Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKOLL CENTER NOP 1999Illlnll IIII III IIIII Ildlll IIIII IIIIII IIII III IIII KOLL_CENTER_NOP_1999 Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached Notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 9 It remained posted for 30(thirty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk -Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange_ 0 Deputy Gary L. Granville Orange County Clerk -Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714)834-4625 ecl 2 11999 �C) <C m -no M -v __ o mM 1"ty > r _ =� W The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk for each county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resources Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. *** Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency *** within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 September 20, 1999 Responsible Agencies, Other State and Local Government Agencies, Utilities, and Other Interested Parties City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as they relate to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City if you have a permit or other approval authority over some aspect of this project. The attached Initial Study provides the project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns and also please define your statutory responsibilities and permitting or other authority (if any) with respect to this project. Please provide the name of the contact person in your agency for further communications concerning this project, if necessary. Project Title: Koll Center Newport POSTED Project Applicant: Koll Center Newport Number A, a California Partnership SEP 2 1 1999 Send Responses to: Patricia Temple, Director GARY L. GRANVI LE, Clerk -Recorder Planning Department By DEPUTY Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 ' L D FILED Telephone: (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3250 SEP 21 1999 ARYL. LE,Clerk-Recorder Boulevard, Newport BeacCA_ 3300 Newport _oEFIRY f E INITIAL STUDY KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Prepared For.• City of Newport Beach Economic and Community Development 300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared By. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 September 1999 City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY Contents: Environmental Checklist Attachment A: Project Description Attachment B: Environmental Evaluation City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Project Title: Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 2. Lead Agency Name/Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach. CA 92660-8915 3. Contact Person/Phone Number: Patricia L. Temple. Director Community and Economic Development Department (949) 644-3200 4. Project Location: Koll Center Newport Planned Community (Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard). Refer to Attachment A. 5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address: Koll Center Newport Number A. a California Partnership 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Timothy L. Strader (949) 719-6365 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative. Professional & Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: Planned Community (Koll Center Newport) 8. Description of the Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.): Refer to Attachment A. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Refer to Attachment A. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement, etc.) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND Name of Proponent: Address: Telephone Number: Date Checklist Submitted: Agency Requiring Checklist: Proposal/Project Title: Koll Newport Number A, a California Partnership 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 719-6365 August 25, 1999 City of Newport Beach Koll Center Newport Planned Community 11. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues and Supporting Data Sources: Less than Significant Polangally With Less Than Slgnigcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the protect: 1. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Source[s] #1) 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (2a-g,3) 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ plan or natural community conservation plan? (2a) B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 2 M 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (6) 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (3) 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses? (4,6) C. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (2g) 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1) 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1) D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including,the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (2e,5) Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PI 0 J 0 ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ 0 LL A ■ 3 r b. Strong seismic ground shaking? (2e,6) C. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2e,6) d. Landslides? (1,2e,6) 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (6) 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (6) 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (6) 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (6) E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (6) 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ore lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (6) 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (6) Lass than Significant Polentlally With Less Than SfgnHlcant Mlggatlon Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ G1 Less than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? (1,6) 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (6) 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (6) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (2e,6) 8. Place with a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which would impede or redirect flood flows? (2e,6) 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2e,6) 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (2e,6) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ F. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ applicable air quality plan? (6,7) 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (6,7) I Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mlligallon Signficant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (6,7) 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ concentrations? (1,6,7) 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ number of people? (6,7) G. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: 1. Cause an Increase in traffic which is substantial in ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (4,6) 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (4,6) 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ either an Increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (4,6) 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ feature (e.g,, sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1,4) 5. Result in Inadequate emergency access? (1,4) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2d) Lessthan Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ through habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1) 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ habitat or other sensitive natural community Identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1) 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (1) 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife, species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (1) 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (1) 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (1) I. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ resource that would be of value to the region, and the residents of the state? (6) 7 Lessthon Significant Potentially with Less Than Slgniticant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. Result In the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (6) J. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (6) 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (6) 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (4,6) 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (6) 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1) 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1) 7. Impair Implementation of or physically Interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (2e) E Less than Significant Potentially With Less Than Signlgcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, Including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wildlands? (1,2e) K. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,20 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (1,2f) 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(2f) 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (20 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1) 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1) i L. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result In substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? (6) 2. Police protection? (6) 3. Schools? (6) 4. Parks? (6) 5. Other public facilities? (6) M. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (6) 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (6) 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (6) 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (6) Less than Significant Potentially With Significant Miggation Impact Incorpomted Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Lessthan Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (6) 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (6) 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ regulations related to solid waste? (6) N. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ vista? (1,4,6) 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (1,4,6) 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? (1,6) 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (4) O. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (1,6) 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (1,6) 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (1,6) 11 Lessthan Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Millgatlon Significant No Impact Incorporated impact impact 4. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Interred outside of formal cemeteries? (1,6) P. RECREATION. Would the project; Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (1,2c) 2. Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (4) Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 3. Does the project have environmental effects which ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? 12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ■ Land Use and Planning ❑ Geology/Soils ■ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ■ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Biological Resources ■ Noise ■ Aesthetics ❑ Population/Housing ■ Air Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ■ Public Services ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158) ■ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. ❑ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in accordance with Section 711.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ❑ If find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze on the effects that remain to be addressed. 13 ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects: (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 4w Patricia L. Temple Printed Name 9� 3�99 Date �— r ..i 14 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Site Visit, August 2 and 3, 1999; Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 2. Newport Beach General Plan a. Land Use Element (December 1995) b. Housing Element (July 24, 1989) C. Recreation and Open Space Element (June 22, 1998) d. Circulation Element (January 1992) e. Public Safety Element (March 10, 1975) f. Noise Element (October 10, 1994) g. Growth Management Element (May 11, 1992) 3. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards (Amended August 10, 1998) 4. Proposed Site Plan - Office Site B (No Date) 5. Initial Study, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems General Plan Amendment/PC Amendment; October 26, 1998. 6. Orange County Important Farmland Map, 1996. 7. CEQA Air Quality Handbook; South Coast AQMD; April 1993. 15 INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Newport Beach ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach (City), in central Orange County (County), as shown in Figure A-1. The project site, designated Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community, is located approximately one mile south of the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and approximately two miles east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR- 55) on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard on the southwest, Von Karman Avenue on the west and northwest, and Birch Street on the north. Adjacent jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project site include the City of Irvine generally to the north, northeast, and southeast; the University of California, Irvine (UCI) east of Jamboree Road; portions of unincorporated Orange County generally to the west, northwest, and south; and the City of Costa Mesa farther to the west. The John Wayne Airport (JWA) is approximately one mile to the northwest in an unincorporated area of the County. B. Project Setting Office Site B (refer to Figure A-2) encompasses approximately 43 acres within the total 177-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC). The area in which the subject property is located is intensively developed. Surrounding development includes professional offices within Office Site A in the area west of Von Karman Avenue and within Office Site D located north of Birch Street. Conexant (formerly Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) owns facilities within Industrial Sites 1 and 2 immediately north and east of the area in which the proposed project is located. An expansion of the existing Conexant facility is proposed that would allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space in Industrial Site 1. A General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Koll Center Newport PC is currently being processed by Conexant through the City for that proposed expansion. The subject property comprises a portion of Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planning Community and is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use. The PC is the adopted zoning document for the project site and currently allocates 1,060,898 gross square feet of support retail commercial uses. Although 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space allocated to Office Site B has not been constructed to date, all of the office space allocated for this planning area has been completed and no additional allocation of office use remains for Office Site B. The PC also establishes the development standards for the project site. In addition to the existing commercial development, a total of 3,098 parking spaces is located within this planning area, including 2,219 surface parking spaces and 879 parking spaces in two existing parking structures. The parking for Office Site B is contained within a common area parcel and is shared parking for the office uses occupying Office Site B. Figure A-3 reflects the existing site plan for the portion of Office Site B in which the expansion is proposed. Koi Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 FEW SOURCE: NORTH Thomas Bros. Maps, 1999 Orange County Communities Figure A-1 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Vicinity Map OFFICE SITE C SOURCE: LANGDON WIL Architecture/Plar -J l Jl Jl 1 L Campus Drive U. OFFICE OFFICE SITE E SITE F w as OFFICE SITED e J V1 a COURTHOUSE w OFFICE SITE A OFFICE SITE B Lake OFFICE SITE G INDUSTRIAL SITE 1 1 v a v 0 E m V a ,/ / / 4 \ SOURCE. PoLANGDON WILSON Architecture/Planning/interiors Figure A-3 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Existing Site Plan (Office Site B) ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION C. Project Characteristics The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Standards adopted for the Koll Center Newport PC. Although the General Plan Amendment and PC District Amendment will affect the entire 43-acre Office Site B component of the KCN, the proposed project affects approximately 5.5 acres within Office Site B. The applicant, Koll Center Newport Number A, is requesting an increase in the intensity of development over that currently allocated for Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office development. This increase would include the conversion of Restaurant Site 2 (5,000 gross square feet) and Retail and Service Center Site 2 (10,000 gross square feet) previously allocated within Office Site B to professional and business office use, also in KCN Office Site B. Approval of this expansion would result in a nearly 25 percent increase in the permitted development for Office Site B. However, the proposed project represents a 6.6 percent increase in the allowable office development would occur over the entire Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Specifically, this expansion includes the construction of a 250,000 (gross) square foot, 10- to 12-story office tower. Upon completion, the project would provide for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.70 for the area encompassing Office Site B. When considering the entire 43-acre Koll Center Newport PC, however, the FAR will increase from 0.55 to 0.58. A 1,250 car, 6-level parking structure is proposed to replace an existing 2-level parking structure located adjacent to the Conexant facility in Industrial Site 1; a 2-level parking structure that will accommodate 380 cars is also proposed where surface parking currently exists at the south end of the site. At buildout as currently proposed, 3,711 parking spaces (1,681 surface parking spaces and 2,030 structured parking spaces) will be provided for tenants of the office development, resulting in a net increase of 613 parking spaces The proposal by the applicant is intended to provide for additional professional office space within Office Site B of KCN as well as provide for an enhanced campus environment and facilitate connectivity to the existing (and future) Rockwell facilities to the north. The proposed site plan is illustrated on Figure A-4. D. Project Approvals Project implementation will necessitate the following discretionary actions and/or project approvals: Approval of a General Plan Amendment that eliminates the restaurant and retail uses currently designated for the subject property and increases in the allowable office use for Office Site B Approval of an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations dated May 5, 1972 (Amended August 10, 1998) to increase the amount of office space within Office Site B Kol Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 A-2 oor SOURCE: H F1 LANGDON WILSON Architecture/Planning/Interiors Figure A-4 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Proposed Site Plan (Office Site B) ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Grading Permit Building Permit Kol Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 A-3 INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION City of Newport Beach ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The subject property is a portion of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The site is intensively developed with professional office, retail, restaurant, and industrial uses consistent with the adopted PC District Regulations. No residential development exists within either the PC or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The applicant is proposing to increase the intensity of development within the area designated "Office Site B" by adding an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space to that area. The proposed project will not result in changes in the use of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will neither disrupt nor divide an established residential community. Further, the general circulation patterns will remain unchanged. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. Office Site B within the KCN Planned Community is designated for Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial development. Further, development is regulated by the adopted Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations which allow for a maximum of 963,849 square feet of office development within Office Site B. With the exception of a small retail component and restaurant component that have not been constructed, this area has been developed to the maximum intensity permitted by both the General Plan and PC. Therefore, project implementation will require amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan (Land Use Element) as well as the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow for the proposed increase in development intensity. The addition of 250,000 (gross) square feet of office space would increase the maximum allowable office development permitted within Office Site B within the Koll Center PC to 1,213,849 square feet. Although the proposed project represents a 25 percent increase in the permitted office development within the Office Site B area, it represents only a 6.6 percent increase in the overall development currently approved within the 43-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The floor area ratio within the PC would increase from 0.55 to 0.58 if the project is approved. The proposed project will provide for the development of additional professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes design features that address building setbacks, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed projects consistency with the General Plan (i.e., Long Range Development Plan) policies relevant to site development and zoning (i.e., Koll Center Newport PC District Regulations) adopted for the subject property. In addition, the EIR will address land use compatibility and consistency with adjacent development. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 Its ATTACHMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Conflict With any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The site is intensively developed and located within an area of the City that is urbanized. No natural habitat remains on the subject property. As a result, site development is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation planning program or natural community conservation plan. No Impacts will occur If the proposed project is implemented. B. Agricultural Resources. Would the project; 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As indicated above, the subject property comprises a portion of Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. This PC as well as the surrounding area Is Intensively urbanized. The site is classified as "Urban and Built Up" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map (1996). Further intensification of the subject property will not result In the conversion of prime farmland or other similarly designated lands. No impacts will occur if the project is Implemented as proposed. 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach Land Use Element (Administrative, Professional & Financial commercial) and Zoning (i.e., Koll Center Newport PC) designate the site for development. The site is neither zoned for agricultural use nor encumbered by the provisions of a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no conflicts with agricultural zoning and/or policies will occur. No Impacts are anticipated. 3. Involve other changes In the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses? No Impact. No existing farmland is located near the subject property, Further, no changes In the existing environment are proposed that would either directly or Indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No Impacts to existing farmland resources will occur if the proposed project is implemented. Koll Center Newport- Office Site a Cily of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-2 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION C. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and roadways. Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport PC is currently developed with approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office space and related uses. The proposed project provides for an increase in the development intensity of Office Site B, resulting in the addition of 250,000 (gross) square feet of office space. Project implementation will neither result in the urbanization of an undeveloped area nor require the extension of major infrastructure. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's potential to induce substantial growth, either directly or indirectly, as required in the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As discussed in response C.1, above, the subject property is currently developed with nearly 1,000,000 square feet of office space. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community does not accommodate residential development and no residential development exists either on the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the property. The proposal to intensify development on -site will not result in the displacement of existing housing as none exists there. As a result, no replacement housing will be required. No impacts will occur from implementation of the proposed project. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Because no residential development exists within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and, in particular, Office Site B where additional development is proposed, no residents will be displaced and there will not be a need to construct replacement housing. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-3 ATTACHMENT S - ENVIRONMENTAL 15VALUATION No Impact. The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement which occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults orfault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site Is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps Issued by the State Geologist for the area. Therefore, Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No Impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. As Indicated above, the site is located.in a selsmically active region. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone), It is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The project site and environs are located with an area designated as Category 1, a potential seismic hazard area that has the lowest potential risk. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport -Inglewood, San Andreas, and San Jacinto Faults. Segments of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 5.5 miles to the south, trend southeast from Santa Monica across the Los Angeles Basin to Newport Beach, The Newport -Inglewood Fault has the potential for a maximum credible earthquake with a Richter Magnitude of 7.0 in the vicinity of the project site. The San Andreas Fault Zone, approximately 30 miles to the northeast, has the potential to result In a maximum probable earthquake with a 7.5 Richter Magnitude in the vicinity of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 45 miles to the north at its nearest location and has the potential to result In a maximum probable earthquake with a Richter Magnitude of 7.5. Potentially active faults near the project site Include the San Gabriel Fault, the Whittier -Elsinore Fault, the Pelican Hill Fault, and an unnamed fault (within the UCI campus). The closest of these potentially active faults is the unnamed fault within the main portion of the UCI campus to the south. Although implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people and structures to ground shaking during a seismic event, this exposure is no greater than exposure present in other areas throughout the southern Califonta region. In addition, development of the propsed project will be subject to the City's standard conditions and the Uniform Building Code that address structure integrity. The potential Impacts resulting from groundshaking associated with seismic activity are minimized and are less than significant as a result of the structural design mandated by these conditions. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. c. Seismic -related ground failure, Including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs in response to severe groundshaking where loose, saturated, granular soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for Koll Center Newport - OMce Slte a City or Newport Beach, CA September 1999 -act ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials, a shallow groundwater table, and a long duration and high acceleration of the seismic shaking. The project site is not located in an area that has been identified as an area that is subject to liquefaction during a seismic event. As a result, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose either people or structures to ground failure due to liquefaction during a seismic event. In addition, development of the proposed project will comply with applicable City -imposed conditions and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code to ensure that significant damage resulting seismic activity, including the potential for liquefaction are avoided or minimized. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. d. Landslides? No Impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. Further, the subject property and environs are not identified as areas with the potential for landslides or mudflows. No imapcts are anticiapted rand no mitigation measures are required. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The subject property and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The site has an average elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. Office Site B has been previously graded and supports intensive development, including office buildings, parking structures and parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, the applicant is required to implement erosion and siltation control features pursuant to the City's grading ordinance as well as all applicable local, State and federal regulations. Development of the additional structures will not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the subject property. As a result, the associated potential for erosion will not increase significantly relative to the existing conditions. Therefore, potential erosion and siltation impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and will be minimized through the incorporation of mandated erosion control measures. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the subject site. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluations that address specific design and construction measures for the proposed office building and parking structures. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design and will minimize any potential structural damage. Potential impacts will be less than significant. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 M ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Subsidence is large scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. Any potential for subsidence In the area in which the office building and related parking facilities are proposed would be identified and addressed in the in the soils and geotechnical report. However, the project site has not been Identified as an area with the potential for subsidence; further, the site is intensively developed and has not been subject to subsidence to date. In addition, withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 5. Have soils Incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The site and surrounding area are served by an extensive system of Infrastructure, including sewer collection and transmission facilities. Once constructed, the proposed project will be connected to the existing sewer system and will not rely on a septic system for the disposal and treatment of waste water. No impacts will occur. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. Surface runoff anticipated to occur as a result of construction and/or operation of the proposed professional office building will comprise similar constituents as that occurring from the existing development. These constituents include slit and other materials during, construction. In addition, fertilizer residuals from landscaping as well as hydrocarbon and other petroleum baled elements associated with the automobile that typically accumulate within the parking structdres and/or surface parking lots on -site will also enter the surface runoff as they are washed off during heavy rains. in particular, the applicant must comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements which mandate the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to control predictable pollutant runoff. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be prepared that Identifies measures to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Incorporation of these standard conditions will avoid water quality impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that either water quality standards or waste discharge requirements will be exceeded. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 M ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION No Impact. Groundwater use or extraction is not a component of the proposed project and will not occur. Project implementation will not interfere with groundwater recharge in the groundwater basin and will not affect the local groundwater table which exists at approximately 30 feet below the ground surface. No impacts to groundwater supplies will occur if the proposed project is implemented. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Impact. No natural drainage features exist on the subject property. The site has been extensively altered to accommodate the existing professional office, commercial and industrial development. Surface runoff occurs in a northwesterly direction to existing storm drainage facilities. Grading necessary to accommodate the proposed project will not result in any alterations to the existing drainage patterns. Post -development surface and drainage will approximate the rates and directions of existing flows. Therefore, no impacts will occur are a result of project implementation. