to implement at this time, then there should be a condition that would encourage the applicant to initiate the flex plan. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the success of flex time during the Olympics when there were better traffic conditions, and he pointed out how well the plan can work if it is planned, and that people cooperated. Chairman Person stated that he would agree to a condition that the applicant submit a flex -time program to the Traffic Engineer for approval as part of the proposed project as Condition No. 30. Commissioner Eichenhofer asked if the condition would mean that from now on that office development of any size would be obligated to have flex -time? Chairman Person replied that the Planning Commission would look at the plan on a project by project basis. Commissioner Eichenhofer contended that the uniqueness of the commercial services in the proposed building are going to accomplish some traffic management which is one of the reasons that she stated that she would support the motion. She questioned if making flex -time that strong would be appropriate for this project, ana she said that she is having difficulty with the condition as much as she would like to see the concept implemented. -41- a MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LL CALL INDEX Commissioner Koppelman addressed the flex plan as a condition to be approved by the Traffic Engineer and the different uses in the building automatically become a flex plan, and she questioned if it would be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer to leave it alone if it seems to be working, and let the Traffic Engineer make the determination? Commissioner Pomeroy pointed out that many times flex time is resisted by management but is virtually always hiqhly well received by the employees, and that if the concept is a part of the program of the office and mentioned in the terms of the lease, then the plan will induce people to come there who will accept and embrace the concept. Commissioner Koppelman stated that she did not know if Commissioner Merrill intended the flex -time to be a part of the lease; however, she said that she felt that it would be a good idea along with the OCTD. 1 In response to a concern of Chairman Person, Commissioner Eichenhofer replied that she would accept I the condition as long as the applicant would not be locked in. Chairman Person included aforementioned Conditions No. 29 and No. 30 to the motion. In response to statements made by Chairman Person and Commissioner Merrill regarding Revision No. 2 to Amendment No. 638 pertaining to the proposed project's 241,570 square feet and eleven stories, Ms. Temple advised that staff did not delete "eleven story" because it reflected the maximum level the FAA and the Airport Land Use Commission were willing to consider. She explained that if the reduced project is, in fact, constructed, the developer may build anywhere within this height limit that is appropriate for his project. Ms. Korade confirmed with Chairman Person that the wording of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 15.040.030 A (i) (C) 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been included as Findings in the Traffic Study as applied to the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street. Mr. ' Webb presented the following Condition as the condition relates to the aforementioned Findings: "That the designated Traffic Phasing Ordinance improvements to Campus Drive and Bristol Street North intersection -42- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 v v p '9 P� 'Z �y�°`y``°)z ��°CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILL CALL INDEX 1 I I I LI I I 11 I I I L1 J falls under, Section 15.040.030, and that the applicant would contribute his fare share to the construction of those improvements." Mr. Hewicker referred to the discussion regarding flex -time, and he asked if the Planning Commission had a specific trip reduction to achieve so that when the plan is approved by the Traffic Engineer and monitored, the City can measure the plan and see_ i f the plan is achieving the intended reduction. Chairman Person indicated that the maximum is what the Planning Commission is trying to achieve. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Koppelman if the traffic management program as proposed for Newport Center consisted of flex -time, Ms. Temple replied that the trip management program required of Newport Center was a part of a mitigation measure and was not a part of any specific Traffic Phasing Ordinance or traffic circulation system requirement. She said that it was a combination of many methods as is the condition the Planning Commission is proposing. She pointed out that no specific performance standard was included because based on the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project was anticipated to comply with all of the Ordinance standards. Ms. Temple emphasized that in a project of this size it becomes more and more difficult to identify what would be an appropriate level; however, when dealing with a very large scale where one entity has control over a great number of employees, it is easier to identify goals than when dealing with a multi -tenant office building. Commissioner Eichenhofer suggested that information be collected and re-evaluated at a later time. She commented that if flex -time is encouraged the City should assess what the different hours are and then make the determination of compliance with the condition. She concluded that it is difficult to make that determination at this time. In summary, Commissioner Eichenhofer said that what the Planning Commission is trying to do is reduce peak traffic. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that flex -time is going to be at the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, and she expressed that what the Planning Commission may do is take up the issue as to what kind of criteria should be set, and since the discretion of the Traffic -43- I COMMISSIONERS ) MINUTES January 22, 1987 X,9y �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,AOLL CALL I I I I I I I I I_ INDEX C 11 I 1A11 Ayes I I I I I I Engineer will be doing this, perhaps the Planning Commission could give him that input at a later time after the Commission has taken the plan under study. Chairman Person advised that "appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date" will be added to Condition No. 30. Motion was voted on to approve Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study, Amendment No. 638, and Modification subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following revisions: Mitigation Measures: modify Measure No. 28, add Measures No. 29, and No. 30; Traffic Study: Findings No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8 and Condition No. 2; Modification: modify Condition No. 12 and delete Condition No. 14 and add Conditions No. 15 and No. 16. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. -44- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 G��9ouoyrf Yy �` `yy -P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L CALL INDEX 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, waterinq, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Reqional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department ' and approval of the Planning Department. 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and ' be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface ,runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. ' 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. -45- COMMISSIONERS ) MINUTES o a F F January 22, 1987 yO F �G Oqn � tiin CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LL CALL INDEX 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise 1 criteria: Typical Use Leq (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, ' restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wa_vne Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. ' DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to ' oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air ' service at the John Wayne Airport., 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. -46- ■ ■ I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX u I I� L I r—� I I i 15. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. -47- f COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I I Ij u LI I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project shall establish a ri.deshare program in conjunction with OCTD for the project employees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing demand management strategies for this service. 29. The requirement to establish a rideshare program in conjunction with OCTD shall be made a provision of tenant leases for the project. 30. Tenants of the project shall be required to make flexible working hours available to their employees. The flex -time program shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, and appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing morning or afternoon 2.5 hour peak period on a leg of fourteen critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at nine critical intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests several circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause, nor make -48- INDEX f I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 d I LJ I r I I r CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH worsen unsatisfactory level of traffic service at on any major, primary -modified, or primary street. 5. That all identified intersection improvements shall be made by the applicant, except for the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North. The time and money necessary to complete the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is clearly disproportionate to the size of and traffic generated by the project in that the improvement will require widening of a bridge over the Corona del Mar Freeway. It would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of this improvement. 6. That the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North is a part of the improvement program of the County of Orange associated with John Wayne -Orange County Airport, and is anticipated to commence construction in three years. The County of Orange is currently conducting necessary studies and design work, along with cost estimates for this improvement. The improvement is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 7. That the project will be required to pay a fee to fund construction of the improvement at Campus Drive and Bristol Street North and that the fee will be proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this location, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This fee is in addition to any other fees, contributions or conditions imposed on the project. 8. That the project's contribution towards construction of major improvements substantially outweighs the project's temporary impact on the unimproved intersection. Conditions: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circulation system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28-30), except at the intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation -49- INDEX COMMISSIONERS �y0 c�! Goop Zy,y �yc^Z O,coZ!!y0l;�o 69 92 4`,fl CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 LL CALL INDEX system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersection at Campus Drive and Bristol Street 1 North proportionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be made by the applicant pursuant to section ' 15.40.030 A.i(c) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' C. AMENDMENT NO. 638: Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "*Site 5....241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" ' *If commercial uses are constructed which are ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, addition development up to a maximum of ' 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as the office use does not exceed 241,570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5...1,267 cars..." MODIFICATION: ' Findings: 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- ' tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. -50- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ■fJLL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX 1 P 1 I i 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. -51- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NDL L CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX 1 1 P 1 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 square feet of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. 14. Deleted. 15. That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program -52- COMMISSIONERS �B 0 of � o y GZ�ZZNo Zi C9 F FZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES January 22, 1987 MOLL CALL INDEX shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. ' 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational characteristics of the athletic club, and a parking denand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. The Planning Commission recessed at 11:05 p.m. and ' reconvened at 11:15 p.m. Use Permit No. 3249 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to permit the construction of a single family UP3249 dwelling on property located in the R-1 District which ' exceeds the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Continued Limitation District; and the acceptance of an environ- to 2-19-87 mental document, and renotice LOCATION: Lots 6 and 13, Block C-33, Corona del as a Mar, located at 2717 Shell Street, on variance the southwesterly side of Shell Street ' between Fernleaf Avenue and Way Lane in China Cove. IZONE: R-1 APPLICANTS: Donna and Ernest Schroeder, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, commented that a ' copy of a letter to Brion Jeannette, Architect, dated January 21, 1987, has been received from the Coastal Commission staff attached with a copy of a letter from Donald Bright of Bright & Associates, dated January 12, 1987, regarding the Coastal Commission's action of the ' -53- ' COMMISSIONERS ` A� 0A n G mo 9�lq F Fy f91y F,D r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 4, 1986 L CALL INDEX ION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 136-22-23 ' (Resubdivision No. 612) located at 800-880 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center ' ive and Santa Barbara Drive, in Block 80 f Newport Center. ' ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Pacific Mutual He Insurance Company, Newport Beach ' Same OWNER: as applicant x Motion was made to continue this item to the uary 8, 1Otion 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion vot on, 11 Ayes MOTION CARRIED. ' A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item No.10 A638 ' Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story Continued building within "Professional and Business Offices Site to ' No. 5" and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, 1-22-67 and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to ' the Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor areas; to allow 25 ' percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) ' Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 278,489 sq.ft. office -commercial building in Newport Place. ' LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resub- division No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resub- ' division No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the north- ' -36- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTEST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 4, 1996 ROLL CALL I IT I I I I I I INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes westerly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport , Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Motion was made to continue this item to the January ' 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Item 140-36 Hearing) to consider an amendment to the City's Local LCP A 11 Program, Land Use Plan, so as to permit the use Approved , designated for residential uses, adjacent to uses, for parking lots to support the ia development, upon approval of a use permit \cas casED ' BY: City of Newport Beach blic hearing s opened in connection with thisand because no a came forward to be heard, the hearing was clos Council the Motion was made to recomme\(H)(Publ approval of Amendment No. cal Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (Re0). Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. ' General Plan Amendment No. Hearing) Item No.1 Request to consider an amendment to the Housi Element GPA 86-1 of the Newport Beach General Plan so as to u to the Housing Element to include an analysis of famili and proved persons in need of emergency shelter and provisions or the needs of families and persons in need of emergen ' shelter; and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. -37- jl J ' COMMISSIONERS y��yy�yN�yyy� .o y� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 18, 1986 OLL CALL INDEX ' A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Item No.9 Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Amendment Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of No. 638 ' additional bank and office floor area in an 11 story TS building within Professional and Business Offices Site Removed No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, From and ancillary service commercial uses on the subject Calendar property. The proposal also includes the approval of a modification to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental docu- ment. AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 278,489 sq.ft., multi -use office building in the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the ' Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach f ' OWNER: Same as applicant Motion was made to remove Amendment No. 638 and Traffic Motion x Study from calendar and to renotice the public hearing ' All Ayes on said items for the December 4, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. i -28- Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 1987 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department 1 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to consider and/or modify a condition applied to the approval of the application of McLachlan Investment Company for Amendment No. 638, and the associated Traffic Study, Modification, and Environmental Impact Report. The approved project will amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 108,836 sq.ft. of additional office and bank floor area within Professional and Business Office Site Na. 5. The condi- tion to be reconsidered is regarding the requirement for a flex -time program in the development. LOCATION:- Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 40-31 (Resubdivision No. 319) and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwest- erly corner of Newport Place Drive and MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant iBackground At the January 22, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Amendment No. 638 with a related Environmental Impact Report, Traffic Study and Modification. In establishing the mitigation measures for the project, the Commission added a requirement regarding the use of flex -time working hours for the various employers which will occupy the_ building. During the discussion of the condition, the TO: PL .ping Commission - 2. ' Planning Department staff requested some guidance from the Commission as to the intended effect of the requirement, and whether there was some level of traffic reduction which the project should achieve. The Planning Commission did not have a standard in mind, but required that the staff develop a standard for compliance with the condition to be reviewed by the Commission at a later date. The actual condition reads as follows: "Tenants of the project shall be required to make flexible working hours available to their em- ployees. The flex -time program shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, and appropriate guidelines for the Traffic