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The subject property has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscaped areas. The runoff occurring from existing development is currently conveyed off -site by a private storm drain system that flows northwest to the City's storm drain system where it flows into a well -developed riparian wetland located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and discharges into the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall, runoff enters retention basins off - site to the northwest. From the retention basins, the majority of the runoff is released into the City's storm drain system at a slower rate. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in changes in surface runoff during construction activities, potential effects will be reduced by compliance with drainage controls imposed by the City's grading and building permit requirements. Specifically, the applicant must comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of additional building area for the proposed project will not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. Post -development drainage patterns, absorption rates, and the rate and amount of surface runoff will be the same as under existing (i.e., developed) conditions. In addition, runoff from the project site will continue to be served by the existing on- and off -site storm drain and flood control facilities which are adequate to accommodate the existing and proposed development. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 M ATTACHMENTS -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in response EA, the subject property is currently developed and covered with impervious surfaces, Project implementation will result in little, if any, change in the post -development surface runoff quantities. As a result, the existing on- and off -site storm drainage and flood control system will be adequate to accommodate post - development surface runoff. In order to ensure that polluted runoff does not enter the storm drain system, the applicant will be required to prepare a SWPPP pursuant to NPDES requirements. Measures included in the SWPPP will avoid or minimize potential pollution of surface runoff, both during construction and after development of the project project. No significant Impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater in the area is located approximately 30 feet below the land surface. No groundwater extractions or additions will occur as a result of project implementation and the underlying aquifer will not be intercepted. Subsurface investigations on nearby properties have revealed that groundwater in the area is degraded by chlorinated volatile organic compounds to a depth of 100 feet below the ground surface. In 1986, groundwater reclamation activities on the Rockwell property northeast of the site began with the installation of a groundwater extraction well field and treatment system. An expanded extraction well field system designed to contain the degraded groundwater was constructed in 1990 and operations began in 1991. Recently additional recharge wells have been added to augment that system. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the addition of activities within Office Site B that would result in the exceedence of regulatory thresholds for the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard zone as designated on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Further, the site is not located in an area that has a potential for significant flooding. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not increase the exposure of people or structures to flood hazards. No impacts will occur. 8. Place with a 100-yearflood hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As indicated in response E.7, above, the subject property is not located within the 100-year flood plain designated by FEMA. Structures proposed for the subject property will not be located within such an area and no impedance or redirection of flood flows will occur if the project is implemented. No Impacts will occur. Koll Center Newport - Office Silo B CltyofNewportBeach, CA Seplerriber1999 B-8 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The KCN Planned Community is not located within the limits of flooding associated with the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, neither occupants of the proposed office expansion project nor the proposed structures will be exposed to a significant risk if the project is implemented. Adequate on -site storm drainage and flood control facilities exist in the area to protect the site from flood -related impacts. No impacts are anticipated to occur. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. A small lake is located within Office Site B north of the area proposed for development. However the potential for the occurrence of a seiche at that feature during a seismic event is unlikely; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the project site and vicinity. Similarly, the site is essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic activity or other instability to cause mudflows. Implementation of the proposed project will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. No impacts will occur. F. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Project implementation is generally consistent with the long range plans adopted for the site. Although an intensification of the site is proposed, implementation of the proposed project will not obstruct implementation of the air quality plan adopted for the South Coast Air Basin. The project will be consistent with all of the policies and requirements established by that plan. No impacts to the Air Quality Management Plan are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact. The project is is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. The proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from construction activities that include demolition operations,, grading and foundation excavation operations, travel by construction workers to the project site, delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site, fuel combustion by on -site construction equipment, and the application of architectural coatings and other building Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA Septemher1999 I-6 ATTACHMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION materials. Operation of the proposed project will also generate pollutant emissions from stationary sources for regional and on -site power generation and mobile source emissions associated with vehicular traffic and from employees and delivery and distribution of supplies and products to and from the project site. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts of these project -related emissions with respect to the violation of any air quality standard or the potential contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the Draft EIR will provide an assessment of the potential for the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts associated with pollutant emissions. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. As Indicated in response F.2, above, project implementation will result in the generation of potentially significant mobile -source emissions. These emissions maybe cumulatively significant when combined with other projects proposed in the vicinity. The Draft EIR will provide an assessment of the potential cumulative impacts. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The project site Is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with Iightindustriai and office buildings which comprise Office Site B within Koll Center Newport. The project site is located along between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The land uses adjacent to the project site include professional and industrial offices, commercial and supporting uses (e.g., fast food restaurants), and a courthouse facility. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g., residential development, parks, schools, etc.) on the project site or In the immediate vicinity. Although no significant Impacts are anticipated to sensitive receptors, the air quality analysis presented in the Draft EIR will include an assessment of microscale (i.e., carbon monoxide hot spots) air quality impacts. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Construction of the proposed project will involve activities and the use of equipment typical of development projects of a similar size and type. The emission of significant odors Is not anticipated during construction. Further, the operation of the proposed project will not result in the emission of new, objectionable odors either on the site or In the vicinity of the subject property. No Impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B ClryofNewport Beach, CA September 1999 B-10 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION G. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in increased vehicle trips associated with construction related activities (short-term) and (long-term) traffic resulting from operation of the proposed office development. A traffic analysis for the proposed project will be prepared consistent with the requirements of City Council Policy L-18 and the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The traffic analysis will define the existing and projected future traffic conditions within the traffic study area, the existing and projected intersection and roadway segment levels of service, and potential deficiencies due to increased vehicle trips as a result of project implementation. The Draft EIR will summarize the potential impacts of the proposed project. 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated in response G.1, above, project implementation will result in an increase in daily trips which could adversely affect the existing levels of service of the adjacent and nearby roadways and intersections. Potential impacts will be analyzed in the traffic analysis described above which will also evaluate cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located northwest of the Office Site B. Air traffic patterns have been established for that facility. Although the applicant is proposing a 10- to 12- story office building on the subject property, neither the location of this facility nor other features proposed by the applicant will result in changes to existing air traffic patterns. A master plan for JWA was developed that addresses future traffic levels as well as noise and safety issues. No significant impacts will occur. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided via two entrances, including one on Jamboree Road to the west and one from MacArthur Boulevard on the east side of the site (Von Karmen Avenue). Parking is currently provided in both surface parking and in parking structures. The proposed project will provide on -site circulation and parking improvements that would include: demolition of an existing 2-level parking structure and construction of a 6-level parking structure in its place; construction of an additional 2-level parking structure to replace and expand existing surface parking in the southern end of the site; redesign of the internal circulation to accommodate the proposed structural improvements; and the creation of pedestrian paths to enhance on -site circulation. These improvements will Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA Septemher1999 B-11 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION provide for improved access to and circulation within the project site and will provide adequate parking facilities for the office addition. The proposed project will not introduce hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections or provide for the use of Incompatible equipment on the project site or on nearby roadways. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. Emergency access is currently provided to the project site through the vehicle access points at two entrances along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional emergency vehicle access Is provided from Von Karmen Avenue via Birch Street to the north and through a driveway that provides access to the Rockwell facilities north of the subject site. Although construction activities could potentially affect access on the project site on a short-term basis, such construction activities would be completed in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project will not adversely affect existing emergency access on the site and/or around the structures. No significant changes would occur to the existing emergency vehicle access and the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access to the site or affect access to nearby uses. As a result, no Impacts will occur. 6, Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Currently, parking for the existing office buildings located in Office Site B are provided In a common area shared by other buildings. The proposed project will provide on -site parking in surface lots and parking structures. As previously indicated, an existing 2-story parking structure will be replaced with a 6-story structure Inthe same location and an additional 2-story parking structure will be constructed at the southern end of the site. The number of parking spaces provided will be based on the standards prescribed in the Koll Center Newport PC District regulations. No significant Impacts will occur. 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than Significant Impact. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan Includes policies that require the adoption of transportation system management plans to reduce peak hour traffic. Such measures include ddeshadng programs, vanpooling, and flexible work hours. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques. In addition, the City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles both for transportation, to mitigate traffic levels, and for recreation to promote health and fitness. Finally, bus service is provided along the major roadways within the City, including Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in conflicts either with existing programs or adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented. Koff CenterNewport- Office S11e B City or Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B•12 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site has been previously graded and is intensively developed.and is located within an urbanized area of the County. On -site vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. Wildlife is limited to common species typically found in urban environments. There are no known endangered, threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species or sensitive habitats that occupy the subject property. The proposed project will not result in any significant direct impacts to any sensitive species of plants or animals. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As indicated in response H.1, above, the site is completely developed. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat exists on the property. Further, site development will not require grading or other activities in areas that will be subject to policies prescribed by the resource agencies. No impacts will occur. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Grading and site development will not result in potential impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. As previously indicated, the has been graded and developed and does not encompass any natural biological features. There are no natural water sources, water courses, or associated wetland habitat on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect wetland habitat located closest to the project site at the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh to the east and the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard to the south. Runoff from the project site does not flow towards the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh and would not affect the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard because there would be no significant change in the quantity or quality of surface runoff from the project site. Therefore, no impacts will occur. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The site does not contain open space utilized by wildlife for wildlife migration or dispersal. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-13 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No locally designated species are known to existing on the project site. The proposed project will not result in the removal of any locally designated plan or wildlife species, Including heritage trees or other significant, designated species. Therefore, no impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As indicated previously, the developed site is devoid of natural habitat and wildlife and supports only Introduced landscape specimens. It is not located with an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orotheradopted resource plan. Therefore, project implementation will not be affected by or subject to any provisions of such resources conservation plans. No Impacts will occur. I. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No mineral resources are known to exist on or adjacent to the project site. Further, significant improvements, including office buildings, parking structures, and landscaping and other improvements exist on the subject property. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region. No impacts will occur. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -Important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated above, no mineral resources are known to exist on the property and none are identified and/or recognized on the Newport Beach General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in Impacts to locally important mineral resources. J. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project; Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The proposed project Includes the construction of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Although a portion of the KCN Planned Community east of Office Site B is used Kali Center Newport - Office Site B City of NeWport Beach, CA September 1999 B-14 B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION for light manufacturing where some hazardous materials may be used, the proposed project does not include the use of such materials on -site. Therefore, no impacts to the public resulting from the use of hazardous materials, including their transport and disposal, will occur. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The proposed professional office development is not a use that will result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards. The new facilities include only traditional administrative and professional office uses. No materials will be used on -site that would result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. As indicated above, implementation of the proposed project will not result in the emission of hazardous materials on the subject property. No hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances will be utilized and/or emitted from the subject property within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impacts will occur. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Prior to site development, the property was part of the extensive agricultural activities that existed in the County. Site development began in approximately 1972. Since that time, Office Site B has been intensively developed in accordance with the commercial, professional office and retail uses permitted by the KCN Planned Community. As a result, the site is not currently included in a list of hazardous materials sites and, therefore, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. Office Site B located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community is within two miles of John Wayne Airport. This facility is located northwest of the subject site, west of MacArthur Boulevard. Safety hazards resulting from flight operations at JWA have been identified in that facility's master plan. Although a portion of the subject property is located within that airport's 60 dB' CNEL noise contour, it is generally not within any identified crash hazard zone. Therefore, neither the proposed office and parking structures nor future occupants will be subject to a significant safety hazard. If it is determined that the proposed office building is located within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designated areas, the structures will be subject to restrictions and regulations imposed by that agency. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-15 ATTACHMENT 8 -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION However, as indicated above, no significant impacts to the people working at the office building will occur. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The subject property Is located within an Intensively urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County. Only John Wayne Airport, and no other private airstrips, Is located in the vicinity of the site (refer to J.5, above). No potential safety hazards for occupants of the existing or proposed office structures will occur from activities at a private airstrip. As a result, no Impacts will occur if the project is implemented as proposed. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction and operation of the additional building area for the proposed project will not Interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans either on -site or in the local area. 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a high fire hazard area or where wildlandfiires occur. Site development as proposed will comply with the applicable fire and safety provisions of the City's fire regulations and will not result in an increased Weiland fire hazard. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. K. NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with professional office uses, light industrial uses, and other commercial uses. The project site is located between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard; Von Kerman Avenue meanders from MacArthur Boulevard to Birch Street north of the site. Ambient noise in the area is typical of intensively urbanized areas, resulting primarily from vehicular traffic utilizing these arterials and roadways. In addition, JWA is located northwest of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Aviation noise resulting from aircraft operations at that facility also contribute to the ambient noise environment within the project area. Development of the proposed project will result in an Increase in existing noise levels due to construction activities, increased vehicular traffic and, to a lesser degree, facility operations. The Draft EIR will include an analysis of the potential Impacts of the proposed project associated with Increases in the existing noise levels and the potential for exposure of people occupying the proposed professional office development to severe noise levels. Koll Center Newport - Office Site a City of Newport Beech, CA September 1999 B-16 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground bome vibration or ground bome noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Typical grading and construction techniques are anticipated in order to implement the proposed professional office building, parking structures, and related facilities. No operations will result in excessive ground bome vibration and/or noise. Potential Impacts associated with these activities will remain less than significant. 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. Aside from the potential increases in vehicular noise associated with increased traffic, no significant, permanent noise will be generated on -site as a result of the proposed project. The acoustical analysis will include an evaluation of the vehicular noise that will occur along the adjacent and nearby arterials and roadways that serve the site. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated in response K.1, above, construction activities, although short-term in nature, will create noise within the areas where the structures and other facilities are proposed. Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The earthmoving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The loudest earthmoving noise sources may be detectable above the local background levels well beyond the immediate are of construction activity. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential construction noise associated with project implementation. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. A portion of Office Site B within the KCN Planned Community is located in the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of JWA located northwest of the subject property. Although the proposed use is compatible with the exterior noise levels associated with the operations at JWA, the Draft EIR will include a discussion of the airport noise impacts and the noise compatibility criteria for site development. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; no impacts will result from project implementation. However, as indicated in response K.5, above, JWA is located northwest of the subject property. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 B-17 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION L. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Fire and emergency medical services within the project area are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Primary response services are provided by Fire Station No. 3 located at 868 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 3 miles southwest of the subject property. The increased use in the project site by employees could generate additional demands on fire protection and emergency medical services. The Draft EIR will include an analysis of these potential cumulative Impacts of the project projectwith respect to fire protection and emergency medical services. 2. Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Police services within the project area are provided by the Newport Beach Policy Department located at 870 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site. The Increased use of the project site by employees could generate additional demands on police protection services. The Draft EIR will Include an analysis of the potential cumulative Impacts of the project project with respect to police protection services. 3. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Santa Ana Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, school services will not be directly impacted. However, the proposed project Includes the expansion of existing professional office facilities and employment opportunities generated by the proposed project could have the potential to generate a demand for housing. This demand for housing and the associated increase demand for school services is within regional levels accounted for by regional and local population projections. No significant impact will occur if the project is Implemented. 4. Parks? Less than Significant Impact. There are no park facilities on the site or that will be directly affected by project implementation. As indicated above in response to L.3, the additional professional office may create a demand for additional housing that could generate additional residents in the City of Newport Beach. However, these indirect impacts in the form of an incremental demand for recreational facilities is not considered to be significant. Koll Center Newport -Ofce Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-18 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Other public facilities? No Impact. Demand for governmental or other public services such as libraries are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. Although the proposed project will generate additional employees, there are no residential units included as part of the,proposed project. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any direct impacts with respect to governmental or other public services. M. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generated by the proposed project can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities or those planned by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). No significant Impacts will occur. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is developed and existing water infrastructure, including water treatment and distribution facilities exist and are adequate to serve the site without expanding these facilities. Similarly, the OCSD has treatment facilities to serve the subject property and larger service area. That agency has recently proposed its 1999 Strategic Plan that includes several improvements to the existing system, including the addition of treatment capacity, that will be necessary to adequately collect and treat raw sewage. Although it is not likely that the proposed project will, by itself, require the expansion of either new water and/or wastewater facilities, the Draft EIR will evaluate the potential cumulative impacts associated with the increased demand for water and sewer service (refer to responses MA and M.5, below). 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated previously in response EA, post -development surface runoff is anticipated to be similar to that which currently exists. Although on -site facilities may be necessary, it is not anticipated that significant new off -site storm drainage and/or flood control facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 FBE ATTACHMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact. The site and surrounding area are Intensively urbanized. Although existing water infrastructure Is available to the site, implementation of the proposed project could result in alterations In the demand on local or regional water supplies. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from project implementation with respect to local and regional water supplies. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing wastewater Infrastructure. The Orange County Sanitation District Is responsible for providing wastewater treatment. Implementation of the proposed project will result In an Increase of raw sewage which will create a demand for treatment. The Orange County Sanitation District has proposed Its 1999 Strategic Plan that Includes several alternatives for Increasing the treatment and capacity of its existing facilities. The potential increase in wastewater generated by the intensification may exceed the allocation based on the existing KCN Planned community. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential impacts associated with project implementation. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills, The Prank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility receiving the waste. The City of Newport Beach is under contract to County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system (not to a particular facility) until the year 2007. At the same time, the landfill system is accepting additional waste from outside Orange County. Under these circumstances, It has been agreed that should the cumulative effect of development cause the daily tonnage ceiling of a particular facility to be exceeded, the waste being imported to that facility will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is available for the foreseeable future. Therefore, potential impacts resulting from waste generated by the proposed project will be less than significant. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Notwithstanding the availability of capacity in the County landfill system, the State of California required that by the year 2000, each city and county reduce by at least 50 percent the amountof waste going into landfills that each city or county had landfill -disposed in the year 1990. Waste haulers are expected to fulfill that mandate by recycling residential and commercial waste collected. In addition, project developers are also expected to reduce the amount of construction -generated waste by the same amount. The applicant will be required to comply with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) adopted by the City of Koll Center Newport - office Site B City or Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-20 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Newport Beach to achieve the mandated reductions. Therefore, no impacts will result from project implementation. N. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots and parking structures, access drives and roadways, walkways, and landscaped area. Neither MacArthur Boulevard nor Jamboree Road is designated as a scenic highway. Further, there are no designated scenic vistas or other scenic highways within the immediate vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project will provide for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project within KCN Office Site B will not have a significant impact on an existing vista. The introduction of an additional 10- to 12-story structure on the site is generally consistent with the existing aesthetic character on the site and in the vicinity. Potential impacts will remain less than significant. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The site is located in an intensively urbanized area that does not posses any of the characteristics noted above (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, etc.). Further, neither Jamboree Road nor MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a state scenic highway and there are no historic buildings either on the site or in the immediate vicinity that would be affected by project implementation. As a result, no impacts to scenic resources will occur if the project is developed as proposed. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated above, the site is located within a highly urbanized area. The majority of the project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking structures and surface parking, walkways, and landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project will provide for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. Although such development will be consistent with existing uses on - site and in the vicinity of the property, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 10- to 12- story office tower, a 6-level parking structure to replace an existing 2-story structure, and a new 2-story parking structure were surface parking currently existing. The potential visual impacts associated with the addition of these structures will be evaluated in the Draft EIR. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B' City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-21 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact. Existing lighting sources on the project site Include surface parking lot lighting, exterior light fixtures on the perimeter of buildings, and security lighting. The new professional office and parking structures will require additional nighttime lighting. The effect of the additional lighting and potential glare created by the new building will be evaluated In the Draft EIR. O. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57 No Impact. The site is intensively developed with commercial, professional office and Industrial/office uses. Development of the site began in the early 1970s, All of the structures and features existing on the subject property are of recent construction and have no historical significance associated with them. Intensification of the site as proposed will not result in Impacts to existing historical resources as none exist on the site. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No archaeological sites are know to exist on the project site. The site has already been subject to extensive disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been destroyed or, at the least, disturbed. Although implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to disturb archaeological resources, any potential effects would be avoided or minimized by compliance with conditions imposed by the City that require monitoring during grading operations and the salvage and catalog of cultural materials as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, Identification, and evaluation of the cultural material. If major archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City. The archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case Items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. No significant impacts will occur with the incorporation of this conditions. Kell CenterNewport - ORIee Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 Lek ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The project site with within an area underlain by rocks of the Los Trancos member of the Topanga formation which is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Any surficial paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been unearthed or disturbed as a result of site development. Although there is a possibility that paleontological resources exist beneath the site, it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered because of their location anticipated to extend beyond the depth of grading. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation and/or construction, potential impacts to those resources would be minimized by compliance with the City's requirement to monitor grading activities. Specifically, the project applicant must provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog fossils as necessary. The palaeontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Implementation of this condition will ensure that any potential impacts to paleontological resources will,be avoided or minimized. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no known ethnic cultural values attributable to the project site. In particular, no human remains are known to exist on the subject property. The site has been significantly altered by past grading and site development and no human remains were discovered during those operations. Although project implementation will necessitate additional grading to prepare the site for development as proposed, it is unlikely that any human remains will be encountered. No impacts will occur. P. RECREATION. Would the project: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. Demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. As there Koll Center Newport - Once Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 B-23 ATTACHMENTS -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, no direct Impacts will occur. The proposed project will generate additional employees at the project site. Although the Increase in the on -site employment has the potential to affect adult recreation programs in the City, the resulting Increase in population derived from the future employment will result in only minor impacts to the City's existing and projected recreation facilities inventory. These impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures will be required. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Project implementation does not include the construction of any new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Similarly, the minor indirect Impacts resulting from an incremental addition to the City's population will not necessitate recreation facility improvements. Therefore, no significant adverse physical effects (e.g., landform alteration, biological Impacts, etc.) will occur if the project is -Implemented. Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project site has been developed and Is heavily impacted by past activities. Development of the proposed project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. No native habitat or wildlife exists on or inhabits the subject property. Further, no cultural or historical resources are located on the site. In particular, project implementation will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. Does the project have Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project does have the potential to generate project -related impacts that may be cumulatively considerable (e.g., air quality). The Draft EIR will include analyses of the potential Impacts resulting from project Implementation with respect to land use and planning, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and public facilities and services. The project -related and cumulative impacts associated with this Issues will be thoroughly evaluated in the Draft EIR. Koff Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-24 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g., traffic and circulation, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., contribute to deficiencies in public services and/or facilities). The Draft EIR will provide analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to these issues. Kell Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 M SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office Sill West Seventh Street 22th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017.3435 1(213) 236-2800 f (223) 236a825 www.scag.ca.gov t9lema: • Fmldml SUPervitor Za Y.W.' ly. Jn Mgda rawly • Fia VIM Pmldmt Mayor Ron Rua, Oty or U Alamllm • SMMd wm hahkm. SbparAm gamy Dab, 9 Bnmrdmo moray • ImmedhM Fm PMdd.L 16ym Bob Rnddt.atyormo haww ma ry -vq,ty, hop"W l W Lae AWW County Y. MIhwd,e Bmkq Jm Mg-1alowly •Z Yuwk ky, Ira MBda lawny • Ea. Mwi, Diamond By • Bob Ruda. Moomda • M. Emma. Gadtm Geroge 11m M • IW Bauan, ba MBda ad• mdaama. Cod. • Mb "mad, Rntemad • loon Wek. 2m MBda •Gene Du kh. Puanw d • John FanM. im Mgda MRhad Rum 2m Mgda • Ruth Gahnra 2 Mgda • JaeHe Wdbug. Lm Mgda • Pry MikliH,lnnggarb•Dee -N.,, , Md., Anramuvda.2m Mgdn • Nue HoidI Loa Atlgda • Lwamm IBM Ingl"wod • 8ddt M.(S•rFe M.unev • f9ndv MluJkoraH. Ios Rnd • Raam hm, hm Alma • Muk Ndley Monrn, im Mgd" • rud rd Alurdan, im Mgda WM.. Shaw, mmpnn • Rudy Sramkb.lm Mgda• h.Mb",Miumbn- lodWadesLm •glawd,en.2mMgda • DennD Wuhbwv,a. Glabuu • Paul 2<e. South Hadma Olage laeaty: marl" Swlh. Ormge muoty rlmhln,lm A6mllm •M Pmvo, Buena Puk 1 w6 - Uay.law Mena•lmgum igud Who • '1 IbMa�Youg. tagum Nigud IIkWNDiwo, Werolet •Alu Dule,ia Fainu• Eh WyMGraekm,Mandm • BerPay. Wu R2raelde G9Mtyt Jam" Vuuble, Rlradde 2 Iy •Did WA Palm Daat • I. MI.. Reaunloot • Pm Jonddge abrade • Mdm PIµ lkxwu • Pm Mbw,TrmmD W A."Muo l rap nlhy Dab. San Reaatdim lowly • MI M.nd", Random lllrammp • 1M 6gIry,INmtyNne Pales •David FahAnun.Fmum•Iae MVC Dnndhmm • Gwmn NanoR�P"rR wino H116IID • Wy Rork". IBgldud VM M m r Judy M12eB. Ventura lmm:y Doomlk Poo•g ft.,.•Mdnw Fm. Thouuvd Wka •'IbolYouug, Pon Huamw Rlreaalde Cow'' Pomdou CommlWom Roble Lm Jima Natnn eaamy Y pomdm Com Ow PII Darn, 3lMwnty October 4,1999 Ms. Patricia Temple Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF Kll=WpnPT PEACH AM OCT 0 7 1999 PM 71b,9110111112,112,3141316 41 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse I19990445 Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope ofthe project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the project was published in the October 1, 1999 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment. The project fitle and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention ofthe Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1917. le VID STEIN ger, Performance Assessment and Implementation i Z— ® hindmRa dNPpa 899.8/28/99 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Y Wlnstan . nickox Secretaryjor Environmental Protection October 6, 1999 Santa Ana Region Internet Address: http://www.s%web.ca.gov 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3339 Phone (909) 7824130 -FAX (909) 781-6288 Patricia Temple Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF Nr-tn'P'PT � EACH AM ocr 1 2 1999 PM 7101911011111211,20,4AG NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED COUMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADOPTED FOR THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PC Dear Mrs. Temple: We have reviewed the NOP for this project. In response to the statutory concerns of this office, the Draft EIR should address the following: I. Water Quality and Beneficial Uses A. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality: - Any impacts that could cause impairment of narrative water quality objectives or violations of numerical water quality objectives contained in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin need to be addressed. - Proposed projects occurring upstream of or discharging into impaired waterbodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list may be subject to additional controls (specifically Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs) pursuant to federal regulation. Depending on the proposed project, these controls could include discharge prohibitions, revisions to discharge permits, or management plans to address water quality impacts. Environmental documents for proposed projects need to acknowledge that these additional requirements may be imposed in the future. - Construction activities (including grading) that could result in water quality Impacts. - Soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation). -Impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal (if appropriate). California Environmental Protection Agency �d Recycled Paper 4' t _1-&4e4A m me PM - 2 - 10/06/99 -In compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's antidegradation policy, new development projects should address any impacts related to the potential increase of toxins in urban runoff (compared to runoff from undeveloped areas): These toxins may include pesticides, herbicides, grease, oil and other toxins not normally occurring in runoff from undeveloped areas. B. Appropriate mitigation should be identified for any impacts to water quality. - If the project impacts any riparian or wetland habitats, a complete description of the impacts, acreage of the impacts, and any proposed mitigation should be provided C. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts. III Permits - If no new point discharges are created from the proposed project the stormwater runoff will be regulated by an areawide stormwater discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). - A notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. This is required for any construction activity over five acres in area. - A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land is required by the Regional Board. - If reclaimed water is to be used in the proposed project, Water Reclamation Requirements will have to be issued by the Regional Board. We look forward'to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3221. Sincerely, Tom B. Meregillano Planning Section CC: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting California Environmental Protection Agency CO Recycled Paper T R A N S M- I T T To: Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates Copy: P .cial:I�Dple PI'anriiniiyof_ lewport_ eaci From: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Subject: Koll Center Newport/Notice of Preparation Date: September 20, 1999 The following items are transmitted herewith: No of item Copies 1 "ZI(Z 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 Larry: M Description kp - � Initial Study�'���fi7 PIS Notice of Preparation (State Clearinghouse Form) Notice of Preparation (City of Newport Beach Form) Notice of Availability of NOP (City of Newport Beach Form) NOP/NOA List (developed for Conexant and also used for KCN) The NOP was distributed today (9/20/99). 1 have enclosed copies of all of the documents for your files and sent a similar set to Patty at the City. The NOP comment period should end on or about October 21, 1999. We are still working on orchestrating the traffic analysis with WPA. Please call me if you have any questions. From the desk of... Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 756-2202 Fax: (949) 756-2207 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 September 20, 1999 Responsible Agencies, Other State and Local Government Agencies, Utilities, and Other Interested Parties City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as they relate to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the City if you have a permit or other approval authority over some aspect of this project. The attached Initial Study provides the project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns and also please define your statutory responsibilities and permitting or other authority (if any) with respect to this project. Please provide the name of the contact person in your agency for further communications concerning this project, if necessary. Project Title: Koll Center Newport Project Applicant: Koll Center Newport Number A, a California Partnership Send Responses to: Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3250 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 DATE: September 20, 1999 TO: Interested Parties FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Newport Beach (City) is the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Koll Center Newport project identified below. The City has prepared a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR and an Initial Study which provide a project description and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study are available for review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Newport Beach Public Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 717-3800 The approximately 5.5-acre portion of the site situated within the 43-acre Office Site B component of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community is located on the northwest side of jamboree Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. Office Site B is currently developed. The proposed project will require amendments to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet, for a total of 1,213,849 square feet of office space, within Office Site B. In addition, a 1,250 car, 6-level parking structure is proposed to replace an existing 2-level parking structure; a 2-level parking structure is also proposed to accommodate 380 additional cars. If you would like to submit comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send written comments to the City at the address shown below. Please be specific in the statement describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Project Title: Koll Center Newport Project Applicant: Koll Center Newport Number A, a California Partnership Send Responses to: Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3250 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach NOP/NOA Distribution List Koll Center Newport Notice of Preparation California Air Resources Board 2020 " L" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Brenda Morrison California Department of Transportation District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mr. Mark Durham Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Los Angeles District P. O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Mr. Ron Rempel, Regional Manager California Department of Fish & Game 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Mr. Robert Joseph, Chief Advance Planning California Department of Transportation District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Office of Special Projects Planning & Analysis Divisions California Highway Patrol 2555 1s' Avenue Sacramento, CA 95818 Division of Aeronautics California Department of Transportation P. O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Ms. Peggy Schneble City of Irvine 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine, CA 92714 Development Services Department City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Ms. Nancy Gardner Environmental Qaulity Affairs Committee City of Newport Beach 323 Jasmine Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CEQA Advisor Orange County Clerk County of Orange Registrar & Recorder P. O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Department of Conservation 801 "K" Street MS 24-02 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Jim Miller County of Orange PFRD/Flood Control District P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 County of Orange PDSD/Environmental & Project Planning Division P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Chief, State Clearinghouse Government Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 11 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 350 South Grand Los Angeles, CA 90054 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 SPON P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon P. O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capital Mall Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Southern California Association of Governments Intergovernmental Review 818 West 71h Street 12`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Mr. Richard Demerjian, Direct Campus & Environmental Planning University of California, Irvine 3600 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-2325 Mr. Eric Freed, Executive Office Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Mr. Jim Applegate Facility Planner Santa Ana Unified School District 1601 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 Conexant 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. John Saunders 4525-A MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sacramento Area Office Bureau of Indian Affairs 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Pat Budget, Frank Bianchini, Presidents Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association c/o Keystone Pacific Management Company 4100 Newport Place, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Liam H. Davis NCCP Association Wildlife Biologist California Department of Fish & Game 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 Birch Legacy 5180 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Barbara Peters/Mr. Dan Rabun Newport North Villas c/o CMC Associated Management 2492 Walnut Avenue, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association c/o The Emmons Company 17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 210 Tustin, CA 92614 California Integrated Waste Management Board 1501 East Orangethorpe Avenue Suite 150 Fullerton, CA 92831 California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 92825-8202 South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10" Floor Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Mr. Howard Zelefsky, Director Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 California Waste Management Board 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 South Coast Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 1011 Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 California State Conservancy 1330 Broadway Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Caltrans - Planning P. 0. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Mr. Perry Valentine City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Planning & Development Services Department City of Irvine P. 0. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 Mr. Philip L. Arst Community Association Alliance P. 0. Box 2000/27 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Department of Health P. 0. Box 942732 601 North 711 Street Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Department of Parks & Recreation P. 0. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Department of Water Resources 1020 Ninth Street 31 Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Denton Turner PF&RD/Harbors, Beaches & parks County of Orange P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Department of Boating & Waterways 1629 "S" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 South Coastal Region & Inland Desert Region Department of Fish & Game „ 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Department of Housing & Community Development 1800 3`d Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Real Estate 107 South Broadway Room 8107 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Frank Robinson Friends of Newport Bay P. O. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau 3300 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92625 Mr. Arnie Aparicio Southern California Edison Company 14803 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92628-5008 Government Publications Newport Center Branch Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Resources Agency 1020 Ninth Street 31 Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Division of Clean Water Programs State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 r--1 u Division of Water Quality State Water Resources control Board P. O. Box 944213 Sacramento, CA 94244-2130 Mr. Steve Letterly, Director TCA/E nviron mental Services P. O. Box 28870 Santa Ana, CA 92799-8870 Los Angeles District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 532711 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90053 Region 9 Office U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Lynn Shelton, Mr. Jim Horian Bayview Court Homeowners -Association Villageway Management P. O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Susan B. Seifert Co -Presiding Office Stop Polluting Our Newport P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Ms. Carol Hoffman The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive, 811 Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 District 11 U.S. Coast Guard Coast Guard Island Alameda, CA 94501 Ecological Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Alexander Glazer, Director University of California Natural Reserve System 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Ms. Susan S. Warren Collection Development Manager Newport Beach Public Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Notice of Availability Ms. Carol Tsai 1466 Kamole Street Honolulu, HI 95821 Mr. Thomas Wooldridge 1735 Corbett Highlands Place Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Beachwood Partners c/o WJS, Inc. 5031 Birch Street, #D Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beachwood Partners c/o Three's Company 4701 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Darts Building Partners 5120 Birch Street Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 7J A Tee & Renae Migliori Family Migliori 5119 Circle Vista Avenue La Crescenta, CA 91214 Haskell White Building 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Nelson Mamey 5160 Birch Street Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Apex Alnd Investments, Inc. 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beachwood Partners 4770 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 CP Associates 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ewing Enterprises 4931 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harrington Sound Properties 5 Civic Plaza Suite 320 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Invs Spectrum 4440 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jamboree Associates, Ltd. 18818 Teller Avenue Suite 275 Irvine, CA 92612 Koll Center Newport Number 14 P. O. Box 188039 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Lambeau Properties, LLC 4921 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLC Milestone 5015 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Federal 4425 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 KCN Limited Edition Owners Association 5030 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Koll Corporate Assoc. LTPSTG 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lebata, Inc. 4621 Teller Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lyon Leon; Lyon William Harwell 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Olen Commercial Realty Encumbrance I Cor 7 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Von Karman LP BP 13031 Newport Avenue Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 Mail to: State Cleadnghouse,.1400 Tenth Strsoom 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 445-OSf3 See Note Below Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal Form SCH # 1. Project Title: Koll Center Newport -Planned Community 2. Lead Agency: _City of Newport Beach 3. Contact Person: Patricia T- Tenmle. Director 3a. SheetAddtess: 3300 Newport Boulevard' 3b. City., Newport Beach 3c. County:_ Orange 3d, Zip- 92660- 3e Phone: (949)644-3200 Project Location 4. County: Orange 4a_ City/Community: NewportBeach 4b. Assessor's Parcel No. 4c. Section: Twp. Range: Base: So. Cross Street _Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 5b. Bor Rural, Nearest Community: 6. Within 2 Miles: a State Hwy#: I.405 Freeway b. Airports:- John Wayne Aiwott c. Railways: ri Waterways: 7. Docnme utType S. Local Action Type 9. Development Type CEQA: IN 01, NOP ❑ 02. Early Consultation ❑ 03. Neg Dec ❑ 04. Draft EIR ❑ 05. Supplemental/Subsequent EM (Prior SCH No.) ❑ 06, NOE ❑ 07. NOC 1108. NOD NEPA: ❑ 09. NOI ❑ 10. FONSI ❑ 11. Draft BIR ❑ 12. EA Other: ❑ 13. Joint Document ❑ 14. Final Document ❑ 15.Other___ 1101. General Plan Update ❑ 02. New Element ■ 03. General Plan Amendment ❑ 04. Master Plan ❑ 05. Annexation ❑ 06. Specific Plan, ❑ 07. Community Plan ❑ 08. Redevelopment ■ 09. Rezone. ❑ 10. Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) ❑ 11. Use Pennit ❑ 01. Residential: Units Acres El 02; Office: 8y. t. 250.000 Acres Employees ❑ 03. Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Jl. Acres Employees ❑ 04. Industrial: Sq . Acres Employees ❑ 05. Water Facilities: MGD ❑ 06. Transportation: Type ❑ 07. Mining- Mineral ❑ 08. Power: Type Watts ❑ 09. Waste Treatment: 2boe ❑ 12: WasteAlgmt Plan ❑ 10. OCS Related ❑ 13. Cancel AS Preserve ❑ 11. Other. ❑ 14.Other Traffic Phasing Ordi 10. Total Acres: 43 11. Total Jobs Created: 12. Project Issues Discussed in Document ■ 01. Aesthetie/Visual 1109. Geologic/Seismic 1117. Social ❑ 02. Agricultura41and ❑ 10. Jobs(Housing Balance 1118. Soil Brosion ■ 03. Air Quality ❑ 11.Minerals ❑ 19. Solid Waste ❑ 04. Arebaeological/Historical IN 12. Noise ❑ 20. Toxic/Hazardous ❑ 05. Coastal Zone ■ 13. Public Services 11121. Traffic/Circulation ❑ o6. Economic ❑ 14. Schools ■ 07. Fire Hazard ❑ 15. Septic Systems ❑ 08. Flooding/Drainage IN 16. Sewer Capacity 13. Fanding(aplmox): FedefalS States_ ❑ 22. Vegetation ❑ 23. Water Quality ■ 24. Water Supply Total $ ❑ 25. Wetland/Riparian ❑ 26. Wildlife t27. Growth Inducing ■ 28, Incompatible Land Use ■ 29. Cumulative Effects ❑ -30.Other 14. Praeot Load Use and Zooing- The subject property is designated -Administrative, Pmfessionat and Financial Commercial on the General Plan and Is zoned Plumed Community (PC). Thesite:is currently developed and is occupie d by approximately I.00Q,000 square feet of office uses. 1S. ProjectDavipdon: 71repmjectptoposesantoereaseof250,000d(gross)sqIar fecto£professioaWofScespacewithmOifleeSiteBoftheKollCenterNewport PlaooeICammmay. This increase in intensity will requires General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Le, Plarned.Community District text amendment). In addition to dre increase in office space, the applicantispmposiog fhe demolition of an existing 24ovel parking structure dut will "laced with a 64"cl parking structure. An additional 24evel parking structure will also be constructed on the site. _ 16, Signature of LadAgeneyRepresentanve: C 004 NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign idvatifrcationnumbers for all new projects_ I£aSCHnumber already exists -for apmject (e.g..from allotice of Preparation or previous draft document)pteasefnl it in. Reviewing Agencies ❑ Resources Agency ❑ Boating/Waterways ❑ Conservation ❑ Fish and Game ❑ Forestry ❑ Colorado River Board ❑ Reclamation ❑ Parks and Recreation ❑ Office of Historic Preservation ❑ Native American Heritage Commission ❑ S.F. Bay Cons. & Dev't Commission ❑ Coastal Commission ❑ Energy Commission ❑ State Lands Commission ❑ Air Resources Board ❑ Solid Waste Management Board ❑ SWRCB: Sacramento ❑ RWQCB: Region #$ ❑ Water Rights ❑ Water Quality ❑ Caltrans District _a Q Dept. Of Transportation Planning ❑ Aeronautics ❑ California Highway Patrol ❑ Housing and Community Development ❑ Health ❑ Food and Agriculture ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Public Works ❑ Corrections ❑ General Services Cl OLA ❑ Santa Monica Mountains ❑ TRPA ❑ 0PR - OLGA ❑ OPR - Coastal ❑ Bureau of LandManagement ❑ Forest Service ❑ Other ❑ Other For SCH Use Only Date Received at SCH Catalog Number Date Review Starts Applicant Date to Agencies Consultant Date to SCH Contact Phone _ Clearance Date Address Notes: N INITIAL STUDY KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Prepared For: City of Newport Beach Economic and Community Development 300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared By: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 September 1999 City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY • 0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Project Title: Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 2. Lead Agency Name/Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newoort Beach, CA 92660-8915 3. Contact Person/Phone Number: Patricia L. Temple, Director Community and Economic Development Department (949)644-3200 4. Project Location: Koll Center Newport Planned Community (Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard). Refer to Attachment A. 5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address: Koll Center Newport Number A. a California Partnership 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Newport beach. CA 92660 Mr. Timothy L. Strader (949) 719-6365 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative. Professional & Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: Planned Community (Koll Center Newport) 8. Description of the Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.): Refer to Attachment A. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): Refer to Attachment A. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement, etc.) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND Name of Proponent: Address: Telephone Number: Date Checklist Submitted: Agency Requiring Checklist: Proposal/Project Title: Koll Newport Number A, a California Partnership 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 420 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 719-6365 August 25, 1999 City of Newport Beach Koll Center Newport Planned Community EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues and Supporting Data Sources: Leas than significant Potentially With Leas Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: 1. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Source[s] #1) 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental -effect? (2a-g,3) 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ plan or natural community conservation plan? (2a) B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 2 Less than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (6) 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a Williamson Act contract? (3) 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses? (4,6) C. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (2g) 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1) 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1) D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 1. Expose people orstructures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning, Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (2e,5) 3 0 2. 3. Ell 5. E. 1 2. 9 b. Strong seismic ground shaking? (2e,6) C. Seismic -related ground failure, Including liquefaction? (2e,6) d. Landslides? (1,2e,6) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (6) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (6) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (6) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the -disposal of waste water? (6) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (6) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (6) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result In substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (6) Less than Slgnincant potentially With Less Than significant Mitigation Slgn&Ant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ IN ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 4 11 • F. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? (1,6) 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (6) 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (6) 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (2e,6) 8. Place with a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (2e,6) 9. Expose people or structures to a significant, risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2e,6) 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (2e,6) 1 2. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (6,7) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (6,7) Less than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Less then Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net Increase ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region Is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (6,7) 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ concentrations? (1,6,7) 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ number of people? (6,7) G. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (4,6) 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (4,6) 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (4,6) 4. Substantially Increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1,4) 5. Result in Inadequate emergency access? (1,4) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2d) i-J 0 H Lessthan Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1) 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department•of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1) 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (1) 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (1) 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (1) 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (1) MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (6) 7 4 Less than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (6) J. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 1, Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (6) 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (6) 3, Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (4,6) 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (6) 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1) 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1) 7. Impair implementation of or physically Interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (2e) U • • Potentially Significant Impact 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (1,2e) Less than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Signigcant No Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ■ K. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,2f) 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (1,2f) 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(2f) 4. A substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (20 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1) 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1) M Lessthan Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact L. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? (6) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 2. Police protection? (6) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 3. Schools? (6) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 4. Parks? (6) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 5. Other public facilities? (6) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ M. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (6) 2. Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (6) 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (6) 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (6) F r. Lessthan Significant Potengally with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (6) 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? (6) 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ regulations related to solid waste? (6) N. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ vista? (1,4,6) 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (1,4,6) 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? (1,6) 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (4) O. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (1,6) 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (1,6) 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (1,6) 11 Lessthan Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact 4. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Interred outside of formal cemeteries? (1,6) P. RECREATION. Would the project: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (1,2c) 2. Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (4) Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have Impacts that are Individually ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 3. Does the project have environmental effects which ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ■ Land Use and Planning ❑ Geology/Soils ■ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ HydrologyMater Quality ❑ Biological Resources ■ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ■ Air Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ■ Public Services ■ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance Ill. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158) ■ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. ❑ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in accordance with Section 711.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ❑ If find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze on the effects that remain to be addressed. 13 0 ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects: (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. M 4w _Patricia L. Temple Printed Name q� A 9 Date 14 11 LIST OF REFERENCES Site Visit, August 2 and 3, 1999; Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 2. Newport Beach General Plan a. Land Use Element (December 1995) b. Housing Element (July 24, 1989) C. Recreation and Open Space Element (June 22, 1998) d. Circulation Element (January 1992) e. Public Safety Element (March 10, 1975) f. Noise Element (October 10, 1994) g. Growth Management Element (May 11, 1992) 3. Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards (Amended August 10, 1998) 4. Proposed Site Plan - Office Site B (No Date) 5. Initial Study, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems General Plan Amendment/PC Amendment; October 26, 1998. 6. Orange County Important Farmland Map, 1996. 7. CEQA Air Quality Handbook; South Coast AQMD; April 1993. 15 INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Newport Beach ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach (City), in central Orange County (County), as shown in Figure A-1. The project site, designated Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community, is located approximately one mile south of the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and approximately two miles east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR- 55) on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard on the southwest, Von Kerman Avenue on the west and northwest, and Birch Street on the north. Adjacent jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project site include the City of Irvine generally to the north, northeast, and southeast; the University of California, Irvine (UCI) east of Jamboree Road; portions of unincorporated Orange County generally to the west, northwest, and south; and the City of Costa Mesa farther to the west. The John Wayne Airport (JWA) is approximately one mile to the northwest in an unincorporated area of the County. B. Project Setting Office Site B (refer to Figure A-2) encompasses approximately 43 acres within the total 177-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC). The area in which the subject property is located is intensively developed. Surrounding development includes professional offices within Office Site A in the area west of Von Kerman Avenue and within Office Site D located north of Birch Street. Conexant (formerly Rockwell Semiconductor Systems) owns facilities within Industrial Sites 1 and 2 immediately north and east of the area in which the proposed project is located. An expansion of the existing Conexant facility is proposed that would allow for the development of an additional 566,000 square feet of light industrial and office space in Industrial Site 1. A General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Koll Center Newport PC is currently being processed by Conexant through the City for that proposed expansion. The subject property comprises a portion of Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planning Community and is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use. The PC is the adopted zoning document for the project site and currently allocates 1,060,898 gross square feet of support retail commercial uses. Although 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space allocated to Office Site B has not been constructed to date, all of the office space allocated for this planning area has been completed and no additional allocation of office use remains for Office Site B. The PC also establishes the development standards for the project site. In addition to the existing commercial development, a total of 3,098 parking spaces is located within this planning area, including 2,219 surface parking spaces and 879 parking spaces in two existing parking structures. The parking for Office Site B is contained within a common area parcel and is shared parking for the office uses occupying Office Site B. Figure A-3 reflects the existing site plan for the portion of Office Site B in which the expansion is proposed. Kol Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach; CA September 1999 SOURCE: NORTH Figure A-1 Maps, 1999 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Orange County Communities Thomas Bros. County Vicinity Map OFFICE SITE A SOURCE: LANGDON WILS( Architecture/Planni L OEFICE SITE D OFFICE SITE B Lake OFFICE (OFFICE SITE E SITE F COURTHOUSE OFFICE SITE G INDUSTRIAL SITE 1 SOURCE: M11 ►; Po NGDON WILSON Architecture/Planning/Interiors Figure A-3 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Existing Site Plan (Office Site B) ATTACHMENT A -PROJECT DESCRIPTION C. Project Characteristics The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Standards adopted for the Koll Center Newport PC. Although the General Plan Amendment and PC District Amendment will affect the entire 43-acre Office Site B component of the KCN, the proposed project affects approximately 5.5 acres within Office Site B. The applicant, Koll Center Newport Number A, is requesting an increase in the intensity of development over that currently allocated for Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office development. This increase would include the conversion of Restaurant Site 2 (5,000 gross square feet) and Retail and Service Center Site 2 (10,000 gross square feet) previously allocated within Office Site B to professional and business office use, also in KCN Office Site B. Approval of this expansion would result in a nearly 25 percent increase in the permitted development for Office Site B. However, the proposed project represents a 6.6 percent increase in the allowable office development would occur over the entire Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Specifically, this expansion includes the construction of a 250,000 (gross) square foot, 10- to 12-story office tower. Upon completion, the project would provide for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.70 for the area encompassing Office Site B. When considering the entire 43-acre Koll Center Newport PC, however, the FAR will increase from 0.55 to 0.58. A 1,250 car, 6-level parking structure is proposed to replace an existing 2-level parking structure located adjacent to the Conexant facility in Industrial Site 1; a 2-level parking structure that will accommodate 380 cars is also proposed where surface parking currently exists at the south end of the site. At buildout as currently proposed, 3,711 parking spaces (1,681 surface parking spaces and 2,030 structured parking spaces) will be provided for tenants of the office development, resulting in a net increase of 613 parking spaces The proposal by the applicant is intended to provide for additional professional office space within Office Site B of KCN as well as provide for an enhanced campus environment and facilitate connectivity to the existing (and future) Rockwell facilities to the north. The proposed site plan is illustrated on Figure A-4. D. Project Approvals Project implementation will necessitate the following discretionary actions and/or project approvals: Approval of a General Plan Amendment that eliminates the restaurant and retail uses currently designated for the subject property and increases in the allowable office use for Office Site B Approval of an Amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations dated May 5, 1972 (Amended August 10, 1998) to increase the amount of office space within Office Site B Kot Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 A-2 SOURCE: .h LANCDON WILSON ArchitecturelPlanning/Interiors Figure A-4 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Proposed Site Plan (Office Site B) ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approval of a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Grading Permit Building Permit Kol Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 Ml INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION City of Newport Beach ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The subject property is a portion of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The site is intensively developed with professional office, retail, restaurant, and industrial uses consistent with the adopted PC District Regulations. No residential development exists within either the PC or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The applicant is proposing to increase the intensity of development within the area designated "Office Site B" by adding an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space to that area. The proposed project will not result in changes in the use of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will neither disrupt nor divide an established residential community. Further, the general circulation patterns will remain unchanged. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. Office Site B within the KCN Planned Community is designated for Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial development. Further, development is regulated by the adopted Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations which allow for a maximum of 963,849 square feet of office development within Office Site B. With the exception of a small retail component and restaurant component that have not been constructed, this area has been developed to the maximum intensity permitted by both the General Plan and PC. Therefore, project implementation will require amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan (Land Use Element) as well as the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow for the proposed increase in development intensity. The addition of 250,000 (gross) square feet of office space would increase the maximum allowable office development permitted within Office Site B within the Koll Center PC to 1,213,849 square feet. Although the proposed project represents a 25 percent increase in the permitted office development within the Office Site B area, it represents only a 6.6 percent increase in the overall development currently approved within the 43-acre Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The floor area ratio within the PC would increase from 0.55 to 0.58 if the project Is approved. The proposed project will provide for the development of additional professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. The proposed project includes design features that address building setbacks, parking structure aesthetics, and maximum building height and massing. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan (i.e., Long Range Development Plan) policies relevant to site development and zoning (i.e., Koll Center Newport PC District Regulations) adopted for the subject property. In addition, the EIR will address land use compatibility and consistency with adjacent development. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 L ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The site is intensively developed and located within an area of the City that is urbanized. No natural habitat remains on the subject property. As a result, site development Is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation planning program or natural community conservation plan. No impacts will occur if the proposed project is implemented, B. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As indicated above, the subject property comprises a portion of Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. This PC as well as the surrounding area is intensively urbanized. The site Is classified as "Urban and Built Up" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map (1996). Further intensification of the subject property will not result in the conversion of prime farmland or other similarly designated lands. No Impacts will occur If the project is implemented as proposed, 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach Land Use Element (Administrative, Professional & Financial commercial) and Zoning (i.e., Koll Center Newport PC) designate the site for development. The site is neither zoned for agricultural use nor encumbered by the provisions of a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no conflicts with agricultural zoning and/or policies will occur. No impacts are -anticipated. 3. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses? No Impact. No existing farmland is located nearthe subject property. Further, no changes in the existing environment are proposed that would either directly or indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts to existing farmland resources will occur if the proposed project is Implemented, Koll Center Newport - Circe Site B City of Newpott Beach, CA September 1999 B-2 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION C. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and roadways. Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport PC is currently developed with approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office space and related uses. The proposed project provides for an increase in the development intensity of Office Site B, resulting in the addition of 250,000 (gross) square feet of office space. Project implementation will neither result in the urbanization of an undeveloped area nor require the extension of major infrastructure. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the proposed project's potential to induce substantial growth, either directly or indirectly, as required in the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As discussed in response C.1, above, the subject property is currently developed with nearly 1,000,000 square feet of office space. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community does not accommodate residential development and no residential development exists either on the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the property. The proposal to intensify development on -site will not result in the displacement of existing housing as none exists there. As a result, no replacement housing will be required. No impacts will occur from implementation of the proposed project. 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Because no residential development exists within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and, in particular, Office Site B where additional development is proposed, no residents will be displaced and there will not be a need to construct replacement housing. No Impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION No Impact. The project site Is located In the seismically active southern California region. Primary ground rupture or fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement which occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the Immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alqulst-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zone as Illustrated on the maps Issued by the State Geologist for the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to fault rupture during a seismic event. No Impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. As Indicated above, the site Is located in a seismically active region. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or In the immediate vicinity of the project site (and the site is not within an Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zone), It is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The project site and environs are located with an area designated as Category 1, a potential seismic hazard area that has the lowest potential risk, The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport -Inglewood, San Andreas, and San Jacinto Faults. Segments of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, approximately 5.5 miles to the south, trend southeast from Santa Monica across the Los Angeles Basin to Newport Beach. The Newport -Inglewood Fault has the potential for a maximum credible earthquake with a Richter Magnitude of 7.0 in the vicinity of the project site. The San Andreas FaultZone, approximately 30 miles to the northeast, has the potential to result in a maximum probable earthquake with a 7.5 Richter Magnitude In the vicinity of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 45 Mlles to the north at its nearest location and has the potential to result in a maximum probable earthquake with a Richter Magnitude of 7.5. Potentially active faults near the project site include the San Gabriel Fault, the Whittier -Elsinore Fault, the Pelican Hill Fault, and an unnamed fault (within the UCI campus). The closest of these potentially active faults is the unnamed fault within the main portion of the UCI campus to the south. Although Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people and structures to ground shaking during a seismic event, this exposure is no greater than exposure present in other areas throughout the southern Califonia region. In addition, development of the propsed project will be subject to the City's standard conditions and the Uniform Building Code that address structure Integrity. The potential Impacts resulting from groundshaking associated with seismic activity are minimized and are less than significant as a result of the structural design mandated by these conditions. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. c. Seismic -related ground failure, Including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction occurs in response to severe groundshaking where loose, saturated, granular sobs lose their Inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for Koll Center Newport - office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 LZ!I ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials, a shallow groundwater table, and a long duration and high acceleration of the seismic shaking. The project site is not located in an area that has been identified as an area that is subject to liquefaction during a seismic event. As a result, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose either people or structures to ground failure due to liquefaction during a seismic event. In addition, development of the proposed project will comply with applicable City -imposed conditions and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code to ensure that significant damage resulting seismic activity, including the potential fonliquefaction are avoided or minimized. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. d. Landslides? No Impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. Further, the subject property and environs are not Identified as areas with the potential for landslides or mudflows. No imapcts are anticiapted and no mitigation measures are required. 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The subject property and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The site has an average elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. Office Site B has been previously graded and supports intensive development, including office buildings, parking structures and parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscape areas. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, the applicant is required to implement erosion and siltation control features pursuant to the City's grading ordinance as well as all applicable local, State and federal regulations. Development of the additional structures will not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the subject property. As a result, the associated potential for erosion will not increase significantly relative to the existing conditions. Therefore, potential erosion and siltation impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and will be minimized through the incorporation of mandated erosion control measures. 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the subject site. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the site due to previous grading, excavation, or placement of fill materials, these conditions will be effectively reduced by measures identified in the site specific geotechnical evaluations that address specific design and construction measures for the proposed office building and parking structures. Any such required measures will be incorporated into the project design and will minimize any potential structural damage. Potential impacts will be less than significant. Kell Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 M ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Subsidence is large scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. Any potential for subsidence in the area in which the office building and related parking facilities are proposed would be identified and addressed in the in the soils and geotechnical report. However, the project site has not been identified as an area with the potential for subsidence; further, the site is Intensively developed and has not been subject to subsidence to date. In addition, withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project. Therefore, no Impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 5. Have soils Incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The site and surrounding area are served by an extensive system of infrastructure, Including sewer collection and transmission facilities. Once constructed, the proposed project will be connected to the existing sewer system and will not rely on a septic system for the disposal and treatment of waste water. No impacts will occur. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. Surface runoff anticipated to occur as a result of construction and/or operation of the proposed professional office building will comprise similar constituents as that occurring from the existing development. These constituents include slit and other materials during construction. In addition, fertilizer residuals from landscaping as well as hydrocarbon and other petroleum based elements associated with the automobile that typically accumulate within the parking structures and/or surface parking lots on -site will also enter the surface runoff as they are washed off during heavy rains. In particular, the applicant must comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements which mandate the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to control predictable pollutant runoff. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be prepared that identifies measures to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Incorporation of these standard conditions will avoid water quality Impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that either water quality standards or waste discharge requirements will be exceeded. 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Koll Center Newport - once site a My of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION No Impact. Groundwater use or extraction is not a component of the proposed project and will not occur. Project implementation will not interfere with groundwater recharge in the groundwater basin and will not affect the local groundwater table which exists at approximately 30 feet below the ground surface. No impacts to groundwater supplies will occur if the proposed project is implemented. 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Impact. No natural drainage -features exist on the subject property. The site has been extensively altered to accommodate the existing professional office, commercial and industrial development. Surface runoff occurs in a northwesterly direction to existing storm drainage facilities. Grading necessary to accommodate the proposed project will not result in any alterations to the existing drainage patterns. Post -development surface and drainage will approximate the rates and directions of existing flows. Therefore, no impacts wII[occur are a result of project implementation. 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in•a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and relatively flat. The subject property has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots, access roadways, walkways, and landscaped areas. The runoff occurring from existing development is currently conveyed off -site by a private storm drain system that flows northwest to the City's storm drain system where it flows into a well -developed riparian wetland located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and discharges into the San Diego Creek Channel and the Upper Newport Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall, runoff enters retention, basins off - site to the northwest. From the retention basins, the majority of the runoff is released into the City's storm drain system at a slower rate. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in changes in surface runoff during construction activities, potential effects will be reduced by compliance with drainage controls imposed by the City's grading and building permit requirements. Specifically, the applicant must comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes. Development of additional building area for the proposed project will not significantly alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. Post -development drainage patterns, absorption rates, and the rate and amount of surface runoff will be the same as under existing (i.e., developed) conditions. In addition, runoff from the project site will continue to be served by the existing on- and off -site storm drain and flood control facilities which are adequate to accommodate the existing and proposed development. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 B-7 0 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact, As Indicated in response EA, the subject property is currently developed and covered with Impervious surfaces. Project implementation will result in little, if any, change in the post -development surface runoff quantities. As a result, the existing on- and off -site storm drainage and flood control system will be adequate to accommodate post - development surface runoff. In order to ensure that polluted runoff does not enter the storm drain system, the applicant will be required to prepare a SWPPP pursuant to NPDES requirements. Measures included in the SWPPP will avoid or minimize potential pollution of surface runoff, both during construction and after development of the project project. No significant Impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. Groundwater in the area Is located approximately 30 feet below the land surface. No groundwater extractions or additions will occur as a result of project implementation and the underlying aquifer will not be intercepted. Subsurface Investigations on nearby properties have revealed that groundwater in the area is degraded by chlorinated volatile organic compounds to a depth of 100 feet below the ground surface. In 1986, groundwater reclamation activities on the Rockwell property northeast of the site began with the installation of a groundwater extraction well field and treatment system. An expanded extraction well field system designed to contain the degraded groundwater was constructed In 1990 and operations began in 1991. Recently additional recharge wells have been added to augment that system. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the addition of activities within Office Site B that would result In the exceedence of regulatory thresholds for the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard zone as designated on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Further, the site is not located in an area that has a potential for significant flooding. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not increase the exposure of people or structures to flood hazards. No Impacts will occur. 8. Place with a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As indicated in response E.7, above, the subject property is not located within the 1 00-year flood plain designated by FEMA. Structures proposed for the subject property will not be located within such an area and no impedance or redirection of flood flows will occur if the project is Implemented. No impacts will occur. Koll CenierNewport - Olrce Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 M ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The KCN Planned Community is not located within the limits of flooding associated with the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, neither occupants of the proposed office expansion project nor the proposed structures will be exposed to a significant risk if the project is implemented. Adequate on -site storm drainage and flood control facilities exist in the area to protect the site from flood -related impacts. No impacts are anticipated to occur. 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. A small lake is located within Office Site B north of the area proposed for development. However the potential for the occurrence of a seiche at that feature during a seismic event is unlikely; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. Due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the project site and vicinity. Similarly, the site is essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic activity or other instability to cause mudflows. Implementation of the proposed project will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. No impacts will occur. F. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Project implementation is generally consistent with the long range plans adopted for the site. Although an intensification of the site is proposed, implementation of the proposed project will not obstruct implementation of the air quality plan adopted for the South Coast Air Basin. The project will be consistent with all of the policies and requirements established by that plan. No impacts to the Air Quality Management Plan are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact. The project is is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. The proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from construction activities that include demolition operations, grading and foundation excavation operations, travel by construction workers to the project site, delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site, fuel combustion by on -site construction equipment, and the application of architectural coatings and other building Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 01 0 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION materials. Operation of the proposed project will also generate pollutant emissions from stationary sources for regional and on -site power generation and mobile source emissions associated with vehicular traffic and from employees and delivery and distribution of supplies and products to and from the project site. The Draft EIR Will provide an analysis of the potential Impacts of these project -related emissions with respect to the violation of any air quality standard or the potential contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the Draft EIR will provide an assessment of the potential for the proposed project to result in potentially significant Impacts associated with pollutant emissions. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated in response F.2, above, project implementation will result in the generation of potentially significant mobile -source emissions. These emissions maybe cumulatively significant when combined with other projects proposed in the vicinity. The Draft EIR will provide an assessment of the potential cumulative Impacts. 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with light industrial and office buildings which comprise Office Site B within Koll Center Newport. The project site is located along between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The land uses adjacent to the project site include professional and industrial offices, commercial and supporting uses (e.g., fast food restaurants), and a courthouse facility. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g„ residential development, parks, schools, etc,) on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Although no significant impacts are anticipated to sensitive receptors, the air quality analysis presented in the Draft EIR will Include an assessment of microscale (Le., carbon monoxide hot spots) air quality Impacts. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Construction of the proposed project will involve activities and the use of equipment typical of development projects of a similar size and type. The emission of significant odors is not anticipated during construction. Further, the operation of the proposed project will not result in the emission of new, objectionable odors either on the site or in the vicinity of the subject property. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City ofNewpottBeach, CA September 1999 B-10 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION G. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in increased vehicle trips associated with construction related activities (short-term) and (long-term) traffic resulting from operation of the proposed office development. A traffic analysis for the proposed project will be prepared consistent with the requirements of City Council Policy L-18 and the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The traffic analysis will define the existing and projected future traffic conditions within the traffic study area, the existing and projected intersection and roadway segment levels of service, and potential deficiencies due to increased vehicle trips as a result of project implementation. The Draft EIR will summarize the potential impacts of the proposed project. 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated in response G.1, above, project implementation will result in an increase in daily trips which could adversely affect the existing levels of service of the adjacent and nearby roadways and intersections. Potential impacts will be analyzed in the traffic analysis described above which will also evaluate cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located northwest of the Office Site B. Air traffic patterns have been established for that facility. Although the applicant is proposing a 10- to 12- story office building on the subject property, neither the location of this facility nor other features proposed by the applicant will result in changes to existing air traffic patterns. A master plan for JWA was developed that addresses future traffic levels as well as noise and safety issues. No significant impacts will occur. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided via two entrances, including one on Jamboree Road to the west and one from MacArthur Boulevard on the east side of the site (Von Kerman Avenue). Parking is currently provided in both surface parking and in parking structures. The proposed project will provide on -site circulation and parking improvements that would include: demolition of an existing 2-level parking structure and construction of a 6-level parking structure in its place; construction of an additional 2-level parking structure to replace and expand existing surface parking in the southern end of the site; redesign of the internal circulation to accommodate the proposed structural improvements; and the creation of pedestrian paths to enhance on -site circulation. These improvements will Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-11 0 0 ATTACHMENTS -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION provide for improved access to and circulation within the project site and will provide adequate parking facilities for the office addition. The proposed project will not introduce hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections or provide for the use of Incompatible equipment on the project site or on nearby roadways. Therefore, no significant Impacts will occur. 5. Result in Inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. Emergency access is currently provided to the project site through the vehicle access points at two entrances along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional emergency vehicle access is provided from Von Karmen Avenue via Birch Street to the north and through a driveway that provides access to the Rockwell facilities north of the subject site. Although construction activities could potentially affect access on the project site on a short-term basis, such construction activities would be completed in accordance with applicable City requirements. The proposed project will not adversely affect existing emergency access on the site and/or around the structures. No significant changes would occur to the existing emergency vehicle access and the proposed project will not result In Inadequate emergency access to the site or affect access to nearby uses. As a result, no Impacts will occur. 6. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Currently, parking for the existing office buildings located in Office Site B are provided in a common area shared by other buildings. The proposed projectwlil provide on -site parking in surface lots and parking structures. As previously indicated, an existing 2-story parking structure will be replaced with a 6-story structure in the same location and an additional 2-story parking structure will be constructed at the southern end of the site. The number of parking spaces provided will be based on the standards prescribed in the Koil Center Newport PC District regulations. No significant Impacts will occur. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs, supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than Significant Impact. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan includes policies that require the adoption of transportation system management plans to reduce peak hour traffic. Such measures -include ridesharing programs, vanpooling, and flexible work hours. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques, in addition, the City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles both for transportation, to mitigate traffic levels, and for recreation to Promote health and fitness. Finally, bus service is provided along the major roadways within the City, including Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in conflicts either with existing programs or adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented. Kell Center Newport - OfBce Site B City at Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-12 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site has been previously graded and is intensively developed and is located within an urbanized area of the County. On -site vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. Wildlife is limited to common species typically found in urban environments. There are no known endangered, threatened, or rare plant or wildlife species or sensitive habitats that occupy the subject property. The proposed project will not result in any significant direct impacts to any sensitive species of plants or animals. 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As indicated in response H.1, above, the site is completely developed. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat exists on the property. Further, site development will not require grading or other activities in areas that will be subject to policies prescribed by the resource agencies. No impacts will occur. 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Grading and site development will not result in potential impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. As previously indicated, the has been graded and developed and does not encompass any natural biological features. There are no natural water sources, water courses, or associated wetland habitat on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect wetland habitat located closest to the project site at the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh to the east and the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard to the south. Runoff from the project site does not flow towards the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh and would not affect the wetlands at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard because there would be no significant change in the quantity or quality of surface runoff from the project site. Therefore, no impacts will occur. 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The site does not contain open space utilized by wildlife for wildlife migration or dispersal. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-13 I. J. ATTACHMENT 8 -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No locally designated species are known to existing on the project site. The proposed project will not result In the removal of any locally designated plan or wildlife species, including heritage trees or other significant, designated species. Therefore, no impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As Indicated previously, the developed site Is devoid of natural habitat and wildlife and supports only introduced landscape specimens. It is not located with an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other adopted resource plan. Therefore, project Implementation will not be affected -by or subject to any provisions of such resources conservation plans. No impacts will occur. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No mineral resources are known to exist on or adjacent to the project site. Further, significant improvements, Including office buildings, parking structures, and landscaping and other Improvements exist on the subject property. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region. No impacts will occur. 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated above, no mineral resources are known to exist on the property and none are identified and/or recognized on the Newport Beach General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts to locally Important mineral resources. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Although a portion of the KCN Planned Community east of Office Site B is used Kali CenterNewport - 010ce Site a City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-14 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION for light manufacturing where some hazardous materials may be used, the proposed project does not include the use of such materials on -site. Therefore, no impacts to the public resulting from the use of hazardous materials, including their transport and disposal, will occur. 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The proposed professional office development is not a use that will result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards. The new facilities include only traditional administrative and professional office uses. No materials Will be used on -site that would result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. As indicated above, implementation of the proposed project will not result in the emission of hazardous materials on the subject property. No hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances will be utilized and/or emitted from the subject property within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impacts will occur. 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Prior to site development, the property was part of the extensive agricultural activities that existed in the County. Site development began in approximately 1972. Since that time, Office Site B has been intensively developed in accordance with the commercial, professional office and retail uses permitted by the KCN Planned Community. As a result, the site is not currently included in a list of hazardous materials sites and, therefore, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. Office Site B located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community is within two miles of John Wayne Airport. This facility is located northwest of the subject site, west of MacArthur Boulevard. Safety hazards resulting from flight operations at JWA have been identified in that facility's master plan. Although a portion of the subject property is located within that airport's 60 dB CNEL noise contour, it is generally not within any identified crash hazard zone. Therefore, neither the proposed office and parking structures nor future occupants will be subject to a significant safety hazard. if it is determined that the proposed office building is located within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designated areas, the structures will be subject to restrictions and regulations imposed by that agency. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-15 ATTACHMENTS -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION However, as indicated above, no significant impacts to the people working at the office building will occur. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The subject property is located within an intensively urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County. Only John Wayne Airport, and no other private airstrips, Is located in the vicinity of the site (refer to J.5, above). No potential safety hazards for occupants of the existing or proposed office structures will occur from activities at a private airstrip. As a result, no impacts will occur if the project is Implemented as proposed. 7. Impair implementation of or physically Interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Construction and operation of the additional building area for the proposed project will not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans either on -site or in the local area. 6. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wildiands? No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a high fire hazard area orwhero wildland fires occur. Site development as proposed will comply with the applicable fire and safety provisions of the City's fire regulations and will not result In an increased Welland fire hazard. No impacts will occur as a result of project Implementation. K. NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established In the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with professional office uses, light industrial uses, and other commercial uses. The project site is located between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard; Von Karmen Avenue meanders from MacArthur Boulevard to Birch Street north of the site. Ambient noise in the area is typical of intensively urbanized areas, resulting primarily from vehicular traffic utilizing these arterials and roadways. In addition, JWA is located northwest of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Aviation noise resulting from aircraft operations at that facility also contribute to the ambient noise environment within the project area. Development of the proposed project will result in an increase in existing noise levels due to construction activities, Increased vehicular traffic and, to a lesser degree, facility operations. The Draft EIR will include an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project associated with increases in the existing noise levels and the potential for exposure of people occupying the proposed professional office development to severe noise levels. Koll Center Newport - Office Slte a City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-16 0 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Typical grading and construction techniques are anticipated in order to implement the proposed professional office building, parking structures, and related facilities. No operations will result in excessive ground borne vibration and/or noise. Potential impacts associated with these activities will remain less than significant. 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. Aside from the potential increases in vehicular noise associated with increased traffic, no significant, permanent noise will be generated on -site as a result of the proposed project. The acoustical analysis will include an evaluation of the vehicular noise that will occur along the adjacent and nearby arterials and roadways that serve the site. 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated in response KA, above, construction activities, although short-term in nature, will create noise within the areas where the structures and other facilities are proposed. Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The earthmoving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The loudest earthmoving noise sources may be detectable above the local background levels well. beyond the immediate are of construction activity. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential construction noise associated with project implementation. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. A portion of Office Site B within the KCN Planned Community is located in the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of JWA located northwest of the subject property. Although the proposed use is compatible with the exterior noise levels associated with the operations at JWA, the Draft EIR will include a discussion of the airport noise impacts and the noise compatibility criteria for site development. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; no impacts will result from project implementation. However, as indicated in response K.5, above, JWA is located northwest of the subject property. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 B-17 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION L. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Fire and emergency medical services within the project area are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Primary response services are provided by Fire Station No. 3 located at 868 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 3 miles southwest of the subject property. The increased use in the project site by employees could generate additional demands on fire protection and emergency medical services. The Draft EIR will include an analysis of these potential cumulative Impacts of the project project with respect to fire protection and emergency medical services. 2. Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Police services within the project area are provided by the Newport Beach Policy Department located at 870 Santa Barbara Avenue, approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site. The increased use of the project site by employees could generate additional demands on police protection services. The Draft EIR will Include an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the project project with respect to police protection services. 3. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Santa Ana Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, school services will not be directly impacted. However, the proposed project Includes the expansion of existing professional office facilities and employment opportunities generated by the proposed project could have the potential to generate a demand for housing. This demand for housing and the associated Increase demand for school services is within regional levels accounted for by regional and local population projections. No significant Impact will occur if the project is Implemented. 4. Parks? Less than Significant Impact. There are no park facilities on the site or that will be directly affected by project implementation. As Indicated above in response to L.3, the additional professional office may create a demand for additional housing that could generate additional residents in the City of Newport Beach, However, these Indirect Impacts In the form of an Incremental demand for recreational facilities is not considered to be significant. K011 Center Newport - O/Rce Site B C1ty of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 8-18 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 5. Other public facilities? No Impact. Demand for governmental or other public services such as libraries are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. Although the proposed project will generate additional employees, there are no residential units included as part of the proposed project. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any direct impacts with respect to governmental or other public services. M. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any direct discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements. All of the raw sewage generated by the proposed project can be accommodated and adequately treated by existing facilities or those planned by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). No significant impacts will occur. 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is developed and existing water infrastructure, including water treatment and distribution facilities exist and are adequate to serve the site without expanding these facilities. Similarly, the OCSD has treatment facilities to serve the subject property and larger service area. That agency has recently proposed its 1999 Strategic Plan that includes several improvements to the existing system, including the addition of treatment capacity, that will be necessary to adequately collect and treat raw sewage. Although it is not likely that the proposed project will, by itself, require the expansion of either new water and/or wastewater facilities, the Draft EIR will evaluate the potential cumulative impacts associated with the increased demand for water and sewer service (refer to responses MA and M.5, below). 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated previously in response E.4, post -development surface runoff is anticipated to be similar to that which currently exists. Although on -site facilities may be necessary, it is not anticipated that significant new off -site storm drainage and/or flood control facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 -®' ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact. The site and surrounding area are Intensively urbanized. Although existing water infrastructure is available to the site, implementation of the proposed project could result in alterations in the demand on local or regional water supplies. The Draft EIR will provide an analysis of the potential Impacts resulting from project implementation with respect to local and regional water supplies. 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing wastewater infrastructure. The Orange County Sanitation District Is responsible for providing wastewater treatment. Implementation of the proposed project will result in an Increase of raw sewage which will create a demand for treatment. The Orange County Sanitation District has proposed its 1999 Strategic Plan that includes several alternatives for increasing the treatment and capacity of its existing facilities. The potential Increase in wastewater generated by the intensification may exceed the allocation based on the existing KCN Planned community. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential impacts associated with project implementation. 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The County of Orange owns and operates three active landfills. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is the closest facility to the project, and will likely be the solid waste facility receiving the waste. The City of Newport Beach is under contract to County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) to commit all of its waste to the County landfill system (not to a particular facility) until the year 2007. At the same time, the landfill system is accepting additional waste from outside Orange County. Under these circumstances, it has been agreed that should the cumulative effect of development cause the daily tonnage ceiling of a particular facility to be exceeded, the waste being imported to that facility will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Consequently, it may be assumed that adequate capacity for the subject project is available for the foreseeable future. Therefore, potential Impacts resulting from waste generated by the proposed project will be less than significant. 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Notwithstanding the availability of capacity in the County landfill system, the State of California required that by the year 2000, each city and county reduce by at least 50 percent the amount of waste going into landfills that each city or county had landfill -disposed in the year 1990. Waste haulers are expected to fulfill that mandate by recycling residential and commercial waste collected. In addition, project developers are also expected to reduce the amount of construction -generated waste by the same amount. The applicant will be required to comply with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) adopted by the City of Koil Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 i_ ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Newport Beach to achieve the mandated reductions. Therefore, no impacts will result from project implementation. N. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area. The project site has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking lots and parking structures, access drives and roadways, walkways, and landscaped area. Neither MacArthur Boulevard nor Jamboree Road is designated as a scenic highway. Further, there are no designated scenic vistas or other scenic highways within the immediate vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project will provide for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project within KCN Office Site B will not have a significant impact on an existing vista. The introduction of an additional 10- to 12-story structure on the site is generally consistent with the existing aesthetic character on the site and in the vicinity. Potential impacts will remain less than significant. 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The site is located in an intensively urbanized area that does not posses any of the characteristics noted above (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, etc.). Further, neither Jamboree Road nor MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a state scenic highway and there are no historic buildings either on the site or in the immediate vicinity that would be affected by project implementation. As a result, no impacts to scenic resources will occur if the project is developed as proposed. 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated above, the site is located within a highly urbanized area. The majority of the projectsite has been previously graded and developed with buildings, parking structures and surface parking, walkways, and landscaped areas. Implementation of the proposed project will provide for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office space with supporting parking facilities and landscaped open space. Although such development will be consistent with existing uses on - site and in the vicinity of the property, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 10- to 12- story office tower, a 6-level parking structure to replace an existing 2-story structure, and a new 2-story parking structure were surface parking currently existing. The potential visual impacts associated with the addition of these structures will be evaluated in the Draft EIR. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-21 0 ATTACHMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact. Existing lighting sources on the project site Include surface parking lot lighting, exterior light fixtures on the perimeter of buildings, and security lighting. The new professional office and parking structures will require additional nighttime lighting. The effect of the additional lighting and potential glare created by the new building will be evaluated In the Draft EIR. O. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The site is intensively developed with commercial, professional office and Industrial/office uses. Development of the site began in the early 1970s. All of the structures and features existing on the subject property are of recent construction and have no historical significance associated with them. Intensification of the site as proposed will not result in impacts to existing historical resources as none exist on the site. No impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No archaeological sites are know to exist on the project site. The site has already been subject to extensive disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been destroyed or, at the least, disturbed. Although implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to disturb archaeological resources, any potential effects would be avoided or minimized by compliance with conditions imposed by the City that require monitoring during grading operations and the salvage and catalog of cultural materials as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material. If major archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City. The archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance Is provided that they will be property preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case Items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City, No significant Impacts will occur with the incorporation of this conditions. K011 Center Newport - Office Silo B City of Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-22 ATTACHMENT B -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Directly or Indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. The project site with within an area underlain by rocks of the Los Trancos member of the Topanga formation which is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Any surricial paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been unearthed or disturbed as a result of site development. Although there is a possibility that paleontological resources exist beneath the site, it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered because of their location anticipated to extend beyond the depth of grading. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation and/or construction, potential impacts to those resources would be minimized by compliance with the City's requirement to monitor grading activities. Specifically, the project applicant must provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog fossils as necessary. The palaeontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long- term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Implementation of this condition will ensure that any potential impacts to paleontological resources will be avoided or minimized. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no known ethnic cultural values attributable to the project site. In particular, no human remains are known to exist on the subject property. The site has been significantly altered by past grading and site development and no human remains were discovered during those operations. Although project implementation will necessitate additional grading to prepare the site for development as proposed, it is unlikely that any human remains will be encountered. No impacts will occur. P. RECREATION. Would the project: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. Demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities are primarily generated by permanent residential populations. As there Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City or Newport Beach, CA September 1999 B-23 • ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, no direct Impacts will occur, The proposed project will generate additional employees at the project site. Although the increase In the on -site employment has the potential to affect adult recreation programs in the City, the resulting increase in population derived from the future employment will result in only minor impacts to the City's existing and projected recreation facilities inventory. These impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures will be required. 2. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Project implementation does not include the construction of any new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Similarly, the minor indirect impacts resulting from an Incremental addition to the City's population will not necessitate recreation facility Improvements. Therefore, no significant adverse physical effects (e.g., landform alteration, biological Impacts, etc.) will occur if the project is implemented. Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining, levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project site has been developed and is heavily Impacted by past activities. Development of the proposed project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. No native habitat or wildlife exists on or inhabits the subject property. Further, no cultural or historical resources are located on the site. In particular, project implementation will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate Important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. Does the project have Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects,) Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project does have the potential to generate project -related impacts that may be cumulatively considerable (e.g., air quality). The Draft EIR will Include analyses of the potential impacts resulting from project implementation with respect to land use and planning, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and public facilities and services. The project -related and cumulative impacts associated with this issues will be thoroughly evaluated in the Draft EIR. Kali Center Newport - OMce Site B Cityo/Newport Beech, CA September 1999 B-24 ATTACHMENT B - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental effects which could cause adverse effects on humans, either directly (e.g., traffic and circulation, etc.) or indirectly (e.g., contribute to deficiencies in public services and/or facilities). The Draft EIR will provide analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to these issues. Koll Center Newport - Office Site B City of Newport Beach, CA September1999 B-25 Santa Ana Unified School District V FACILITIES & GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Al Mijares, Ph.D., Superintendent RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 15, 1999 CITY OF N1F.: PPR-,=EACH Patricia Temple Director, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 17687 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 AM OCT 19 10 PM g181911011111 ti I Z 1213141816 SUBJECT: KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for including the Santa Ana Unified School District in the process to submit comments regarding the project identified above. The District understands this project will be comprised of new office buildings located northwest of Jamboree Road, northeast of MacArthur Boulevard, southeast of Von Karman Avenue and southwest of Birch Street. We agree with the environmental evaluation statements made on page B-18 in regard to schools. However, we believe developer fees should be levied as required by state law. Should you have any questions please call me at (714)480-5361. Gordon Itow Facilities Planner T:\USERS\SHARED\WP W IN\Kol]EIR.wpd 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322, (714) 480-5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION John Palacio, President • Nadia Maria Davis, Vice President • Nativo Lopez, Clerk Rosemarie Avila, Member • Audrey Yamagata•Noji, Ph.D., Member STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 RECEIVED BY IRVINE, CA 92612-0661 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY October 12, 1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: Subject: Koll Center Newport Number A AM OCT 18 1999 PM 718 19 110 1111 1P. 11,213,41516 IGR/CEQA NOP/DEIR SCH # None Log # 616 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project Koll Center Newport Number A, a California Partnership/Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (NOP/DEIR). The proposed project encompasses approximately 43 acres within the total 177-care Koll Center Newport Planned Community in an extensively developed area. The applicant, Koll Center Newport Number A, is requesting an increase in the intensity of development over that currently allocated for Office Site B within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposed project would allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office development. This expansion would result in a nearly 25 percent increase in the permitted development of Office Site B. The proposed project is located in the western portion of the City of Newport Beach within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; one mile south of 1-405, and 2 miles east of SR-55; on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard on the .southwest, Von Kerman Avenue on the west and northwest, and Birch Avenue on the north. -1 of 2- !, Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has the following comments: • The proposed project could have an impact on area State Transportation Facilities. A detailed traffic study should be prepared that includes existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation (including peak hour), traffic distribution, and intersection analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual. Any impacts to the 1-405, SR-73, and SR-55 as well as the following intersections needs to be included: SR-73 and Jamboree, 1-405 and Jamboree, 1-405 and MacArthur. • Include in the traffic study a full description of mitigation measures proposed to alleviate any traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. These measures could include alternative transportation measures (Transportation Demand Management — TDM) as well as Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies. Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, G� Robert F. �cr eACh'f Advance Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR Judy Heyer, Transportation Planning Massoud Tajik, Traffic Operations -2 of 2- Oct 15 99 10:39a Keeton K. Kreitzer (949) 756-2207 P.1 r Fax • • • To: Patricia L. Temple, Director• Of- Newport Beach Planning Department Fax: (949) 644-3250 Phone: (949) 644=3200 Pages: 3, including this cover sheet Date: October 15, 1999 Patty: Larry requested that I copy you on this memorandum that reflects my observations regarding the NOP comments received thus far. As you can see, I have recommended that we proceed with the Koll document in a manner that is consistent with the Conexant project. From the desk of Keeton K. Kreiuer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, California 92614 Tel: (949) 756-2202 Fax: (949) 756-2207 Oct 15 99 10:39a Keeton K. Kreitzer (349) 756-2207 p.2 r M E M O R A N D U M To: Copy: From: Subject: Date: Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach Keeton K. Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Koll Center Newport/NOP Comments October 15, 1999 The NOP comment period is scheduled to end on October 22, 1999. To date, I have received five (5) NOP comment letters from the following agencies: • Transportation Corridor Agencies (September 28, 1999) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (September 29, 1999) • Southern California Association of Governments (October 4, 1999) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (October 6, 1999) • City of Irvine (October 7, 1999) I Have compared the comments received from these agencies with the comments by the same agencies on the Conexant NOP. While the letters from the Transportation Corridor Agencies and SCAQMD are virtually the same letters, I have noticed several differences in the remaining three letters as identified below. SCAG comments on the Conexant project included a request that the D[IR "... cite the appropriate SCAG policies and address the manner in which the Project is consistent with applicable core policies orsupportive of applicable ancillary policies." The SCAG NOP comment letter for the Kell project indicates that "... the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time." Items I and III in the Regional Water Quality Control Board letter on the Conexant project are very similar (although some slight differences) in the issues to be address; however, Item II in the Conexant comment letter that identifies the need to address certain "Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Service" is omitted from the Koll Center NOP comment letter. From the desk of.. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)756-2202 Fax: (949) 756-2207 Oct 15 99 10:39a Keeton K. Kreitzer (349) 756-2207 p.3 Mr. Larry Lawrence Lawrence Associates October 15, 1999 Page 2 The City of Irvine NOP comment letter on the Conexant project identified ten (1) additional intersection the City wants analyzed in the traffic analysis; however, the City's NOP comment letter on the Kell project "... recommends the completion of a comprehensive traffic study utilizing the Orange County Congestion Management Program requirement to determine which intersections will be included in the study." The reason for the differences is likely attributable to the fact that the NOPs for the two projects were reviewed by different staff members at the affected agencies and there was no understanding of the relationship of the two projects. As we have previously discussed with regard to the traffic issues (i.e., the Kell Center Newport EIR should analyze the same intersections in the same manner that the Conexant EIR has done), we should continue to follow the same approach with other issues that are identified (or not identified) in the NOP comments. To that end, it is my recommendation that, similar to the traffic study determination, the Koll Center Newport EIR should also evaluate the relevant SCAC policies as well as the RWQCB issues that were not included in the NOP comment letters on the project. This tact will ensure the consistency between the two documents and avoid some comments that may occur during the Draft EIR public comment period. From the desk of.. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)756-2202 rux: (949) 756-2207 City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH AM OCT 13 1999 PM 7i 819110111112111213141616 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR - Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the proposed amendment to .the. Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations. , , - • . , The City of Irvine welcomes the opportunity to review the Draft EIR when it becomes available. The City of Irvine recommends the completion of a comprehensive traffic study utilizing the Orange County Congestion Management Program requirements to determine which intersections will be included in the study. For impacted intersections, please identify the responsible party, funding mechanism, and timetable for completion of all mitigation measures. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call me at (949) 724-6354. BARB C. CURTIS, AICP Senior Planner Bec/bcc W. VIEW Y � cc: - Peggy Schneble, Manager of Planning and Development Services Leslie Aranda, Principal Planner PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER L,IltltlJ IXYIi�MNC9 Wd191UI31NCf IRTMRANI{ WATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., P.O. Box 57000, Irvine, CA 92619-7000 (949) 453-5300 October 14,1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVE© BY PLANNING DEPARTML1014GKHENT CITY OF NEWPrIRT I-EAOH AM pGT 2 0 i9�� PM 7181911011111rP4111213141516 V. Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Koll Center Newport Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the subject NOP for the proposed project. The document adequately identifies issues critical to water service to the proposed project; the comments below are intended to assist in the preparation of the DEIR. Section 4 in the Utilities and Service Systems discussion addresses the need to analyze water use demand and states the DEIR will provide that analysis. The 1999 Water Resources Master Plan is IRWD's most current planning document that identifies commercial water demand factors and should be referenced in the analysis. In addition, recycled (reclaimed) water is available in the vicinity of the project site and the building may be a candidate for dual plumbing for recycled water use to the toilet and urinals of the high rise. Please contact Al Dyson in Development Services (949-453- 5595) at your earliest convenience toassurethis issue is addressed early in the planning phase. IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review the NOP and looks forward to the issuance of the DEIR. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Richard A. Diamond, Senior Planner at (949) 453-5594. Yours truly, Richard B. Bell, P.E. Manager, Planning and Resources County of Orange o t� Planning & Development Services Department �LIFOR� OCT Z 11999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: NOP for the Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR 300 N. FLOWER ST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 927024048 NCL 99-81 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF tiF:1&1PnRT BEACH AM OCT 2 51999 PM 7i 81911011111u 111213141019 The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Standards adopted for the Koll Center Newport (KCN) PC. The proposed project is in the 43-acre Office Site B and would allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office development. This increase would include the conversion of Restaurant Site 2 (5,000 gross square feet) and Retail and Service Center Site 2 (10,000 gross square feet) previously allocated within Office Site B to professional and business office use, also in KCN Office Site B. The KCN is generally located in the Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard area. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY 1. The Environmental Checklist Section E. Hydrology and Water Quality, (5) is checked "less than significant impact". We recommend it be checked "less than significant with mitigation incorporated". 2. The Environmental Evaluation Section, item 5, makes reference to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) preparation but does not discuss a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction Best Management Practices. We suggest wording similar to the County's standard WQl condition (attached), with the additional words, "for each and every project development", will suffice for compliance with the non -point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, of which the City is a co-permittee. We further suggest wording similar to the County's standard WQ4 condition (also attached) will suffice to comply with the State non -point source NPDES program, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. 4. A water quality issue of equal importance to the referenced NPDES compliance to be addressed in the DEIR is Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL) reductions related to water quality impairment in the Newport Bay watershed. Since the remainder of this center was developed, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has imposed TMDL requirements for nutrients and sediments in the Newport Bay watershed and these issues should be recognized in the water quality discussion. 5. Page B-8 of the NOP suggests no interception of groundwater below the site (either suspected or known as contaminated) will occur. However, there is no mention of the potential foundation depths of the project. If dewatering of the foundation is required after construction, the DEIR should examine disposal options for this water. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Bikeways: 6. It is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach Bikeway Plan depicts existing, paved, off -road bikeways along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard in the project vicinity. We recommend the DEIR provide mitigation measures to protect these bikeways in place. The County suggests that the City continue to encourage the use of bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation (as discussed on Page B-12, #7). Specific mitigation measures within the DEIR could include: a. Bikeway identification signage along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. b. Bikeway lockers and/or bike racks at all project buildings. C. Showers at larger places of employment. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 8. We would like to indicate the necessity for the Koll Center Newport to file a 7460 form with the FAA which covers proposed projects or construction affecting navigable airspace. The FAA will make a determination on the project as to whether or not it is deemed as an obstruction to navigable airspace. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOR Please send one complete set of the DEIR to me at the above address when they become available. I£ you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Hanyman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834-2522. Very truly yours, George Bntton, Manager Environmental and Project Planning Services Division Attachments M open for inspection by any government agency upon request. Used oil filters should be stored in a closed rainproof container that is capable of containing any used oil and should be managed as specified in Title 22, Chapter 30, Division 4, Section 66828 of the California Code of Regulations. RC3 VEHICLES AWAITING REPAIR AP/TTM/TPM Approvals: no not apply. UP/SDP Approvals: <<RC3>> ER ER NA VEH AWAITING REPAIR No exterior portion of an automotive repair facility may be utilized for automobile storage other than temporary parking (less than 24 hours). Any automobile that will be stored on the premises for 24 hours or more must be stored inside the facility. No vehicle with any fluid leaks may be stored outdoors unless it has been completely drained of fluids. WATER QUALITY W01 POLLUTANT RUNOFF AP/UP/SDP/TTM/TPM Approvals: <<WQ1» ER SG GB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from Manager,.•Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff. This WQMP' shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association; lessee, etc.); and., shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. - WQ2 POLLUTANT RUNOFF AP/UP/SDP/TTM/TPM Approvals: «WQ2» To all discretionary projects (except u*e of existing flood space in an existing building): r. ER SG RGB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, or issuance of precise grading permits or building permits,.whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Manager, Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPS) that will be used on -site SG SG RGB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, or issuance of precise grading permits or building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Manager, Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which. details implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. WQ3 CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT AP Approval: Do not apply. UP/SDP/TfM/TPM Approvals (nonresidential projects): MP MP BU CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy or building permits for individual tenant improvements or construction permits for a tank or pipeline, the applicant shall identify the proposed uses and, for specified uses, the applicant shall propose plans and measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) to the satisfaction of the Manager, PFRD/Monitoring Programs. Chemical management plans shall be approved by the Manager, PFRD/Monitoring Programs in consultation with other agencies such as the County Fire Authority, the Health Care Agency, and sewerind agencies to ensure implementation of each agency's respective requirements. Further, a copy of the approved "Chemical Management Plans" shall be furnished to the Manager, Building Inspection, prior to the Issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy. WQ4 NPDES GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT AP/UP/SDP/TTM/TPM Approvals: SG SG G NPDES PERMIT Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Manager, Subdivision and Grading, that the applicant has obtained coverage under the NPDES statewide General Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 16 (sent by: PDSD/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 10/21/99 4:56PM;Je1Fax #692;Page 1/5 County of Orange Planning & Development Servic FOR 0 CT 2 1 1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P,O. Box 1769 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: NOP for the Kell Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: Post-W Fax Note 7671 Dale a 4g1 7o P�L`l ."L oarwolp Fran C -0- ICI cn./oepL pLdkjlull 6- CIM Co. R4,A0N1k Phona x�'`125�� J Fell# ,/4 xN 'd,-7.3T—es,i3� NCL 99-81 The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Planned Community Development Standards adopted for the Koll Center Newport (KCN) PC. The proposed project is in the 43-acre Office Site B and would allow for the development of an additional 250,000 (gross) square feet of professional office development. This increase would include the conversion of Restaurant Site 2 (5,000 gross square feet) and Retail and Service Center Site 2 (10,000 gross square feet) previously allocated within Office Site B to professional and business office use, also in KCN Office Site B. The KCN is generally located in the Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard area. The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY The Environmental Checklist Section E. Hydrology and Water Quality, (5) is checked "less than significant impact". We recommend it be checked `less than significant with mitigation incorporated". 2. The Environmental Evaluation Section, item 5, makes reference to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) preparation but does not discuss a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction Best Management Practices. We suggest wording similar to the County's standard WQl condition (attached), with the additional words, sent by: PDSD/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 10/21/99 4:56PM;]aLE #692;Page 2/5 4 "for each and every project development", will suffice for compliance with the non -point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, of which the City is a co-permittee. 3. We further suggest wording similar to the County's standard WQ4 condition (also attached) will suffice to comply with the State non -point source NPDES program, which requires preparation of a S WPPP. 4. A water quality issue of equal importance to the referenced NPDFS compliance to be addressed in the DEIR is Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDI.) reductions related to water quality impairment in the Newport Bay watershed. Since the remainder of this center was developed, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has imposed TMDL requirements for nutrients and sediments in the Newport Bay watershed and these issues should be recognized in the water quality discussion. 5, Page B-8 of the NOP suggests no interception of groundwater below the site (either suspected or known as contaminated) will occur. However, there is no mention of the potential foundation depths of the project. If dewatering of the foundation is required after construction, the DEIR should examine disposal options for this water. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION B ikeways: 6. It is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach Bikeway Plan depicts existing, paved, off -road bikeways along Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard in the project vicinity. We recommend the DEIR provide mitigation measures to protect these bikeways in place. The County suggests that the City continue to encourage the use of bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation (as discussed on Page B-12, V). Specific mitigation measures within the DEIR could include: a. Bikeway identification signage along Jamboree Road and MacArrhur Boulevard. b, Bikeway lockers and/or bike racks at all project buildings. C. Showers at larger places of employment. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 8. We would like to indicate the necessity for the Koll Center Newport to file a 7460 form with the FAA which covers proposed projects or construction affecting navigable airspace. The FAA will make a determination on the project as to whether or not it is deemed as an obstruction to navigable airspace. by: POSE/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 10/21/99 4:57PM;J LEVX #692;Page 3/5 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. please send one complete set of the D) IR to me at the above address when they become available. if you have any questions, please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714)834-2522. Very truly yours, George Bt tton, Manager Environmental and Project planning Services Division Attachments CH .� ovo'�'^TM^nC agency upon request Used oil open for inspection by any g filters should be stored in a closed rainproof container that is capable of containing any used oil and should be managed as specified in Title 22, Chapter 30, Division 4, Section 66828 of the California Code Of Regulations. cc RC3 VEHICLES AWAITING REPAIR Ap /1- M Tn*1 Annroval s - no not apply. ML22P_A2provalsc CeRC3» uM AWAITING REPAIR ER ER NA be utilized for No exterior portion of an automotive repair facility maY automobile storage other than temporary parking (less than 24 hours). Any automobile that will be stored on the premises for 24 hours or more must be stored inside the facility. No vehicle with any fluid leaks may be stored outdoors unless it has been completely drained of fluids. WATER QDALITY WQ1 POLLUTANT RUNOFF . U/Np/Spp/TTm/TPM Approvals: <cWQl>> POLLUTANT RUNOFF ER SG GH prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, Whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval om Plan Manager,, Subdivision and Grading, of a Water Quality Management (wow) specificall;. identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to Control predictable pollutant runoff_ This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, or and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of Bps everanaeey are applicable to a Project, the assignment of long - responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, shall reference the locations) of structural BMps. WQ2 POLLUTANT RUNOFF AP/TIP /SnP�TTM/TPM AonrovaIs: c <WQ2» To all discretionary projects (except uSe of existing flood space is an existing building): POLL27TANP RUNOFF ER SG ROD or issuance of precise prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, grading permits or building permits,.whichever comes first. the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the manager. s ailv"ion and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site Sent by: PDSD/ENV&PROJECT PLN'G 714 8346132; 10/21/99 4:57PM;Je[Fnx #692;Page 5/5 SG SG RGB POLLUTANT RUNOFF Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, or issuance of precise grading permits or building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Manager, SubddbAsion and Grading, of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMps) that will be used on -site to control predictable pollutant runoff. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of SMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. WQ3 CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT AP A : Do not apply. Up/Spp /TPM Aoamvals (nonresidential projects): MP MP BU CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy or building permits for individual tenant improvements or construction permits for a tank or pipeline, the applicant shall identify the proposed uses and, for specified uses, the applicant shall propose plans and measures for chemical management (including, but not limited to, storage, emergency response, employee training, spill contingencies and disposal) to the satisfaction of the Manager, PFRD/Monitoring Programs. Chemical management plans shall be approved by the Manager, PFRD/Monitoring Programs in consultation with other agencies such as the County Fire Authority, the Health Care Agency, and sewering agencies to ensure implementation of each agency's respective requirements. Further, a copy of the approved "Chemical Management Plans" shall be furnished to the Manager, Building Inspection, prior to the Issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy. WQ4 NPDES GENERAL STQRMWATER PERMIT AP/UP/SDPITT 1LD2M Aopmval5: -� SG SG G NPDES PERMIT Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Manager, Subdivision and Grading, that the applicant has obtained coverage under the NPDES statewide General Stnrmwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 16 M / From : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Oct.20.1999 01:32 P11 P01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON THE KOLL PROJECT NOTICE OF PREPARATION This project, like the Rockwell/Conexant project directly adjacent to the North, deals with intensifying already -developed land; so many impacts that might be present in the development of "raw" land do not exist here. However, there are impacts, especially traffic impacts, that would be very substantial as a result of a total of almost 800,000 square feel of new and additional office space being added on adjacent properties. This is almost as much additional office space as is being proposed to be added in the long-range plan for all of Newport Center, in a block (bounded by Jamboree, MacArthur, Von Karmon and Birch) that is already developed with more than 1 million square feel of office and more than 400,000 square feel of industrial uses. The following comments are suggested for EQAC consideration on the Koll NOP: PAGE ITEM COMMENT B-1 A.2 Although this question and answer are devoted primarily to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the effect on the Circulation Element should also be considered. It is expected, for example, that the cumulative impact of the almost 2,000,000 square feet of new office buildings at this location and at Newport Center will have a very substantial impact on the intersection of MacArthur and Jamboree. In the City's Circulation Element, the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway is proposed as a grade separation (Similar to the Arches interchange), presumably bevause it is fairly logical to assume that Jamboree could pass under Coast Highway as it comes uphill from both sides. Similarly, it is not too difficult to envision Jamboree crossing over MacArthur as it comes down to it from both sides. Perhaps the Circulation Element needs to be evaluated, and amended if necessary, to include this kind of upgrade, so that developer contributions can be collected from the several large projects being proposed. B-3 C.1 Population and Housing The cumulative effect of adding nearly two million square feet of office buildings, which may include numerous tenants and thousands of employees, will certainly induce an increased demand for housing in Newport Beach. There exists planned undeveloped areas in Newport Beach (open space). The necessary city zoned open space will certainly be at risk of loss due to the demand for additional housing. Hence, there is clearly a "potentially significant impact," which needs to be thoroughly investigated. From : ERTON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Oct.20.1999 01:32 PM P02 Newport Beach EQAC Comments on the Koll Project NOP M B-11 B-11 B-12 page 2 D.4 The answer to this question is completely unrelated to the question. The Rockwell NOP stated that this impact (expansive soils) was a "Less than Significant Impact," rather than this NOP's undocumented statement of "No Impact." This issue should be addressed in either an addendum to the NOR or in the EIR. GA & 2 There should be explicit reference here to the cumulative impact on local streets of the two proposed projects, using common driveways, at this location. Further, no mention of traffic mitigation measures is made, even though this is the most critical aspect of the project. (See also the first comment herein.) G.4 This may be more than a "Less than Significant Impact." The proposed site plan for this project (opposite page A-3) shows a new, wide circulation driveway with landscaping on both sides, connecting the Von Karman entrance area circulation system with the Jamboree Road entrances circulation system. However, this proposed driveway is shown on the Rockwell/Conextant property, where their plan shows a major 5-level parking garage, with only a narrow "Fire Lane" behind it. This conflict needs to be addressed and resolved in the EIR. In addition, the impact of 6-level and 5-level garages adjacent to each other on the internal circulation system between each of them and Jamboree Road needs to be addressed. 0.6 The Rockwell NOP identified this as a "Less than Significant Impact" (rather than "No Impact"), and stated that "a parking assessment for the proposed project will be provided in the traffic study." This NOP should do no less. H_3 & 6 The report (on page B-7, item E.4.) notes that drainage from this site will go into "a well -developed riparian wetland" site, and then into "the San Diego Creek Channel and Upper Newport Bay." Both the lower Channel and the Upper Bay are federally protected wetlands. Although the impervious surfaces (looking from above) would not increase, there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of new parking spaces provided in multi -level garages in the two adjacent projects. If the grease and oils from all these cars are washed into the drainage system, there could be a significant impact on the very sensitive federally protected wetlands. This should be addressed, including mitigation measures, in the EIR. From : EATON RESIDENCE/OCESR 714-760-1691 Oct.20.1999 01:32 PH P03 Newport Beach EQAC comments on the Koll project NOP page 3 B-16 J.7 The discussion of internal circulation requested herein (ref. item G.4.) should also address whether or not there would be an encumbrance on emergency evacuation plans if the Jamboree Road access circulation area is found to be overloaded. B-21 N.3 As currently planned, this project and the Rockwell/ Conexant project would have long 6-level and 6-level parking garages separated by only a narrow "fire lane," visible from Jamboree Road. This aesthetic impact, which could be significant, should be explicitly addressed in the EIR. B-24 0.2 All of the specific cumulative impacts pointed out in this comment letter should be addressed, in addition to those listed in this answer. cc. Sharon Wood W CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORNIA QMS-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT October 15, 1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 P.O. BOX 1200 RE: KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NOTICE OF PREPARATION Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH OCT 2 0 1999 AM PM 71819110111 112111213141616 City of Costa Mesa staff have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the Koll Center Newport project dated September 20, 1999. Due to potentially significant impacts to increase traffic beyond the standard level of service (LOS), the following intersections within Costa Mesa should be analyzed: Red Hill Avenue/Bristol Street Red Hill Avenue/Baker Street Baker Street/SR 55 on- and off -ramps Bristol Street/Newport Boulevard Fair Drive/Newport Boulevard Santa Ana Avenue/Del Mar/University Drive These intersections are highlighted on the enclosed map. Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced document. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to call my office at (714) 754-5610. Sincerely, R1. MICHAEL ROBINSON, AICP Planning and Redevelopment Manager enc. cc: Peter Naghavi, Transportation Services Manager 77 FAIR DRIVE Building Division (714) 764.5273 Code Enforcement (714) 754.5623 Planning Division (714) 754.5245 FAX (714) 754-4866 • TDD (714) 754-5244 I♦ IT ' IILL Y.. -p e�.v m 2-N T C% 9' •. ''� 6' AF,Ix of A �.w,N �x+) t^�SA` yq,,se.,y}. . z e `¢ 3, y � t6 S•O � `a",9a s! ��xv o F .C. t (0 'rt"�4 L m� p(it� �, :.r:' 6� vs¢ r$'a�'eTa'O a� ,3' Po.: aPa ♦"� i � 4 4om CO y (, fr(} �F'P 'Ir 9a v c' �o ..i: �" : _.r°a< ro4 ♦ J-(',E y b,� dt v al' P90y fa P <x Z'_i n f °rFrv' i (f r� 'J x 1< C 1CC fq-(` .R z f r:: ,<O♦ y°P a�b°°tea }e eq e n`♦ ( ( t� rO J �� 1 1I 1 C V xOL . �O .. °4y Pt tti < .9 09 a v b a0 ,�: : T-• ? 5~ .(a� v�p `�'` CR F rife• `Zi `rJ. ._ s� VE.a <Py b �' O p� oo 'P�t t. o SV RO �/ l ( ° yFtio Op .,: s`` yc �9 y *xy P{fan < £h�) °°� yt IC,P .1,y� n ,�',r° ,Aa °<� �z}•... •cp 'rr `aP°`? � b¢; To P 6 R s •' Z � t ° v PO 0°-0' y:'�cP N G� ( L 4� ePt i � rte 40% O^ x uN ` �` Rxb oa e F u vhr!c sox vF Vil a itb \ / A' IE ' Y 6� O() '-.•,�� T, ��y 0 a r �V""C0� �fF} "rd. ie .° + ® _• ° i �5> ry i 'b 'S`e`t++`>`;;• ~ �`� Pa( c. O �f30Virf` /.P ..p /t •. .. fER < � BP ♦(! b M .NV.N GRANCIS (4 y44 /) w♦9r 2 -_ '! O < Y .r0 n5, r• {I• si.e r 'y�� Y CYS�LiGP. (-O Oj_ �. 4l. '{� p!� •. : p_rORlE2 O�Pt i_ ON n .t�V"P <fr �°. 9� :'�'. °ff4 q•1 °4CC J• �♦ t�V� `/ `(- lj- f°,i` fn Nfj• a QT e�e+,�SSs?t' r v ° or \ ' .'l... 0 4 '.�. �Oi ft. y S7 f �Vp` s'�9/'ao/fy(��lxr ♦ � . lP ,''.`n�9 .\i{r. ✓tj+ �j ', ii(' p� J. .i:ry �'9 ti� 900 � �! °" 9♦♦Y 'l(.. O� (, O Q�(� ✓1 _ .._4tPS1 O Cl ' '.fL V :: O� c Z'F O'lyr 4,V' 09 f ♦4f x �� (/'�� •`- `` 9`i.. m .' 1_. 4♦ "!r ~ oo r.,`t moo x Ax \l. F . • c^ 'NEWPOR L — - • j • ]U6� 00 o2500GKn'J,,•`02600 O �NEn. RaRUL, '= _ ______^]IOU r ♦ R AVE ivwa .Y,nwu �—e �• F - Ya < u > s�r:"n�'"('•'' SA AAA � -` ORANOEi i AVE. n 600 !