Engineer shall be supplied at a later date.', Staff has reviewed the condition as adopted by the Commission and has determined that the intent of the condition is not sufficiently clear for the staff to convey the effect of the condition to either the applicant or the City Council. The purpose of this report is to discuss the various ways the condition could be implemented, and to identify the problems of establishing compliance criteria given the mixed use nature of the project. Discussion Transportation Systems Management is a new strategy being used to address the traffic impacts of development through a more effective use existing infrastructure, rather than relying on road improvements to accommodate new development. Flex -time is one of a number of traffic management techniques which can be used to reduce the traffic impacts of develop- ment. Other traffic management measures include use of public transit, local shuttles, ridesharing, vanpooling and park -and -ride programs. Flex -time is an effective measure to reduce traffic generated by a project in morning and after- noon peak hours. It's effect does not reduce overall daily trips, as ridesharing and carpooling would, but results in traffic trips during hours other than those where congestion is experienced. Where use of Transportation Systems Management has been mandated in development projects, a percentage of peak hour trip reduction is sometimes established as a performance standard by the mandating agency. An example is Pleasanton, California, where an ordinance requires developers and employers to reduce by 45% over four years single -occupant TO: Pla„ping Commission - 3. j Iauto trips made during peak periods. The City of Irvine has established a goal of 30% peak hour traffic reduction for the spectrum project and 40% for the Irvine Technological Center. Voluntary participation or experimental programs usually do not have identified performance standards but may have identified goals. It is important to note that each of these programs apply to large areas involving many buildings, and do not apply to individual structures. The City of Newport Beach has twice mandated implementation of Traffic Management Programs for expansion projects in Newport Center. The approval of both of these projects was subsequently rescinded. Neither of the conditions applied established a performance standard for peak hour traffic reduction. At the time of approval of General Plan Amendment 80-3, it was anticipated the a Development Agreement to be processed after the approval would include a, peak hour traffic reduction requirement of approximately 20%. While not a condition of any approval, the Irvine Company has continued with the implementation of the "Centeride" program. The project which was approved by the Planning Commission is a mixed use project which will naturally result in a reduc- tion of peak hour traffic. The intent• of the staff in requiring participation in the OCTD rideshare program was to encourage a reduction in overall traffic from the project, both peak hour and daily. The issue of this discussion is the intent of the Commission in adding an additional require- ment specifically in regards to flex -time, as opposed to a comprehensive Traffic Management Program. There are several ways compliance with this condition could be quantified. A set percentage of building occupants or employers using flex -time could be established, although staff knows of no projects which are regulated in this way. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed materials which he has been collecting regarding the use and effectiveness of traffic management programs. Based on this information it is suggested that a goal of 20% peak hour traffic reduction be established, if it is the desire of the Planning Commission to establish a specific performance standard. If the Commission wishes to achieve a 20% reduction in peak hour trips, it might then make sense to require 20% of the building occupants to be on flex -time. The problems associ- ated with this approach are a lack of knowledge as to whether this is a reasonable requirement (that is, will employers actually agree to implement the program in such a ratio), and the attendant problems of enforceability. I i TO: Pli..Iing Commission - 4. ' P The Commission could simply set a peak hour traffic reduction requirement, such as 20%. This could be enforced through a requirement that peak hour traffic counts be made by the management of the building on a periodic basis. These counts could then be compared to the estimated peak hour traffic included in the traffic study. should the Commission adopt this approach, staff would need direction as to whether the measurements should be compared for the one -hour peak or the two and one-half hour peak. Problems which are associated with this approach are the fact that the direct effect of the flex -time cannot be separated from any other traffic manage- ment techniques which the occupants of the project may utilize or traffic reductions which are attributable to the mixed use nature of the project, and the question of the project status if the goal is not achieved. In each of these options, the Planning commission would have to establish the desired goal in traffic reduction. It is the position of staff that, while the use of flex -time is definitely an effective peak hour traffic reduction techni- que, there is not sufficient data currently available based on actual experience to know what are appropriate standards for the City to apply, particularly in a project of this size. Another approach to clarification of this condition is more programmatic in nature, with the intent of using this project i for demonstration and data gathering purposes. This program could require the building to utilize all traffic management techniques available, for the building management to include a Traffic Management Coordinator with responsibilities to develop and oversee the program and to conduct periodic participation studies and traffic counts, identify required and voluntary components of the program, and to maintain contact with city staff in regards to the evolution of the program. Revisions to the conditions of approval for each of the three approaches described in this report are presented below: A. The project shall be required to encourage employers to make flexible working hours programs available to their employees. The traffic reduction to be achieved by this program is 204, which shall be verified by traffic counts entering and leaving the ,site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a repre- I 11 ITO: Pla__Lng Commission - S. l sentative day during midweek. The traffic counts shall be taken at six-month intervals for two years following full occupancy of the project, with yearly counts taken thereafter. Full occupancy of the project shall be defined to be 90% of the net leasable area. Traffic counts shall be conducted under the supervi- sion of the City Traffic Engineer and the, reports shall be submitted to the City for review. If the required level for peak hour traffic reduction is not achieved, the applicant or his successors in interest in perpetuity shall require additional employers to participate in flexible working hours programs as a lease condition, at such time as new leases or renewals are granted, until the mandated peak hour trip reduction is achieved. B. 20% of all occupants of the building shall participate in flexible working hours pro- grams. Requirements to achieve this level of participation in these programs shall be placed in tenant leases. In order to -verify compliance with this condition, the applicant and all successors in interest in perpetuity shall conduct a survey of all building occupants at six month intervals for the first two years following the issuance of the occupancy permit, with yearly reports there- after, and submit the results to the Newport Beach Planning Department. C. Prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The TDM program shall be included in all tenant leases in the building. The program shall include the following features: 1. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall include a coordinator with the specific assignment of developing and overseeing the program. In addition, each tenant with 50 or more on site employees shall designate a contact person for both employees and the coordinator. I ,I I TO: Plt..Lng commission 6. f , I 2. GOAL: 20% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation when compared with City standard rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall provide for all listed methods, and shall require that each tenant specifically identify one or more method for implementation with its employees. a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reduc- tions. Flex -time also includes four I day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the orange county Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to participants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provi- sion of vehicles. I I TO: Planing Commission - 7. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one-half hour period for morning and evening. Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek. If the Planning Commission adopts alternate "A" or "B", the condition will replace mitigation measure number 30. If alternative "C" is adopted by the Commission, it will replace mitigation measures 28-30. It should be noted that alterna- tive "C" only establishes a goal of traffic reduction, where alternatives "A" and "B" include specific performance criteria. Alternative "C" is more in the nature of a demonstration project from which the City can obtain data to ascertain realistic performance criteria for multi -level, multi -tenant office buildings. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Ld Gcaz J PATRICIA TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator 2-5a638.per 11 I I I I Planning Con mission. Meeting January 22:'1981 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for Amendment No. 638 Subsequent to the distribution of the staff report, several questions and requests for clarification have been requested by the Planning Commission. Consideration of Parking Structure in Floor Area Ratio Iri the past, the Planning Commission has discussed the overall visual impact of projects which include parking structures. One way of quantifying bulk, of a project is to include parking structures in a floor area ratio comparison. It should be noted that the discussions of floor area ratios in the main staff report relate to intensity of use on building sites, rather than visual intensity. The inclusion of parking structures in a floor area ratio evaluation requires some consideration of the issues which the Commis- sion wishes to address. As a purely visual issue, it may make sense to exclude below grade portions of both the 1 parking structure and the buildings on the site. However, since the overall amount of development permitted is directly related the amount of parking which can be provided on -site, it may be appropriate to include all floor and parking areas, whether above or below grade. Ultimately, if the Planning Commission wishes to consider a system of intensity limits which includes parking, several questions must be addressed, such as inclusion of open, roof top parking, inclusion of surface parking which is covered by a portion of the build- ing, and inclusion of surface as well as structured parking. It is the opinion of staff that this question cannot be resolved when considering a single development proposal, but should be considered for application on a city-wide basis, since the problem relates to all commercial areas of the T city. Staff has developed the following comparison for the informa- tion of the Planning Commission. The analysis can be made only for proposed project less the carry-over entitlement (1.31 FAR), since this is the only scenario for which plans are available. The other project in the comparison is i i 1 ! TO: Planning Commission - 2 MacArthur Court, on the corner .of MacArthur Boulevard and - Campus ' Drive. For the MacArthur Court Project, the total structural area plus the square footage of the parking structure including the roof top parking has been figured in the FAR. since the parking structure for this project does not include any subterranean parking or building elements, _ only one FAR figure is presented. The Newport Place Tower project in Office Site 5 includes both subterranean parking and below grade floor area in the building. Staff has, thereforek calculated three floor area ratios, one which deletes all below grade areas, one which deletes the subter- ranean parking level and one which includes all floor area and structure parking. Each of these calculations includes the area of parking provided on the root of the parking structure and the two building which are proposed to remain on Office Site 5. MacArthur Court 1.55 FAR Office Site 5 less areas below grade 2.35 FAR Office Site 5 less parking below grade 2.45 FAR office Site 5 plus parking structure 2.75 FAR clarification of Floor Area Calculations various members of the Planning Commission have noted that the floor area of the project is represented by different figures in various parts of the report. This is due the use gross, net and net leasable figures for differing areas of analysis. Additionally, staff has noted the floor area used a gross floor area calculation for the existing Bank of America building in parts of the report which otherwise use net floor area calculations. The following chart has been developed to clarify and correct floor area numbers which are in the various reports on the project. All numbers on this chart are net floor area, as calculated by the City for the purposes of calculating the parking requirement. FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPARISON - NENPORT PLACE OFFICE SITE 5 1 ................................................................................................ BUILDING SIZES FOR VARIOUS FLOOR AREA RATIOS ►Y{S42{EZE{aEZZYE{EZYEIt{Y{{ZYi{iiZ{{Yi{Z{{iY{Y{{{YYYiZZY{{{{iiii{Y{i{{ii{Yii{iii{iiEEZYYEE{iY{SI ►BUILDING I 0.63 FART 0.n FART 0.82 FARIO.82/1.0 FARI 1.31 FART 1.58 FART I��YYEiY�YYEEiYYY'ZZZZYEZYZZii'EZEZZi{iiiiEliiiiliii{{Z{IYiiiYiZZElZ'Ziiifilliitti'iiZEZZZZYZEi' CONTINENTAL I 70,500 SFI 70,500 SFI 70,500 SFI 70,500 SFI 70,500 SFI 70,500 Sri I................I. ►BANK OF AMERICA .............I..........I..........i..........I..........I..........I. ......... I ............ ► 20,567 SFI I 136,050 SFI ............ I ............ I ............ 156,670 SFI 209,700 SFI 300,000 I............ Sri 300,000 i SFI t I. INC LACHLAN I 14,400 SFI 14,400 SFI 14,400 Sri 14,400 SFI 14,400 SFI ---...._ 14,400 .I SFI I................ I ........... . I............I.-.......... I............ I ............ I ............ I ICARAY-OVER I 80,297 SFI 0 SFI 0 SFI 0 SFI 0 SFI 80,297 SFI I................ (TOTAL I ............ I ............ 1185,764 SFI I 220,950 SFI ............ I ............ I ............ 241,570 SFI 294,600 SFI 364,900 .......................... I SF) ............ 465,197 I SFI TO: Planning Commission - 3 Parking Requirements Concern has been expressed that, if the project is signifi- cantly reduced in size, the pool of potential users of the proposed athletic club will be insufficient, resulting in a high level of use by persons outside the office building. If this were to occur, the parking demands'of the building will be proportionally higher than for the. larger project. Athletic Clubs are currently allowed in the Newport Place Planned Community with parking provided based upon a demon- strated formula subject to the review of the Planning Director. If a reduced project is approved, it is suggested that a condition of approval be added requiring parking in addition to that required for the office, retail and restau- rant uses subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director, as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a complete description of the operational character- istics of the athletic club, and a parking demand study shall be provided to the City for review. Based upon the information provided, parking in addition to that required by the office, retail and restaurant uses shall be provided as required by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Direc- tor." Conversion of Retail, Restaurant and Athletic Club Space Concern has been expressed about the potential for the space allocated to ancillary uses to convert to office space at a later date. This concern is mainly in regards to the future parking demand of the project. The conditions of approval as .recommended by staff will require the provision of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area for retail uses, one space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area for restaurant and lounge area and the possible provision of additional parking for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. office space requires parking at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. It can be anticipated that conversion of the retail and restaurant spaces to office will require no additional parking. Conversion of the athletic facility may incur some additional parking requirement. It is important to note, however, that the restaurant, lounge, and athletic club are currently proposed to be below grade. It is questionable as to whether these spaces would ever be converted to office uses. Additionally, any such 'conversion would be subject to the review of the City for conformance with all applicable zoning requirements during plan check. I i T0: Planning commission - 4 r Parking, Structure Landscaping staff has been investigating systems for providing land- scaping on the roof of parking structures. The Koll Company has developed a system for use in Koll Center Irvine for - landscaping four to five story parking structures. Repre- sentatives of the Koll Company have indicated that a raised planter box and trellis system has proved successful, and adds approximately 5% to the cost of constructing an 80o to 1400 space structure. staff recommends that an additional mitigation measure be required to address the aesthetic effects of the parking structure, as follows: "That a landscape program be developed for the roof of the parking structure. This landscape program shall be prepared prior the preparation of working drawings for the parking structure and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director." Revised Findings for Denial The revised Finding for Denial prepared by staff for this project were inadvertently omitted from the attachments to the staff report. These findings are attached to this report. Corrections to suggested Conditions of Approval Staff has noted some errors and omissions in the suggested conditions of approval, Exhibits "A" and „C", Modification Condition No. 12. The condition should be revised to read: "That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of net office and retail floor area and one parking space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area for the restaurant and lounge, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code." PLANNING DEPARTMENT James D. Hewicker, Director BPOAy -et&./ / Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator Attachment: 1. Revised Findings for Denial plt wp/supa638.per 1 I I tFindinas: Findings for Denial Amendment No. 638 1. That the intent of project is inconsistent with the urban design the Newport Place Planned Community. 2. That the intensity of development proposed is higher than that generally permitted in the surrounding area and that the increase in planned development is not necessary or desirable from a planning standpoint. 3. That the traffic impacts engendered as a result of the project will inhibit the flow of traffic in the general vicinity. 4. That the visual mass and bulk of the eleven story office building in combination with the four level parking structure is inconsistent with the aesthetics found in the Newport Place Planned Community. IA638.fnd u I I I I I i I I Planning Commission Meeting December 4. 1986 Agenda Item No. 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 638 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow I 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes I modifications to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft.-of office and bank floor area; and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the Northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C TAPPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant i 1 I 'I TO* Planning Commission - 2 I� Applications If approved, the applications under consideration will allow the construction of a 300,000 sq.ft., eleven story office building on the site currently occupied by the Bank of America Building on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place. An amendment to the development standards and square footage allocations contained in the Newport Place Planned Community is required, as well as modifications to the development standards to allow parking to be provided at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of floor area and to allow a portion of the required parking spaces to be compact spaces. The acceptance of a Traffic Study and an environmen- tal document is also required. Amendment procedures for Planned Communities are contained in Section 20.51.045, Modification procedures are contained in Chapter 20.81 and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)I the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K- 3, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Project. Environmental issues evaluated in the report include Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, ACOUS- tics, Land Use, Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils, Housing, Aesthetics and Public Services/Utilities. Based upon information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, all adverse environmental effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. This project, along with all existing and anticipated future projects, will have a cumulative effect on transportation and circulation in the area which is cumula- tively significant. conformance With the general Plan The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. included in this category are offices (either ancillary or separate), services, hotels and motels, and convalescent homes, with some limited retail uses (such as restaurants) which are supportive of the predominant uses. The Land Use Element further limits development to that which is consistent with the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project will provide areas for bank and general purpose office, as well as retail Uses ancillary to the main use, such as restaurant, athletic club and convenience retail. The project is consistent with the General Plan. I I TO: Planning Commission - 3 subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The site proposed for the eleven story building is currently occupied by the Bank of America building. The parking structure site is occupied by surface parking. Other structures on the site which will remain are the Continental Life Insurance building (78,500 sq.ft.) and the McLachlan Headquarters building (15,670 sq.ft.). To the north, across Dolphin Striker Court are restaurant and office uses. To the east, across MacArthur Boulevard, are office and related uses in Koll Center Newport. Southerly and easterly of the site, across Newport Place and Dove Street, are additional office developments. At the end of Newport Place is the tallest structure in the Newport Place Planned Community, the eight Istory Mitsui Bank Building. Analysis The project under consideration will, if approved, increase the allowed development rights and height limits currently set forth for Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community. The applicant has requested that the square footage necessary to construct the building in excess of that which is currently represented by the Bank of America structure be established as new develop- ment rights. This would allow the "carry over" of previously committed square footage within the site. Three separate approvals have established the vested future development rights which currently remain in the block. These are the original Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan which allows for an additional 65,508 sq.ft., the Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment for 1400 Dove Street allowing an additional 10,659 sq.ft., and a Traffic Phasing Plan Amendment allowing transfer of 4,130 sq.ft. to this block. The total amount of square footage which is approved but not yet constructed is 80,297. The analysis of this project includes discussion of the relationship of this project to other planning studies, the scale of the project in relation to the planning concept originally approved for the Newport Place Planned Community and the traffic impacts of the project. Statistical summary. The following summary describes the project in relation to the current standards of the Newport Place Planned Community. standard P-C Text Proposed Maximum Development 185.,764 sq.ft. 464,253 sq.ft. Floor Area Ratio 0.63 FAR 1.58 FAR Maximum Height 6 floors 11 floors (375 feet) (167 feet) r TO: Planning commission - 4 Permitted uses Offices offices with support retail Setbacks MacArthur Boulevard 30 feet 30 feet Newport Place 30 feet 30 feet Dove Street 30 feet 30 feet Dolphin Striker Court 30 feet 30 feet Side Yard 0 20 feet Parking 1577 spaces 1400 spaces (1/225 sq.ft.) (1/250 sq.ft.) Amendment Nb. 630 The Amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community Text is necessary to establish the maximum development permitted for the Site, to allow for an increased number of floors and to , provided for support commercial uses within the building. - Land Use. As indicated in a previous section of this report, the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, it should be noted, however, that the airport area in general is the subject of a general plan amendment which has been initiated by the City Council, and is discus- sed in Planning Commission Item on the agenda of this meeting. This amendment will consider appropriate develop- ment intensities in the overall area north of Bristol Street. While this project is riot a part of this study, an action of - the City on this project could influence the analysis of the larger project. Office Site No. 5 currently allows the highest permitted development intensity in Newport Place. Permitted Floor Area Ratios for the other office and indus- trial sites in the P-c District are listed below: SITE PERMITTED Ind.Site 1-A 0.39 FAR Ind.Site 2-B 0.60 FAR Ind.Site 3-A 0,50 FAR Ind.Site 4 0.39 FAR Off.Site 1+2 0.44 FAR Off.Site 3-A 0.52 FAR Off.Site 4 0.55 FAR Off.Bite 5 0,63 rAR Off.Site 6 0.40 FAR Off.Site 7 0.52 FAR The overall intensity of the Industrial and Office Sites in the P-C District is 0.47 FAR. it should be noted that this analysis excludes the Retail, Restaurant and Hotel Sites which have lower intensity limits. The most recent action of the Planning Commission in Newport Place (A637, approved 11- 20-86) will, if sustained by the City Council, allow a floor area ratio of 0.66. Additional comparisons can be made to I TO: Planning Commission - 5 1 the permitted development in Koll Center Newport (0.53 FAR) and Newport Center commercial, institutional and office sites (0.45) [GPA 85-1(B)). Staff has a concern regarding taking an action on this project prior to the consideration of the overall Airport Area Study. Approval of the project as submitted could set a precedent for future action in the area. If a floor area ratio of 1.58 were applied to the Industrial and Office Sites in the Newport Place Planned Community, planned development would increase by approximately 4.5 Million additional square feet. If Koll Center Newport were also to be approved for a in this similar floor area ratio, permitted development area would increase by approximately 6.1 Million square feet. It is possible that the area can sustain high levels of develop- ment on some sites. Absent a comprehensive assessment of the area, however, staff is not prepared to identify this or any other specific site for development at this level of inten- sity. I Alternative projects may warrant consideration. The follow- ing paragraphs outline three projects of varying levels of intensity: 1) Use of existing development rights; 2) In- crease to development intensity similar to highest in the 1 general vicinity; and 3) Approval for proposed building using all vested but undeveloped rights in Office Site 5. Alternative I. As previously discussed, there are develop- ment rights which have been previously approved pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These rights total 80,297 sq.ft. If this limit is maintained and the existing l Bank of America building eliminated, a new structure of 101,800 sq.ft., or approximately one-third of the proposed structure could be constructed. This level of approval would maintain the existing floor area ratio permitted. Neither an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations nor a Traffic Study would be required. Alternative 2. Sites throughout both the Newport Place and Koll Center Newport Planned Communities have varying permit- ted levels of development, ranging from a low of 0.19 FAR (KCN Site G) to 'a high of 0.82 FAR (KCN Site C). The Planning Commission may wish to consider approving the proposed project to the same level of intensity permitted on the most intense site in the area, or 0.82 FAR. If the project were approved at this level, an additional 57,125 sq.ft. of development would be permitted in addition to that 1 which is currently allowed. The total for the new structure to replace the existing Bank of America building would then be 158,925 sq.ft., or slightly over one-half the size of the proposed project. Were this project approved, a revised Traffic Study would be required, in order to apply traffic mitigation commensurate with the reduced project. r t TO: Planning Commission - 6 1 Alternative 3. The Planning Commission may wish to approve a 1 project which would allow construction of the proposed building, but not allow the previously approved development rights to be maintained for future use, in this alternative, the unbuilt development rights contained in the block would be used to offset the increase needed to construct the proposed office building. The increase in square footage required to accommodate the construction of the 300,000 sq.ft. building in office Site 5 is 198,192 sq.ft., or a total allowable in Office Site 5 of 383,956 sq.ft. if this level of development is approved, the floor area ratio of Office Site 5 would be increased to 1.30. Were this project approved, a revised Traffic Study would be required, in order to apply traffic mitigation commensurate with the reduced project. - proposed Uses, In addition to office uses, the proposed project includes provision of restaurant, retail and athletic club uses. Restaurant use would be subject to the approval of a Use Permit. These uses are to be provided within the overall square footage of the 300,000 sq.ft. building. The applicant has constructed an office building with similar support uses in downtown San Diego, the Imperial Bank building. Planning Department staff has visited this building to gain an understanding of the operation of the building and the way in which the occupants of the building utilize the accessory uses. The proposed restaurant would be a full service, "dinner house" facility with a cocktail lounge. The proposed P-C Text requires approval of a Use Permit for the restaurant, in addition to a restaurant, the site in San Diego also includes a service deli which is part of the overall restaur- ant operation. It appears that this deli operation is heavily used by the office workers. The main part of the restaurant appears to be used by building users, both occupants and visitors. It is also likely that walk-ins also use the main restaurant operation. staff has no objection to the inclusion of a restaurant within the proposed building. The use would have the advantage of reducing the daily traffic generation of the project, most particularly in the noon hour. In addition to the restaurant, it would also be advisable to provide a deli -type operation in conjunction with the restaurant. This would provide opportunities for less formal food service for the office workers, The Police Department has reviewed the proposed inclusion of a cocktail lounge in conjunction with the restaurant, and has indicated no problems with the request. The retail uses are proposed to be supportive of the primary office Use, and would include such uses as a tobacco shop, newspaper stand, florist shop, dry cleaner, and similar uses TO: Planning Commission - 7 which can be supported by an office worker clientele. A small athletic club is also proposed. If operated in a manner similar to the athletic club in the Imperial Bank building in San Diego, this facility will be used primarily I by building occupants. As is the case of athletic clubs in general, the provision of this use in the building can be expected to change the traffic generation characteristics of the project, not by reducing traffic, but by reducing the morning and afternoon peak traffic due to club use before and after working hours. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of retail and athletic club uses within the building, so long I as membership rules are structured so as to require building occupants to have priority in gaining memberships. The inclusion of a variety of commercial support uses in the 1 building appears to have advantages in the areas of building use and peak hour traffic generation. These uses function primarily for the convenience of building occupants. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of these uses in the proposed project. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission to significantly reduce the project to one of the land use alternatives previously described, staff would recommend that these ancillary uses be allowed in addition to the floor area limit established for the office use, in that the uses do not add to the anticipated peak traffic generated by the project. Building Height. The proposed height of the building is 167 feet accommodating an eleven story building. Heights in the Newport Place Planned Community range from two to eight stories. Generally, the higher structures are in the center of the Planned Community, in Professional and Business Offices Sites 1 & 2. The project site is currently limited to a maximum six stories, but structures are generally built to three or four stories. As requested, the proposed building would be the tallest structure in Newport Place. It would also be higher than most structures in Koll Center Newport. only MacArthur Court, KCN Site C, has a higher permitted height limit at twelve stories and 215 feet. The project has been reviewed by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Airport Land Use Commission, and has received approval for the requested height. Parking. The Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations require the provision of parking for office projects at a ratio of one space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area. The District also provides for the reduction of the ratio to one space for each 250 sq.ft. upon review and approval of a modification in each case. The applicant originally requested in the project submittal a modification to allow parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. I TO: Planning commission - 8 However, in two major revisions to the project and the preparation of the revised traffic study pursuant to the new Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the parking ,provided for the project has been revised. As currently proposed, the project would require 1420 parking spaces if a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.ft. is enforced, plus additional parking for the restaurant use. The site plan for the project shows provision of 1400 parking spaces on -site. In order to approve the project in its current form, the Planned Community District Regulations for Newport Place must be revised to include the ability to provide parking based upon a demonstrated formula for mixed use projects. The traffic study includes an analysis of the parking proposed for the project. This analysis uses the methodology presented in a report entitled Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the shared parking program proposed for the struc- ture and concurs with the findings. The study indicates that the parking demands of the project will be 1154 spaces plus the 22 spaces required for the El Torito Restaurant. The proposed provision of 1400 parking spaces in conjunction with the project will adequately serve the various uses within the building. The following outline sets forth information regarding each fi Modification for parking approved in the vicinity of the project: Modification No. 624 - 1100 Quail Street (subject property) One space for each 234 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of three spaces from 95 required spaces to 92 spaces provided. Modification No. 757 - 1600 Dove street One space for each 233 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of eight spaces from 231 required to 223 spaces provided. This was considered minor in nature, and would provide better on -site vehicular circulation. Modification No. 2309 - 1301 Dove Street , One space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 93 spaces from 931 required spaces to 838 spaces provided. This item was approved inasmuch as the parkin was in excess of the need for the 209,500 sq.ft. ten story building on the property as demonstrated by a study performed by Weston Pringle and Associates. Furthermore, the approval provided approximately 5% additional area in landscaping. 1 i TO: Planning Commission - 9 Modification No. 2535 - 1501 Quail street one space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 22 spaces, from 212 spaces required to 190 spaces provided. The primary factor in approving this request in conjunction with the engineering office complex on the site was that the proposed development included many non -office areas and a large employee cafeteria. Modification No. 2657 - 1500 Quail Street One space for each 229 sq.ft. of net floor area, a reduction of 7 spaces from 364 spaces required to 357 1 spaces provided. This was considered minor in nature, and would increase the amount of landscaping on the site. Modification No. 2663 - 4001 MacArthur Boulevard The Planning Commission approved a parking ratio of one space for each 247 sq.ft of net floor area, a reduction to 190 spaces of 19 spaces, from 209 spaces required provided. It was the determination of the Planning Commission that there would be an adequate number of parking spaces provided on -site for the expanded 47,000 sq.ft.- building, as demonstrated by a study performed by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. Modification No. 2839 - 4120 Westerly Place One space for each 238 sq.ft. of net floor area for the office uses was approved, a reduction of 56 spaces, from 1,015 spaces required to 959 spaces provided. It was determined in this case that the entire site was under one ownership, all of the parking spaces were accessible to all employees and visitors, and significant portions of the structures were devoted to warehouse space. Should the Planning Commission desire to reduce the project, the use of a formula for parking becomes less appropriate. In this case, it is suggested that the project be required to provide parking at a level of one space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area, including the support commercial uses. Additional parking should be provided for the restaurant at a t ratio of one space for each 40 sq.ft. of net public area. compact Parking. Compact parking is allowed by the Newport Beach Municipal Code upon review and approval of a modifica- tion in each case. The applicant has requested approval to provide 25% of the required parking spaces as compact spaces. The requested amount of compact spaces is consistent with the previous actions of the Planning Commission, and staff has no objections to this request. I LJ I TO: Planning Commission - 10 A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1988. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1989. The City Traffic Engineer identified thirty (30) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than It of the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. The It volume analysis identified nineteen (19) intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria, eighteen (18) in the morning peak hour and sixteen (16) in the afternoon peak hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the project, including the ICU ratios with the suggested improvements described later in the report. ICU SUMMARY - 1989 EXISTING 89 EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED ' EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED +GROWTH CRITICAL PEAK +COMMITTED +GROWTH +PROJECT Campus MacArthur/ Birch MacArthur/ Jamboree MacArthur/ Bison MacArthur/ Ford MacArthur/ San Joaquin MacArthur/ Newport Place PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 0.76 1.10 0.56 0.75 0.99 1.16 0.91 1.08 0.70 1.20 AM 0.84 AM 0.66 PM 0.47 0.77 1.11 0.56 0.75 1.00 1.16 0.92 1.09 0.72 1.21 0.85 0.71 0.54 NA 0.99 NA NA 0.78 NA 0.64 1.02 NA 0.86 NA NA NA I k I TO: Planning Commission - 11 ICU SUMMARY - 1989 Con't EXISTING 89 EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED EXISTING 89 +COMMITTED +GROWTH CRITICAL PEAK +COMMITTED +GROWTH +PROJECT INTERSECTION HOUR +GROWTH +PROJECT +IMPROVEMENTS MacArthur/ AM 0.64 0.65 NA San Miguel PM 0.90 0.91 0.72 Jamboree/ AM 1.02 1.03 0.86 Campus PM 0.80 0.82 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.59 0.59 NA Birch PM 0.61 0.64 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.76 0.76 NA Eastbluff Jamboree/ AM 0.77 0.78 NA San Joaquin PM 0.91 0.91 NA Jamboree/ AM 0.70 0.71 NA Santa Barbara Campus/ AM 0.76 0.79 NA Bristol North PM 1.09 1.11 1.01 Birch/ AM 0.82 0.88 NA Bristol North PM 1.03 1.07 1.03 Jamboree/Bristol PM 0.79 0.79 NA Campus -Irvine/ AM 0.78 0.82 NA Bristol PM 0.93 0.93 NA Birch/ AM 1.19 1.29 1.12 Bristol PM 0.88 0.89 NA MacArthur/ PM 1.12 1.12 NA Coast Hwy. In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the project worsens ICU'S over 0.90. Mitigation of the traffic impacts at these intersections are required. IMPROVEMENTS. The following list identifies the intersection improvements described by the traffic study: TO: Planning Commission - 12 Intersection Improvement MacArthur/campus Add second eastbound left turn lane MacArthur/ Jamboree Add second southbound left turn lane MacArthur/Bison Add third northbound through lane (AM) Add third eastbound left turn lane (PM) , MacArthur/Ford Add third southbound through lane MacArthur/San Miguel Add third southbound through lane Jamboree/Campus Add second westbound left turn lane Campus/Bristol Street North Add second northbound left turn lane Birch/Bristol Street North change the configuration of the southbound through lane to make it a combined through/right turn lane Birch/Bristol Add second northbound through lane conclusions and Recommendations The proposal to construct an office project on the site does 1 not present any conflicts from a land use standpoint, except as a high intensity project in an area where office develop- ment has generally occurred at a less intense level. The project meets the criteria of the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City has previously approved a project in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community at a floor area ratio , of 0.82. Staff recommends that a project approval be granted to a level of intensity no greater than this level for office uses on the site. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of ancillary uses in addition to this level of development. Should the Planning commission concur and approve a reduced project, staff suggests that the office development be limited to 0.82 FAR with ancillary uses permitted not to ' exceed an overall ratio of 1.0 FAR. This would allow a new structure to be 200,425 sq.ft., or approximately two-thirds of the original request. Exhibit "A" includes findings and conditions for approval of this revised project, revisions to I TO: Planning Commission - 13 the proposed Planned Community Text, and the provision of parking at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq.. ft. of net floor area. It should be noted that the traffic study will have to be revised to define the traffic mitigation program for the reduced project. This application can be processed separately'when the study is completed. Approval of the project could set a precedent for future actions of the Planning Commission in the consideration of requests to intensify development in the airport area. 1 Approval of the project could also prejudice the ability of the Planning Commission to consider the Airport Area Study which will commence in 1987. Should the Commission desire to deny the project without prejudice and defer and incorporate of the project into the Airport Area Study. Findings for denial are attached as Exhibit "B". Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the project, it is the opinion of staff that the request to preserve future development rights is unwarranted. Any project approval should utilize all existing development rights in Professional and Business Offices Site 5. If the 300,000 sq.ft. building is accepted by the Commission (Alternative 3 in the land use discussion), the public hearing should be 1 continued with the direction to staff that revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations be drafted to provide for the provision of parking for mixed use project based upon a demonstrated formula, and the public hearing be renoticed to describe the revised project description. If the appli- cant desires, the Traffic Study should also be revised to reflect the reduced project size, as this may affect the traffic improvement program required by the project. PLANNING DEPARTMENT IDAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Templ Environmental Coordinator Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. vicinity Map 3. Revised Planned Community Text 4. Plans and Elevations 5. Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed) 6. Revised Traffic Study plt/wp wp/A638.per VICINITY MAP Amendment No. 638 h +tip �v�� Rye win' way ' ail •� i h 1�' Ilu'�`�f�11F�i►1]I ��� OY3 l� •��-°�aui ._ nisa� tnro� ni�e�el BEY ;,;l�,y4xamnnit�c�uua�l�nt"�� �� n •a'0006 '.. �Y. b•D n—S� G'4 I '� �,y �IIIIII4 Bankof America/Newport PlaceA DEVELOPMENT OF MCLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY nnnm "A" 1 EXHIBIT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 638 MODIFICATION A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures ' discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage , facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. A. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. , 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an LA Exhi_ _t "A" - 2. engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). 1 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 8. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and 1 be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the 1 property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Leq (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 13. The following disclosure statement of the City of 1 Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne I - 2 Exhioit A 3. r ' Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- , strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to , provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airports c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. be 15. That all buildings on the project site shall equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. ' 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. , 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, 1� _3- I Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized ' for non -contact purposes such as irrigation. 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. ' to the extent 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project should establish a rideshare program 1 in conjunction with OCTD for the project employ- could ees. Carpool and vanpool matching services be provided as well as information on implementing 1 demand management strategies for this service. B. AMENDMENT NO. 638: ' Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 638, with the following revisions: L 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "*Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" *if commercial uses are constructed which are ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, addition development up to a maximum of 1 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as the office use does not exceed 241,570 sq.ft. 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 241,570 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5... 1,267 cars..." I - 4 - Exhinit "A" - 5. I Findings: , 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with ' the proposed development. 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and , provision of parking at a ratio of one space per 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the , health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or iris r:.cr]3 to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to , completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of , 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight I 10 -5 I Exhi__� "A" - 6. distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works 1 Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. ' 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. g. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize study shall be the number of driveways. An access prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access ' is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one space for each 225.3 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 13. That compact parking shall not exceed 25% of the parking spaces provided. - 6 - I Exhibit "A" - 7. 14. That a revised Traffic Study shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by the planning Commission prior to the issuance of building and/or grading permits. SR17 - 7 - ' Exhi. _E "A" - S. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AMENDMENT NO. 638 W/MODIFICATIONS AMENDMENT NO. 638 Findings: 1. The project as proposed is more intense than other developments with a similar land use in the area. 2. That approval of this project may prejudice the ability of the Planning Commission to consider the comprehensive Airport Area Study which has been initiated by the City Council. 3. That consideration of this project should be in conjunction with the comprehensive Airport Area Study. to its 4. That this denial is made without prejudice further consideration as part of the comprehensive Airport Area Study. 5. That Environmental Documents are not required for projects which are denied. 6. That a Traffic Study is not required for projects which are denied. ' SR17 I 11 i 1 Exhibit "A" - 9. "C" EXHIBIT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 638 , MODIFICATION A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Findings: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines, and City Policy. , 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. ' 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures ' or alternative to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include, if required, a r description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- -9- 2LI Exhit,�t "A" - 10. to the of neering geologist subsequent completion a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape archi- tect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accor- dance with the prepared plan). to the review 7. The landscape plan shall be subject of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. S. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 9. Street trees shall be provided along the public Works Department streets as required by the Public and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 10. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regu- larly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 11. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to ' achieve a maximum sound level of 55 Dba at the property line. 12. All structures should be sound attenuated against ' the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise ' criteria: Typical Use Leq (h) Private office, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical, etc. 50 Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. 55 13. The following disclosure statement of the city of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne 0 - 10 - Exhibit "A" - 11. r 26 Airport shall be included in all leases or sub- leases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Re- , strictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. _ r DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, herein, r acknowledge that: a.) The John Wayne Airport will not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services b.) The City of Newport Beach will continue to , oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airports c.) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to limit jet air , service at the John Wayne Airport. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed ' plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. be r 15. That all buildings on the project site shall equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. , 16. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 17. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 18. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. r 19. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the docks and public walks shall be conducted on a regular basis. ' 20. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative , Code dealing with energy requirements. - 11 - Exhibit "A" - 12. ' 21. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 22. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 23. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized irrigation. for non -contact purposes such as 24. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff ' and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 25. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new ' development. 26. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide more effective trash disposal. 27. Pedestrian walkways (handicapped accessible) should be provided from the proposed project to to MacArthur Boulevard for convenient access to bus facilities. 28. The project should establish a rideshare program ' in conjunction with OCTD for the project employ- ees. Carpool and vanpool matching services could be provided as well as information on implementing ' demand management strategies for this service. B. AMENDMENT NO. 638: No. Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment 638, with the following revisions: ' 1. Page 5, Section II.B. revise to read "Site .... 363,956 sq.ft. (16)(19)(20)" \5 2. Page 6 "Site 5.... 383,956 sq.ft. F. Eleven story D. Site 5... 1,577 cars..." MODIFICATION: Findings: L - 12 - Exhibit "A" - 13. , 1. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. , 2. The proposed number of compact car spaces consti- tutes 25% of the parking requirements which is within limits generally accepted by the Planning , Commission relative to previous similar applica- tions. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. , 4. The proposed modification for compact parking and provision of parking at a ratio of one space per ' 250 sq.ft. will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: , 1. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety ' be provided in order to guarantee a satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to ' completion of the public improvements. 3. That the on -site parking (including signing of compact and handicap spaces), vehicular circu- lation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. That the intersection of streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. slopes, landscaping%, walls and t other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirements may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. ' 2ix - 13 - , ExhiL_c "A" - 14. 5. That an easement be provided between parcels within the development for ingress/egress and parking. 6. That all vehicular access rights to MacArthur Boulevard be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That all unused drive aprons be removed and ' replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. All drive aprons along the Newport Place and Dove Street frontages shall be con- structed per City Std.-166-L. S. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to ' issuance of any building or grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two-lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer ' finds that they create a hazardous condition. 11. The driveway shall be designed in accordance with ' Std. 110-L for sight distance requirements. This standard may be modified by the City to recognize the absence of parking lanes. 12. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one space for each 225.3 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. '25% ' 13. That compact parking shall not exceed of the parking spaces provided. 14. That a revised Traffic Study shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building and/or grading ' permits. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I I Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 1986 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department A Amendment No. 638 !Public Hearing) Request to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to allow 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area in an eleven story building within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 and to establish a restaurant, an athletic club, and ancillary commercial uses on the subject property. The proposal also includes modifications to the development standards so as to allow a parking formula of one parking space for each 250 sq.ft. of office and bank floor area; and to allow 25 percent of the required parking spaces as compact spaces. and B. Traffic Studv- (Public Hearin Request to consider a traffic study so as to allow the construction of 278,489 sq.ft. of additional bank and office floor area within Professional and Business Office Site No. 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcels No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 183-14-15 (Resubdivision No. 742), located at 4141 MacArthur Boulevard, on the Northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Place, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: McLachlan Investment Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant 1 I 11 To: Planning Commission - z The applicant has requested continuance of this item to the ' Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 1986 (see attached letter). Staff has no objection to the request, but suggests , that the item be removed from the calendar in order to reno- tice the public hearing at the time the project is consider- ed. PLANNING DEPARTMENT , James D. Hewicker, Director By Patricia L. Temple Environmental Coordinator ' Attachment , i I I L I I i 1 1 N11 _ACCHLAN 'INVESTMENT COMPANTY September 12, 1986 Mr. James Hewicker Director of Planning City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hewicker: We request that the scheduled Planning Commission hearing on the 17th of September for Amendment No. 638 be continued until the Planning Commission meeting of December 4th. We further request that the certification of the environmental impact report be extended by ninety days. ' Sincerely, McLACHLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY Donald Russell DR: cmm 1 J 1 1 11011n, ,,,'Tert: TIp,voa, Ti,krw Caur. n 20r,U(:I i f h.} {70