` c ° IAVE o REO wu. y ( AVE 2500 c a 1 ;::• Couxrn Y' CLU " (ORSF WE g= a (PA•va^.1 as n f m x FAIRWAY DR i F CLUB MESA G wyf S .cr�c: .. j yWMNSTR AV PL i PL i::: d] " s� o °�• s goo nn�n � zSGo AVE. ° ��B "T;:i i��n L0Yi1:°�' •a= Al RED °E < RSID '<R A DS�OH ~�•:: ,, m r.LN L IV _OE DR p °P 02FCN_GE COug7Y • I z S ffl. i E RIV RSIOF AI ,••nn` m U f� 35.n aev PAR R LN ~ - -NIGH %NOOL 'a 1 jam: \ ) SILO LNm u• 1 eel. *F4 e ACACIA Si I,:::.-:�.i" •:•i'-CAMPUS r :..;p4DQ •^ C 'N,P 1 b ti 6 27 16 18 192021 22232425228293031 323� 17 STATE OF GRAY DAVIS. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S. #40 1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300 P.O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 November 3, 1999 Ms. Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY At,.t !NC DEPARTMENT G11 Y G+= h: cAGH AM ov 0 �J wvj F�1 ?Is 19110111112,1,2,31415(6 Re: City of Newport Beach Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; SCH# 99091120 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Aeronautics Program has reviewed the above -referenced document with respect to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. According to the NOP, the proposal would increase in the intensity of development currently allocated for Office Site B within the I{oll Center Newport Planned Community. Specifically, the expansion includes the construction of a 250,000 (gross) square foot, 10 to 12-story office tower. The project site is located approximately 4,000 feet southeast of the John Wayne Airport. The site also appears to be located within the 60 CNEL for the airport. According to the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), projects within the 60 CNEL should be submitted to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a consistency determination. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call me at 916/654-5314. Sincerely, Environmental Planner c : State Clearinghouse, Eric Freed -Orange County ALUC Post•ir Fax Note 7671 Dace paoges► 0 ) To From {1 f CelBept Co. Rhene # Phone # Fax#1S(O-2a 07 Fax# 0 a South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmd.gov RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 29, 1999 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ms. Patricia Temple Director Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: AM OCi 01 1999 PM 71819110111112111213141616 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Air Ouality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, bui are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Ms. Patricia Temple 0 -2- . September 29, 1999 Mitieation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (c), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-3600. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (httv://www.ggmd.vo The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Ms. Tara Tisopulos, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3102 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, S—t�owe s Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:TT:li ORC990922-03LI Control Number STATE OF CALIFORNIA • �ooFT��� Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse '"' 0FCAUt � Gray Davis STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 Loretta Lynch GOVERNOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 DIRECTOR 916-445-0613 FAX916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.htrnl RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Preparation CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH September24, 1999 AM OCT 0 1 1999 PM 71819 110 11111211121314 13 16 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Koll Center Newport Planned Community SCH# 99091120 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community draft Environmental Impact Report (FIR), Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have -any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0613. Sincerely, P ie B Mosoyd State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Ba• SCH# 99091120 Project Titie Kell Center Newport Planned Community Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type nop Notice of Preparation Description The project proposes an increase of 250,000 d(gross) square feet of professional office space within Office Site B of the Kell Center Newport Planned Community. This increase in intensity will require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (i.e., Planned Community District text amendment). In addition to the increase in office space, the applicant is proposing the demolition of an existing 2-level parking structure that will be replaced with a 6-level parking structure. An additional 2-level parking structure will also be constructed on the site. Lead Agency Contact Name Patricia L. Temple Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949-644-3200 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Blvd City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92660 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Jamboree Road / Mac Arthur Boulevard Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways waterways Schools Land Use Range 1-405 Freeway John Wayne Airport Section Base The subject property is designated Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial on the General Plan and is zoned Planned Community (PC). The site is currently developed and is occupied by approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office uses. Project Issues AestheticMsual; Air Quality; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department Agencies of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Housing and Community Development; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 09/24/1999 Start of Review 09/24/1999 End of Review 10/22/1999 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. HOP DistrNmidan List RaWm Agwef rVI NOM Gayou ResoarcesAgmcy 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor 95814 9IN327-1722 Fu 916/327-1648 916132 -1722 F BillCurry El Dept Gento,C S981 20W vagroirt tWaferxnyr Sacramento,6 95815-3896 9I61263-4326 Fu 9161263-0648 Feel FJ®both A. FDelu CaliforniaCo Comnriulon 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 4151904-520D Fax4151904-5400 William Ahern 1LJI Sate Coastal cy D30Broadway, uite II0D Oakland, CA 94612 5IO/286.1015 Fu510286-0470 I`- 1 Ken Trott r---t Dept. lConservation Street, 801K MS-2402 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445.8733 Fair 9161324-0948 Robertson ElAllen DeppL jForestry & Fire Protection 1416 Nmth Street, Ruom 1516.24 Sacramento, G 95814 916/657.0300 Fax916/6538957 Hans Krcutzbcrg Oj(te ofHisforic Prerervafiars P.O. Box 942896 Sacm=nto,CA 94296-0001 916(6536624 Fax916/653.9824 Walls jFKBeth Resource Management Division Dept. of Parks and Remotion P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296.0001 916/6536725 Fax 9161657-3355 ❑Pamllrnner Redallrune Board 1416 Ninth Street. Room 1601 Sacramento, CA 95814 916f6535434 Fax 916/653-5805 Fhth W Gm Dgadeea/afFishasdCare Fisriro m eceIServkis Division 1416 Ninth Strict, lath Floor Sacramento. G 95314 91666531070 Fax 9161653-2588 Keith l) ❑Donald Departmera offish and Game 601 r�cmt Stf Reddm96001 ax 2-50242G F2381 Banky Curtis (Region 2) 0.pparlsrem of Fish & Game I701 Ntmbur Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova. G 95670 mnco nano c-_ m<nco craw ❑Lyti BaReM 7aAoe Regiowa PU.Wttg Agency P.O.lbx 1038 7sphyr � NV 89448 2 7 Fu 9448 8-4527 Jobe Rowdm, Manager %'%o//Emergtncy Servfeet i Rancho Cos Rock Road, S1a110 Ram410 Cordova, CA 956704- 916/4641014 Pu 916146410t9 ❑ Debby Fddy Delta Box 530mtt Can+n+itsion Walnut my 91677 -2290 rA95690 91N176-2290 Fax 9IG/776-2293 CkrbmIL_JI GOrwDistrict l0 P.O. Box 2948 SlocknCA ax G 95ax 21MN'M8-7i42 Fu 209/948-7906 20919 2 SabuuNr x CI P.O. Box 85406, MS b5 Strad San Dlean, CA San688-3140 ox6l9/688 6191688-3140 Fax6i9/688-0299 AOeen Kennedy Caltm++x Distnrs 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvina. CA 9-7612-Ml SCH499091120 lJ N1 Mate PeSnAein Skrte WaferResoaces Control Board - > Dion ofWatrrRigAfs s 901 P Street, 3tdFloor + Sacramento, CA 95814 9161657-1377 Fu9161657-1485 Stn�ir W` a2rResomres CommTRoard BayDelfa Unit 901 P Strut, Third Floor Sacrimulo, CA 95814 916/653-2516 Fax91N657-1485 _ _ _ _ _____ Dccppt. of Toxic Substances Control P+ara r(Region 3Adrian CEQA Trading Center ❑Drian Hunte) ❑ Santa MonicaMamtainsConsermnry Business, Transpotlallonucc ,&Housing 400 PSt, Fourth Flom Department of Fish and Game 5750 Ramirez Canyon Road P.O. Box 806 P. Box 47 Malibu, CA 90265 Cathy Creswell Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Yountville, CA 94599 310/589-3200 Fax 3101589-3207 Nmuing& Conuv,mityDevdopment 916/324-3119 Fu 9161324-1788 707/9445518 Fu 707l944.5563 Housing Policy Di vision ❑Department of Transportation 18001hin1 Street, R000in430 ReglonalWater Quality Control Board William [.aodermil nd ra e, 4) District Contacts Sacramenio, CA 95814 Department o[ Fah and Gam: 916/323-3176 Fax 9161327-2643 North Coast Region (1) 1234 Fast Shaw Avenue ❑ IGR/Planning ❑ CalhyGoodwin Fresno, CA 93710 Caltmnx District Sandy Nanard 5550 Skylare Blvd., Suite A • 559/243-4005 Fair559243-0022 1656 Union Street Calfrans- Division ofileronanda Santa Rosa, CA 95403 P.O. Box A 9 P.O. me 942874 42740 7071576-2220 Fax7071523-0I35 SandyPdason (Rugion5) P.O. Box to, 87 9 S-40001 D arbuent of Fish and Game Eureka, CA 95502-37 / cT 707/441-5812 Fax707/441-5869 916/6545314 Fax 91616539531 San Francisco Dec Environmental DocumentCoordinator Conservation Program Lt. DennisBrunelle ViewriJHe Avenue Vicki Ran I5Clay 94 SuiSuiteI400 o, CA 92123 Local Develo San Die nlent Review Crtlefamirt Nigbuvry Pnfrol C P Oakland, 94612 619/467-0234 Fax 6I9/4674299 Colfrnns, OrsMet2 Office ofSpa:ial Projects 510/622-23030A 0 Fu 510/622-2460 CherylAvents (Region) Deppartment of Fah and Ganz` He list Conservation Program 330 Golden Shom Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 5621590-5159' Fax 5621590-5192 ❑AlonPickard (Inyo&Manu) Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Program 407 West Line Shce6 Room 8 Bishop. CA 93514 7601872-1129 Independent Commissione/Agencles ❑Greg Newhouse Cnf fomia Energy Connnlxs(oa 1516 Ninm Street, MS-15 Sacramento, CA 95814 65 5000 Fa 6/654 P.O. Box 496073 Redding, CA 96049-6073 530/225-3099 Fax 530W-3271 JcrrP❑ Capra lrcrman P.O. Box 9428District 3 P.O. Boa 942874 MS-01 Sacramenm,9 x9165 DOI 3-7 916I327-3859 Fax 916f3237669 ❑Jean Money P. Omnx Distort 4 P.O. Box CA 9 Oakland, CA 94623-0128 5101286-5572 Fu Sl0Y286-SS13 ❑Lawrence Newland Callmns.50 Hi ue Disfr et5 50Hrguera Obispo, San Luis 683 Fax8 93401-5415 805/549-3683 Fax 805/549-3077 ❑Steve McAdam S.FBayComrrmtioa&Devi Conun 30Van NessAvenue,Room2011 San Fmncism, CA 94102 415/557.3686 Fax 415/557-3767 Nadell Gayou 102BNinlh StrcGt, Third Floor' Sacramento, CA 95814 016 17-1772 Fr:4169.7.16 R 916/ 4: x91 3882 Debbie Treadway NnfiveAmedcan)Ieritage Cant 915 Capitol Mail, Room 364 Sacramento, G 95914 9161653-4082 Fax 9161657-5390 Andrew Bamsdale Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Marc Birnbaum ❑ Cafrmms, District P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778-2616 5591488-4260 Fu5591488-0088 Stepphen J•Ouswell ❑ Ca trans. District 120 South Spring Shut. 1-I0C Los Angeles, CA 900I2 2131997-4429 Fu2131897-9210 ❑DePpnrtmen(ofWnlerResonmer ❑ Health & Welfara Wayne Hubbard Dept offlea0 ilDrinldng Water 60l N. 7th Street, PO Box 942732 SieramenigG 94234.7320 9l6/445-2519 Fair 9161327-6092 food & Agdcalture Tad Bell Dept oNrFoodandAgrieulmre I p Siena,Ruom409 Sacramento, G 95914 916103-7643 Fu 9161653-4723 415/7033231 Fax 4151703.1184 FV-1I (\,1 Betty Sidra IBette )ands Commission 100 Howe Avenue.Suite 100-5 Sacramento, CA 95825 9161574-1872 Fax916/574.188.5 ❑Gerald R. Zimmerman Colorado River Board 770 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 100 Glendale, CA 91203-1035 8181543-4676 Fax818/543.4685 ❑Mike Sim MI kc Ss, District 8 464W.4th Street, 71h Fluor Sanllemardina CA 92401-140D 90913834808 Fax 909/383-5936 Robed RDhnke CD irli ❑ 5 00South Main Strreet Bishop, CA 93514 76W87241689 FF= ax 761D872-0678 949C224-2239 Fax9491774-2592 1--1 1 2555 1st Ave. Sacramento, CA 95818 9161657-7221 Fax 9161452-3151 ❑ Ron Willman Caltrans -Plann ing P.O. Box 942874 Sxcratrc9966 Fax x91616001 9I6l65399fi6 Pax 9tN6534)001 Staleand Consumer Services ❑ RobertSleppy ner Dept. onm General Services FJl0 R Street. Environmental Section • Sac RSm a, CA9uite 5100 814 916/3240214 Fax 916/445.3556 California Environmental Piotecllon Agency ❑Kim Homyes Boalski 2G20 L Stroes Board Sacramento, acr LSwat A Box (95) 916627nto,CA 9916132 -3 4-2815) 916027-2200 Fax 916r322-3646 ❑JeanieBlakesleealee Integra8800Ctcd Waste rive nrn(Bard Sacramento, acr CalCenter Ihrve 926 916125 -4708 A Fax 916/ 91fi/755-0708 Fax 9161155-0216 ❑ Diane aterRes Division onofCea nWat Control Board Division 94421n WrtferProgmnu P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, 94244-2120 916f227-0572 Fair916/2Z7.4227-0349 Phil Zentner Sate on of Water Control Board P.O. on 944213 ¢mbry P.O. me 944213 Sacramento. r x 916/ 2130 9IN657.0912 Fax 9161657-2388 SCH 8131199 ❑ Central CoastRegion (3) SI Hlguera Street, Suite 401 San Luis 147 Fax G 9343-03977 805/549-3147 Fax 805/543-0397 ❑Los than Angela Region (4) JonaBishop 320 West 4th Street, Suite 200 Los Angela, CA 90013 2131576-6600 Fax 213/576-6640 ❑Central Vdlec Region e 3443 nn ultra Road. Suite 0 Socranento, CA-958 61255-3 916I255.3000 Fax 9lfiYL55-3015 Frsno Branch Office 3614 Fast Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 559/445-5116 Fu559/445-5910 ORedding Branch Office • 415 Kmllcral Drive Reddingg� G 96002 5302244845 Fax 530/27A-4857 El75ut lake TahoeBoA 961 South tale Tahoe, 53 544-2 530/542-5400 Fax 530/544-2271 Victorville Bunch Office 15429 Civic Drive, Suite 100 Victorville, CA 92392-2359 7601241-6583 Fax 760/241-7309 RiverBasin Region(7) ❑Colorado 73720 Fred Waring Drive. 8100 Palm Doren, CA 92260-2564 760/346-7491 Fax 760f341-6820 Santa Ana Region Suite Sant Main Street, Sutra 500 Riversk-CA 92%1.3339 909n82-4I30 Fu909281.6288 Diegosego Region ❑San 9771 Mesa Blvd., Suite San Dtego,CA 92124-1324 619/467-2952 Fax619/571-6972 San Joaquin Hills Foothill/Eastern Corridor AgencyZAk CorrldorAgency Chairman: Chairman., Todd Spitzer Orange County TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Mike Ward Irvine Supervisor September 28, 1999 Patricia Temple, Director Planning Department Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport Dear Ms. Temple: The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) wishes to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above mentioned Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. The TCA has no comment regarding the project, however we look forward to reviewing the draft environmental impact report when it becomes available. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Scot Scialpi of my staff at (714) 513-3426. cc: Scot Scialpi RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF K1F1uPnRT PEACH Walter D. Kreutzen, Chief Executive ORlcer AM SEP 2 9 1999 PM 71819-110111112111213141E 16 201 E. SANDPOINTE AVE., Su17E 200, P.O. BOX 28870, SANTA ANA, CA 92799-8870 7141436-9800 FAX 7141436-9848 h Hp://www , tcagencies. com Members., Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Lake Forest • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo • Orange • Newport Beach • Santa Ana . San Clemente • Son Juan Capistrano • Tustin • Yorba Linda LAt?StRENCE URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN November 11, 1998 Patricia Temple Planning Director, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: In response to your request, Lawrence Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for staff augmentation services. I formed Lawrence Associates in 1986 to provide contract planning services to cities. My 25 years in planning includes 13 years on staff at the City of San Juan Capistrano, where I managed the development review division. Since becoming a consultant, I have served as a contract planner for review of major development projects in Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, La Palma, and Aliso Viejo. In presenting this proposal, I would like to emphasize several points: ■ If selected for the project, I will be the responsible person for the duration of the project. In other words, "who you see isvho you get". ■ I am able to function independently to produce and prepare reports, letters and exhibits without the need for City clerical support. ■ Throughout the review process, I will keep the Planning Director and the applicant fully informed. I will be readily accessible to City staff and the applicant and will be available to meet as needed and on short notice if necessary. I am the principal of Lawrence Associates and the person authorized to bind this proposal and negotiate a contract. If you have any questions, please call me at 949-661-8175. Sincerely, Larry awrence AICP Principal 32092 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • 949.661.8175 • Fax 949.661.4828 CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. APPROACH I 2. METHODOLOGY 2 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE 4 4. COST AND AVAILABILITY 6 5. RESUME 7 1. APPROACH This scope of services is for the provision of staff augmentation services for review of the proposed ten - story office tower in Koll Center Newport. The project will include the processing of an EIR and traffic study, a General Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the KCN PC text. The following sections describe our approach to the project, processing methodology, Larry Lawrence's experience with similar projects, and an hourly rate quote. rim*le All project management, report preparation, and other work related to the project will be performed by Larry Lawrence. My guiding principles in performing the work will be: ■ My client is the City of Newport Beach, not the applicant. The public interest, as defined by the City, will be the ultimate determinant of direction and recommendations. ■ The project proponents will be treated in an even-handed and responsive manner. I will listen attentively to their concerns and their project objectives, and respond promptly where required. ■ Project evaluation will be comprehensive, identifying every issue. ■ I will work to resolve any conflicts by offering alternatives that work for both the City and the proponents. Alternative solutions will fully conform to City standards and policies. ■ My knowledge and long experience with zoning regulations, CEQA and other state and federal regulations will be used to steer the project through all required "hoops". ■ Work will be done precisely to the specifications of the City of Newport Beach. ■ Deadlines will be met with no loss of work quality. LAWRENCEASSOMTES l 1 2. METHODOLOGY Familiarization Immediately upon project "kickoff', I will meet with the Planning Director and other relevant City staff, review the case file, other related files or projects, the General Plan, and applicable City policies and ordinances. I will also conduct site visits and meet with project proponents, under the auspices of the Planning Director, to more fully understand the project characteristics and objectives. I will then review, analyze and evaluate the project submittals for consistency with City policies and standards as well as the requirements of state law. Project Analvsis And Processing I will coordinate review of plans by various City departments and outside agencies, consolidating comment and presenting recommendations and revisions to the applicant. I will also prepare screen check comments, letters to applicants, and staff reports. This will include the preparation of required notices of public meetings and hearings. Notices will be mailed, posted, and/or published as required by City codes and policies. I will maintain the quality of the city's discretionary review process by ensuring that all City standards and policies are implemented in a thorough and consistent manner. I will ensure that all written materials are thoroughly reviewed and consistent with the format established by the City of Newport Beach. Internal deadlines will be established for the processing of the assigned project to ensure that adequate time is spent reviewing drafts. Continued coordination and communications with the staff planner and affected departments and agencies will be maintained when preparing staff reports. In addition to review of the project for consistency with applicable codes, I will prepare the required environmental assessments, including initial studies, negative declarations, Program EIR checklists, and mitigation monitoring programs to ensure compliance with CEQA as necessary. I will work closely with the EIR consultant to ensure that the project description is complete, that alternatives to the project have been identified, and that the consultant has all necessary information from the City and proponents to prepare the draft document. I will integrate the necessary EIR review steps into the project schedule and assist with scoping and other meetings and required noticing. Scheduling A processing schedule will be established in accordance with the city's calendar and processes. I will maintain the schedule, prepare regular status reports, and ensure that all deadlines for noticing, report preparation, review of reports and packet assembly are met. The applicant will be kept informed of the status of the project and of submittal deadlines to meet hearing dates. LAWRENCEASSOCUTES 2 ' 2. METHODOLOGY ' Meetings And Hearings Once all the issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the city staff, I will attend meetings and ' make presentations to the Planning Commission, other advisory bodies, and the City Council. Prior to each meeting, I will contact the applicant and the other affected departments or agencies and determine whether their attendance will be required. Any exhibits or graphics will be prepared in advance of the ' meeting and I will ensure the exhibits are displayed at the meeting or hearing. Plan Check ' If the project is approved, I will review grading and building plans for consistency with discretionary ' approvals and environmental mitigation measures. I will coordinate with the other departments to finalize the plan check process and ensure those planning related issues, conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City. ' Cost Control Lawrence Associates is sensitive to the need to minimize costs wherever possible, but not at the expense of quality review. Researching the project in advance of meetings, anticipating the issues and coordinating closely with the applicant, the other departments and the Planning staff will avoid "late hits" and the need to delay or reassess the project. Since I have considerable experience in processing applications, the learning curve will be minimal. CI U n ' LAWRENCEASSOCIATES 3 I 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE • City of San Clemente Case Processing Mr. Lawrence was the contract planner and project manager for two major projects in San Clemente, the Forster Ranch Specific Plan and the Plaza Pacific project. In the, Mr. Lawrence was responsible for coordinating and processing a major specific plan revision, General Plan amendment, EIR, and development agreement. In the Plaza Pacifica mixed use project, project plans include site plan, landscaping, architecture, grading, tentative map, traffic study, and development agreement. Contact: Jim Hare, City Planner 949-361-6185 • City of Laguna Niguel Case Processing Larry Lawrence did the staff analysis, review, and processing for a number of proposed development projects. Mr. Lawrence acted as city staff for these projects, including liaison with project sponsors, reports to staff managers, preparation of initial studies and public notices, analysis of site plans, architecture, landscaping, compliance with zoning code and general plan, preparation of staff reports and resolutions in the City's formats, presentation of projects and staff recommendations at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and followup/file closeout after final action. Mr. Lawrence also assisted in setting up the Laguna Niguel Community Development Department upon incorporation, including the preparation of standard resolutions and conditions of approval for tentative map, site plan, and other development entitlements. Contacts: Robert Lenard, Community Development Director: 949-362-4314 William Cunningham, Planning Manager: 949-362-4360 • Community of Aliso Viejo Case Processing Lawrence Associates is the planning consultant for the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPC), which is the advisory planning body for the Aliso Viejo Community Association. Mr. Lawrence and his staff are responsible for preparing reports on proposed projects referred to AVAPC by the County of Orange and forwarding recommendations to the County. Representative projects reviewed by Mr. Lawrence include site, architectural, and landscape plans for the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. Contact: Steve Dickey, AVAPC Chairman 800-926-3766 x301 LAWRENCEASSOCIATES 4 L I 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE • City of San Juan Capistrano Case Processing Mr. Lawrence acted as an extension of city staff, providing the same staff review, analysis and processing services as for the City of Laguna Niguel, described above. Representative projects include the Pueblo Serra Planned Community office project and the Capistrano Collection retail project. Before becoming a consultant, Mr. Lawrence spent 13 years as a staff planner for San Juan Capistrano. During that time, he managed the current planning division and processed a large number of development projects and other land use entitlements. Contact: Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Director 949-493-1171 e Cty of La Palma Case Processing Mr. Lawrence provided staff services for land use applications for a city without its own planning department. In addition, Mr. Lawrence overhauled and rewrote the City's nonresidential zoning regulations. Contact: Ismile Noorbaksh, Public Works/Planning Director 714-523-7700 II ' LARRENCEASSOCUTES 3 4. COST AND AVAILABILITY Hourly Rate I propose to perform the work described in this proposal on a time -and -materials basis, at the following hourly rates: Direct Work .......... $80 Travel................40 Availabilitx If selected, I will be available to begin work immediately. I estimate that for the duration of the project, approximately 30 percent of my time will be spent in work on the project. LAWRENCEASSOCL4TES 6 �I ' 5. RESUME I I I I I 1 �1 II 1 I II I F I I AtORESSIONrl L P IM)TY: fDVCA;r10P t t FFUI PMONS; CONie-11cr ' Nt�UV�VI�VG I L, e ENCE .<Pas NRRAN PLANNING AND DESIGN LARRY N. LAWRENCE AICP Larry Lawrence has over 25 years of experience as a planning consultant and city staff planner. During that time, Mr. Lawrence has analyzed dozens of proposed development projects and land use applications, prepared zoning codes, sign and subdivision codes, general plan elements, specific plans, environmental impact reports, hillside protection ordinances, open space acquisition programs, and annexation studies. Prior to forming Lawrence Associates, Mr. Lawrence was a planner for the City of San Juan Capistrano. His responsibilities included managing the current planning division and coordinating the Environmental Review Board. He also prepared the City's Land Use Code, growth management ordinance, and various planned community ordinances. Mr. Lawrence holds a masters degree in city planning, is a member of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), and is past Director for AICP Certification for the Orange County Section, Cal Chapter APA and Registration Chair for the 1998 Cal Chapter APA Conference. • Principal, Lawrence Associates • Senior Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano • Assistant/Associate Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano Is Planning Intern, County of San Diego • Master of City Planning, San Diego State University • B.A. Psychology, University of California, Berkeley • Graphic and design courses, UCI landscape arch. certificate program. • American Planning Association • American Institute of Certified Planners • San Juan Capistrano: Current Planning - As manager of current planning and later as a contract planner for the City, analyzed and processed over 50 major projects, including tentative maps, grading and landscape plans and schematic elevations. These included most of the residential projects submitted to the City during that heavy growth period. Responsibilities included liaison with applicants and city staff, preparation of staff reports, presentations to the Architectural Board of Review, Planning Commission, and City Council, and followup and file closure after final action. Representative projects included the Lomas San Juan and Pueblo Serra planned communities, Bank of America, and Sycamore Plaza. I, u RESUME LARRYLAWRENCE • Aliso Viejo: Advisory Review -Reviewed a large number of projects referred to the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPQ by the County of Orange for recommendations and conditions of approval. Representative projects include the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. • La Palma: Land Use Applications - Prepared staff analysis, environmental documentation, hearing notices and related documentation on controversial land use applications. • San Clemente: Forster Ranch Specific Plan - As a city contract planner, created specific plan regulations for the 1900-acre Forster Ranch planned community in San Clemente. The bulk of the specific plan is the zoning component, consisting of regulations relating to permitted uses, development standards, and review procedures. The plan also contains land use and circulation master plans and related elements. • Laguna Niguel: The MarketPlace at Laguna Niguel - Reviewed all architectural elevations and design details for a major shopping center recently completed at Pacific Park Drive and Alicia Parkway. The project includes a WalMart, Mervyns and Vons and a large number of smaller shops. Consulted with city staff, project represen- tatives, architect, and landscape architect. Reviewed plans, prepared relevant staff report sections, and presented design analyses to the Planning Commission and City Council. Also prepared slide shows to illustrate good and bad design approaches and show that it is possible to build a non -ugly WalMart. • LagunaNiguel: HomeBase -Project manager for review of a major store remodel, including expansion of the garden center and reconfiguration of the parking lot. Provided design feedback to the project architect and landscape architect, reviewed proposed architecture in light of City's Community Design Guidelines, prepared staff reports, and presented the project to decision -makers. • Laguna Niguel: Architectural Review - Assisted planning staff as a design consultant in the review of architecture, landscape RESUME 1 MIND JIF LARRYLAWRENCE architecture, and site design for various projects. Projects included the St. Timothy's and Seventh Day Adventist church expansions, St. Anne private school, the Mimi's, Chevy's, In-N-Out, and Yankee Tavern restaurants, ARCO gas station, and Smith's Market. • La Ouinta: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of La Quinta, including computer graphics to illustrate required setbacks and building heights, fence regulations, and other development standards. • La Palma: Zoning Code - Prepared nonresidential district regulations, including permitted uses, development standards, and supplemental regulations. Future phases will encompass residential regulations, permitting procedures, special purpose districts, adult business regulations, signs, parking, and a general overhaul of the ordinance. • Laguna Niguel: Design Guidelines - Prepared citywide community design guidelines for the City of Laguna Niguel, including residential, office, industrial, and commercial architecture, site planning, and landscaping. The Guidelines addressed such items as outdoor lighting, pedestrian spaces and walkways, parking layout, street trees, entry landscaping, building mass and form, building elevations, architectural style and harmony, roofs, materials and colors sign design, fences and walls. • Laguna Niguel: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of Laguna Niguel to replace seven planned community ordinances. The project involves a complete land use/development survey of the City in order to determine the setback and other standards of development on the ground, the preparation of a new zoning scheme, district regulations and zoning map, preparation of new supplemental regulations, such as special events, accessory uses, adult businesses, etc., and the overhaul of City permitting procedures. • San Juan Capistrano: Zoning Code - Drafted the San Juan Capistrano Land Use Code. The Code includes overlay districts to address such concerns as hillside protection, historic preservation, and floodplain zoning. Subdivision regulations, with provisions for lot design, undergrounding of utilities, park dedication, and other issues, are also integrated into the -Code. RESUME LARRYLAWRENCE • Claremont: Subdivision Regulations - Completed comprehensive subdivision regulations for the City of Claremont, including provisions for compliance with state law regarding vesting maps, environmental review, review period limitations, park dedication, school site reservation, rental conversions, lot line adjustments, mergers, and reversions to acreage. cohlpJ%'-i{ • WordPerfect, Excel, HTML Assistant, Aldus Photostyler, Omnipage SKUM; Pro, CorelDraw, and CAD Designer. 0 %11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of June, 1999, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Lawrence Associates whose address is 32092 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano, California, 92675, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant'), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide project management and staff services upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. C. The principal member of Consultant is, for purpose of this Project, Larry Lawrence. D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 17th day of May, 1999, and shall terminate on the 17th day of May, 2000, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the scheduled billing rates, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of 1 0 this Agreement without prior written approval of City. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of Sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000). The Planning Director shall have the authority to authorized work beyond this amount, not to exceed an additional $4,000. 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of City. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with Exhibit "B". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authbrized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant- or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, 2 qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing -in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details in means of performing the work provided that Consultant is compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only with respect to the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Larry Lawrence to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "B", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by name and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 3 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate'manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform -to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal 4 , C) 0 injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in 5 ,V its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that, in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any for the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint-venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. W 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. Access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Blueprinting, CADD plotting, copying and other services through City's reproduction company for each of the required submittals. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required submittals with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to 7 ,�3 0 appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. • All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax 644-3350 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Larry Lawrence Lawrence Associates 32092 Via Carlos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949) 661-8175 Fax 661-4828 26. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the Parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and' Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. .. . 31. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Robin C auson Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation Homer Bludau City Manager for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT 10 IRS SCOPE OF SERVICES KOLL OFFICE TOWER tq 4 ---- ------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOVEMBER 1998 La W'R.ENCE URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN r,-r V�$ENC` a,.so�rA URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN • November 11, 1998 Patricia Temple Planning Director, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: In response to your request, Lawrence Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for staff augmentation services. I formed Lawrence Associates in 1986 to provide contract planning services to cities. My 25 years in planning includes 13 years on staff at the City of San Juan Capistrano, where I managed the development review division. Since becoming a consultant, I have served as a contract planner for review of major development projects in Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, La Palma, and Aliso Viejo. In presenting this proposal, I would like to emphasize several points: ■ If selected for the project, I will be the responsible person for the duration of the project. In other words, "who you see is who you get". ■ I am able to function independently to produce and prepare reports, letters and exhibits without the need for City clerical support. ■ Throughout the review process, I will keep the Planning Director and the applicant fully informed. I will be readily accessible to City staff and the applicant and will be available to meet as needed and on short notice if necessary. I am the principal of Lawrence Associates and the person authorized to bind this proposal and negotiate a contract. If you have any questions, please call me at 949-661-8175. Sincerely, 4LVCa?wrOence AICP Principal 32092 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • 949.661.8175 • Fax 949.661.4828 1 .5 E J. APPROACH This scope of services is for the provision of staff augmentation services for review of the proposed ten - story office tower in Koll Center Newport. The project will include the processing of an EIR and traffic study, a General Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the KCN PC text. The following sections describe our approach to the project, processing methodology, Larry Lawrence's experience with similar projects, and an hourly rate quote. Principles All project management, report preparation, and other work related to the project will be performed by Larry Lawrence. My guiding principles in performing the work will be: ■ My client is the City of Newport Beach, not the applicant. The public interest, as defined by the City, will be the ultimate determinant of direction and recommendations. ■ The project proponents will be treated in an even-handed and responsive manner. I will listen attentively to their concerns and theirproject objectives, and respond promptly where required. ■ Project evaluation will be comprehensive, identifying every issue. ■ I will work to resolve any conflicts by offering alternatives that work for both the City and the proponents. Alternative solutions will fully conform to City standards and policies. ■ My knowledge and long experience with zoning regulations, CEQA and other state and federal regulations will be used to steer the project through all required "hoops". ■ Work will be done precisely to the specifications of the City of Newport Beach. ■ Deadlines will be met with no loss of work quality. L OMNCEASSOCUTES I I 2. METHODOLOGY Familiarization Immediately upon project "kickoff', I will meet with the Planning Director and other relevant City staff, review the case file, other related files or projects, the General Plan, and applicable City policies and ordinances. I will also conduct site visits and meet with project proponents, under the auspices of the Planning Director, to more fully understand the project characteristics and objectives. I will then review, analyze and evaluate the project submittals for consistency with City policies and standards as well as the requirements of state law. Proiect AngjI sis And Processing I will coordinate review of plans by various City departments and outside agencies, consolidating comment and presenting recommendations and revisions to the applicant. I will also prepare screen check comments, letters to applicants, and staff reports. This will include the preparation of required notices of public meetings and hearings. Notices will be mailed, posted, and/or published as required by City codes and policies. I will maintain the quality of the city's discretionary review process by ensuring that all City standards and policies are implemented in a thorough and consistent manner. I will ensure that all written materials are thoroughly reviewed and consistent with the format established by the City of Newport Beach. Internal deadlines will be established for the processing of the assigned project to ensure that adequate time is spent reviewing drafts. Continued coordination and communications with the staff planner and affected departments and agencies will be maintained when preparing staff reports. In addition to review of the project for consistency with applicable codes, I will prepare the required environmental assessments, including initial studies, negative declarations, Program EIR checklists, and mitigation monitoring programs to ensure compliance with CEQA as necessary. EIR I will work closely with the EIR consultant to ensure that the project description is complete, that alternatives to the project have been identified, and that the consultant has all necessary information from the City and proponents to prepare the draft document. I will integrate the necessary EIR review steps into the project schedule and assist with scoping and other meetings and required noticing. Scheduling A processing schedule will be established in accordance with the city's calendar and processes. I will maintain the schedule, prepare regular status reports, and ensure that all deadlines for noticing, report preparation, review of reports and packet assembly are met. The applicant will be kept informed of the status of the project and of submittal deadlines to meet hearing dates. LAWRENCEASSOMTES 2 7 Z METHODOLOGY Meetings And Hearings Once all the issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the city staff, I will attend meetings and make presentations to the Planning Commission, other advisory bodies, and the City Council. Prior to each meeting, I will contact the applicant and the other affected departments or agencies and determine whether their attendance will be required. Any exhibits or graphics will be prepared in advance of the meeting and I will ensure the exhibits are displayed at the meeting or hearing. Plan Check If the project is approved, I will review grading and building plans for consistency with discretionary approvals and environmental mitigation measures. I will coordinate with the other departments to finalize the plan check process and ensure those planning related issues, conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City. Cost Control Lawrence Associates is sensitive to the need to minimize costs wherever possible, but not at the expense of quality review. Researching the project in advance of meetings, anticipating the issues and coordinating closely with the applicant, the other departments and the Planning staff will avoid "late hits" and the need to delay or reassess the project. Since I have considerable experience in processing applications, the learning curve will be minimal. LAWRENCEASSOCL4TES 3 !] 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE • City of San Clemente Case Processing Mr. Lawrence was the contract planner and project manager for two major projects in San Clemente, the Forster Ranch Specific Plan and the Plaza Pacific project. In the , Mr. Lawrence was responsible for coordinating and processing a major specific plan revision, General Plan amendment, EIR, and development agreement. In the Plaza Pacifica mixed use project, project plans include site plan, landscaping, architecture, grading, tentative map, traffic study, and development agreement. Contact: Jim Hare, City Planner 949-361-6185 • Cit3of Laguna Niguel Case Processing Larry Lawrence did the staff analysis, review, and processing for a number of proposed development projects. Mr. Lawrence acted as city staff for these projects, including liaison with project sponsors, reports to staff managers, preparation of initial studies and public notices, analysis of site plans, architecture, landscaping, compliance with zoning code and general plan, preparation of staff reports and resolutions in the City's formats, presentation of projects and staff recommendations at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and followup/file closeout after final action. Mr. Lawrence also assisted in setting up the Laguna Niguel Community Development Department upon incorporation, including the preparation of standard resolutions and conditions of approval for tentative map, site plan, and other development entitlements. Contacts: Robert Lenard, Community Development Director: 949-362-4314 William Cunningham, Planning Manager: 949-362-4360 • Communes of Aliso Viejo Case Processing Lawrence Associates is the planning consultant for the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPC), which is the advisory planning body for the Aliso Viejo Community Association. Mr. Lawrence and his staff are responsible for preparing reports on proposed projects referred to AVAPC by the County of Orange and forwarding recommendations to the County. Representative projects reviewed by Mr. Lawrence include site, architectural, and landscape plans for the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. Contact: Steve Dickey, AVAPC Chairman 800-926-3766 x30l LAWRENCEASSOCIATES 4 N 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE r- • Cty of San Juan Capistrano Case Processing I Mr. Lawrence acted as an extension of city staff, providing the same staff review, analysis and processing services as for the City of Laguna Niguel, described above. Representative projects include the Pueblo Serra Planned Community office project and the Capistrano Collection retail project. Before becoming a consultant, Mr. Lawrence spent 13 years as a staff planner for San Juan Capistrano. During that time, he managed the current planning division and processed a large number of development projects and other land use entitlements. 1. Contact: Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Director 949-493-1171 • 01y of La Palma Case Processing Mr. Lawrence provided staff services for land use applications for a city without its own planning department: In addition, Mr. Lawrence overhauled and rewrote the City's nonresidential zoning regulations. Contact: Ismile Noorbaksh, Public Works/Planning Director 714-523-7700 LAWRENCE ASSOC 4. COST AND AVAILABILITY Hourly Rate I propose to perform the work described in this proposal on a time -and -materials basis, at the following hourly rates: Direct Work .......... $80 Travel................40 Availahilitx If selected, I will be available to begin work immediately. I estimate that for the duration of the project, approximately 30 percent of my time will be spent in work on the project. L-1WR1 0 S. RESUME /a2 • LAVRENCE • o�o��o�es URBAN PLANNING AND 08310N LARRY N. LAWRENCE AICP S Jj A.-IlRy. Larry Lawrence has over 25 years of experience as a planning consultant and city staff planner. During that time, Mr. Lawrence has analyzed dozens of proposed development projects and land use applications, prepared zoning codes, sign and subdivision codes, general plan elements, specific plans, environmental impact reports, hillside protection ordinances, open space acquisition programs, and annexation studies. Prior to forming Lawrence Associates, Mr. Lawrence was a planner for the City of San Juan Capistrano. His responsibilities included managing the current planning division and coordinating the Environmental Review Board. He also prepared the City's Land Use Code, growth management ordinance, and various planned community ordinances. Mr. Lawrence holds a masters degree in city planning, is a member of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), and is past Director for AICP Certification for the Orange County Section, Cal Chapter APA and Registration Chair for the 1998 Cal Chapter APA Conference. r(�Jr't""u�IJI�/�1L • Principal, Lawrence Associates • Senior Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano • Assistant/Associate Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano • Planning Intem, County of San Diego :/)JC��/yp��/, • Master of City Planning, San Diego State University • B.A. Psychology, University of California, Berkeley • Graphic and design courses, UCI landscape arch. certificate program. • American Planning Association • American Institute of Certified Planners CONT111CT 0 San Juan Capistrano: Current Planning - As manager of current P-le'U //VING planning and later as a contract planner for the City, analyzed and :;(p:,•�/�/�/ram; processed over 50 major projects, including tentative maps, grading and landscape plans and schematic elevations. These included most of the residential projects submitted to the City during that heavy growth period. Responsibilities included liaison with applicants and city staff, preparation of staff reports, presentations to the Architectural Board of Review, Planning Commission, and City Council, and followup and file closure after final action. Representative projects included the Lomas San Juan and Pueblo Serra planned communities, Bank of America, and Sycamore Plaza. 13 RESUME LARRYLAYYRENCE • AlisoViejo: Advisory Review-Reviewed'alarge number ofprojects referred to the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPC) by the County of Orange for recommendations and conditions of approval. Representative projects include the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. • La Palma: Land Use Applications - Prepared staff analysis, environmental documentation, hearing notices and related documentation on controversial land use applications. • San Clemente: Forster Ranch Specific Plan - As a city contract planner, created specific plan regulations for the 1900-acre Forster Ranch planned community in San Clemente. The bulk of the specific plan is the zoning component, consisting of regulations relating to permitted uses, development standards, and review procedures. The plan also contains land use and circulation master plans and related elements. • Laguna Niguel' The MarketPlace at Laguna Niguel - Reviewed all architectural elevations and design details for a major shopping center recently completed at Pacific Park Drive and Alicia Parkway. The project includes a WalMart, Mervyns and Vons and a large number of smaller shops. Consulted with city staff, project represen- tatives, architect, and landscape architect. Reviewed plans, prepared relevant staff report sections, and presented design analyses to the Planning Commission and City Council. Also prepared slide shows to illustrate good and bad design approaches and show that it is possible to build a non -ugly Wa1Mart. • Laguna Niguel: HomeBase - Project manager for review of a major store remodel, including expansion of the garden center and reconfiguration of the parking lot. Provided design feedback to the project architect and landscape architect, reviewed proposed architecture in light of City's Community Design Guidelines, prepared staff reports, and presented the project to decision -makers. • Laguna Niguel: Architectural Review -Assisted planning staff as a design consultant in the review of architecture, landscape 2 /y 1 . RESUME • f/I�i�i79hY17� architecture, and site design for various projects. Projects included the St. Timothy's and Seventh Day Adventist church expansions, St. Anne private school, the Mimi's, Chevy's, In-N-Out, and Yankee Tavern restaurants, ARCO gas station, and Smith's Market. • La Quinta: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of La Quinta, including computer graphics to illustrate required setbacks and building heights, fence regulations, and other development standards. La Palma: Zoning Code - Prepared nonresidential district regulations, including permitted uses, development standards, and supplemental regulations. Future phases will encompass residential regulations, permitting procedures, special purpose districts, adult business regulations, signs, parking, and a general overhaul of the ordinance. Laguna Niguel: Design Guidelines - Prepared citywide community design guidelines for the City of Laguna Niguel, including residential, office, industrial, and commercial architecture, site planning, and landscaping. The Guidelines addressed such items as outdoor lighting, pedestrian spaces and walkways, parking layout, street trees, entry landscaping, building mass and form, building elevations, architectural style and harmony, roofs, materials and colors sign design, fences and walls. • Laguna Niguel: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of Laguna Niguel to replace seven planned community ordinances. The project involves a complete land use/development survey of the City in order to determine the setback and other standards of development on the ground, the preparation of a new zoning scheme, district regulations and zoning map, preparation of new supplemental regulations, such as special events, accessory uses, adult businesses, etc., and the overhaul of City permitting procedures. • " San Juan Capistrano: Zoning Code - Drafted the San Juan Capistrano Land Use Code. The Code includes overlay districts to address such concerns as hillside protection, historic preservation, and floodplain zoning. Subdivision regulations, with provisions for lot design, undergrounding of utilities, park dedication, and other issues, are also integrated into the Code. 15 RESUME LARRYLAWRENCE • Claremont: Subdivision Regulations - Completed comprehensive subdivision regulations for the City of Claremont, including provisions for compliance with state law regarding vesting maps, environmental review, review period limitations, park dedication, school site reservation, rental conversions, lot line adjustments, mergers, and reversions to acreage. p����ljr� j{ • WordPerfect, Excel, HTNM Assistant, Aldus Photostyler, Omnipage jpll;; Pro, CorelDraw, and CAD Designer. 4 �� ACORD.. [ABILITY INSUCWAi DATE (MM OD YY) 05/07/99 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE ISIMUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE ISU North Americas Ins Ag. #2 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR P.O. Box 7248 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Orange CA 92863-7248 Phone:714-771-7400 Fax:714-633-8065 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED INSURER A• Commercial Union Insurance 6. Lawrence Associates Attn: Larry Lawrence 32092 Via Carlos San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 I COVERAGES INSURER C: INSURER D. THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECTTO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTR TYPEOFINSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE MM/DD GATE MM/DO LIMITS A GENERAL LIABILITY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE ❑$ OCCUR CALK402380 11/05/98 11/05/99 EACH OCCURRENCE $1.,000,000 FIRE DAMAGE (Anyone fee) $100,000 MED EXP(Any one person) $5,000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $Excluded GENERALAGGREGATE s2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER. POLICYF-j JE�7 LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANYAUTO ALLOWNEDAUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIREDAUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS COMBINEDSINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ BODILY INJURY (Per parson) $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANYAUTO AUTO ONLY -EAACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EAACC AUTO ONLY: AGG $ $ EXCESS LIABILITY OCCUR CLAIMS MADE DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION S EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ $ $ S WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY _ I TWOURV LIMIU ITS ER EL EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE -FA EMPLOYES S E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLES/EXCLUSIONSADDED BY ENDORSEMENTISPECIAL PROVISIONS *10 day notice of cancellation will be given for non-payment of premium. Certificate holder is named additional insured with respects to General Liability per attached endorsement. NENPBEA SHOULD ANY OF THEABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORETHE EXPIRATION DATETHEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER W1L �UWFSMAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICETO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMEDTO THE City of Newport Beach LEFT Attn: Patricia Temple 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 ,, / Taurus (b/ ACORD 25-S (7/97) " ACORD CORPORATION 1988 POLICY NUMBER: LAWREN(&SSOCIATES COVERCIAL GENERAL LIABILLT.Y CALK402760 CG 20 10 10 93 CO10IERCIAL UNION INSURANCE THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declara- tions as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that in- sured. CG 20 10 10 93 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1992 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this l day of June, 1999, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Keeton Kreitzer Consulting whose address is 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108, Irvine, California, 92614, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide project management and staff services upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. C. The principal member of Consultant is, for purpose of this Project, Keeton Kreitzer. D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 17th day of May, 1999, and shall terminate on the 17th day of May, 2000, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the scheduled billing rates, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of 0 this Agreement without prior written approval of City. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of Seventy-four thousand, four hundred, fifty dollars ($74,450). The Planning Director shall have the authority to authorized work beyond this amount, not to exceed an additional 10 %. 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of City. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with Exhibit "B". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant 15, represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant: or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details in means of performing the work provided that Consultant is compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only with respect to the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Keeton Kreitzer to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "B", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by name and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. 3 6 LI 0 Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition which purportedly causes a delay, -and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the- circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. N o� 0 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and.amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 5 i Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that, in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any for the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint-venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. 6 • 0 Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. Access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Blueprinting, CADD plotting, copying and other services through City's reproduction company for each of the required submittals. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required submittals with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City -under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 7 0 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22: CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. M M 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax 644-3350 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Keeton Kreitzer Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)756-2202 Fax 756-2207 26. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 11 C� 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the Parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective ..only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 31. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation C) / -- zl�� By. Homer Bludau City Manager for the City of Newport Beach 10 V a ATTEST: CONSULTANT By: By: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk 11 Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 November 27,1998 Ms. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM 01 1998 PM 71819110 �11112111213141516 As you requested, I have enclosed a proposal for environmental consulting services for the preparation of the Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proposed in the City of Newport Beach. I have based my proposal on our discussions and those with Ms. Lauren Jeu of Planning Consultants Research and Mr. Patrick Allen of Langdon Wilson Architects. I believe this proposal addresses the issues associated with the proposed project and presents a comprehensive scope of services necessary to implement the City's environmental review process. Two firms will assist Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (KKC) in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., will prepare a detailed traffic analysis, consistent with the City s requirements (including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance). In addition, BridgeNet Consulting Services International will prepare the acoustical and air quality assessments. All three of these technical analyses will evaluate the project -related impacts based on vehicular access as proposed (i.e., from both Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards) and the alternative scenario you described, with project vehicular access from Jamboree Boulevard only. The technical studies will be summarized and appended to the Draft EIR. As indicated in the scope of services, KKC will work directly with City staff during the preparation of the Draft EIR and ensure that the City's environmental review process is carefully implemented and completed. I shall be responsible for project management and preparation of the Draft EIR, response to public comments, and Final EIR. In addition, the proposal reflects preparation of all of the requisite CEQA notices associated with the preparation of the document. Finally, we will prepare the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, findings and statement of overriding considerations (if necessary), and will attend all public meetings and hearings held for the proposed project. 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 - Iraitte, CA 92614 - (949) 756-2202 -Fax (949) 756-2207 oF,� • Ms. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach November 27,1998 Page Two Thank you for providing KKC with the opportunity to provide the City with this proposal for environmental consulting services for the Koll Center Newport project. If you have any questions regarding either the scope of services or estimated budget after you have reviewed the proposal, please don't hesitate to call me. Very sincerely, KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Lwh/�-- Keeton K. Kreitzer Principal KKK:rjr Enclosure 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 - Itviae, CA 92614 - (949) 756-2202 - Fax (949) 756-2207 Proposal for the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment 97-3 and Planned Community Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA Submitted to: Newport Beach Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ATTN: Patricia L. Temple, Director Submitted by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 November 27, 1998 '� Proposal for the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................. 1 TaskOne - Project Management ...................................... 1 Task Two - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation ............................ 2 Task Three - Sub -Consultant Studies ................................... 2 TaskFour - Screencheck EIR......................................... 2 Task Five - Draft Project EIR........................................ 10 Task Six - Response to Public Comments ................................ 10 TaskSeven - Final EIR ............................................ 11 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................. 11 Task Nine - Public Hearings ........................................ 11 PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................ 11 ESTIMATED BUDGET ........................................... 12 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL .......................... 14 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROJECT APPLICANT AND/OR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ...................................... 15 STATEMENT OF OFFER/TERMS OF AGREEMENT Appendices A. Technical Studies Scopes of Work B. Cost Summary Breakdown ..................... 16 .y1'1 PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT KOLL CENTER NEWPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-3 AND PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES As indicated above, the scope of services for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) comprises several discrete steps that implement both the State and City of Newport Beach California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The major objective to be achieved is the certification of the Draft EIR that will require the implementation of several tasks to be undertaken that include, but not limited to, the following: (1) project management and coordination; (2) preparation of technical studies; (3) preparation of the Draft EIR; (4) EIR processing and public participation; (5) preparation of the Final EIR; and (6) preparation of the legal documents that support the Final EIR, Including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Consideration, if necessary. Each work task to be undertaken is identified and described below. Task One - Proiect Management/Coordination Project management will be an integral part of the planning process. As a result, this task will involve management and coordination of all work to be undertaken to prepare the Draft EIR. In order to ensure that work associated with the preparation of the Draft EIR is progressing in accordance with the schedule, meetings as determined necessary will be conducted that include representatives of Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (KKC), City of Newport Beach, EIR technical consultants, the project applicant (if desired by the City), and/or other agencies having an interest in the proposed project. Specifically, this task will accommodate up to six (6) such meetings and will include coordination between the EIR consultant, City staff, project applicant and/or designated representative, and EIR technical specialists. In summary, this task will include: • Management and supervision of the EIR consultant team; • Coordination of the proposed project and environmental document with the City of Newport Beach staff to ensure that City policy is incorporated into the Draft EIR; • Consultation with the City of Newport Beach staff and other responsible agencies as determined necessary; and • Attendance at up to six (6) meetings with City staff, project applicant/representative, and the consultant team. Estimated Time Frame: As Required Estimated Budget: $51400.00 1 �� Task Two - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) The environmental consultant will prepare an initial study utilizing the City of Newport Beach environmental assessment form. The purpose of the initial study is two -fold: (1) to identify those issues that will be the subject of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR; and (2) to eliminate from further analysis those environmental issues, if any, where it can be shown that potential impacts resulting from project implementation will be less than significant. The cursory environmental analysis included in the initial study will be based on the existing data base, including previous environmental document, applicable technical studies, and the City's General Plan. Once the initial study is completed and the environmental determination made, a Notice of Preparation will be prepared by KKC. The NOP, together with the initial study, will be distributed via certified mail (return receipt) to all recipients included on a master distribution list established in consultation with City staff as determined appropriate by the City of Newport Beach. The recipients will include all responsible and trustee agencies as well as interested organizations and individuals as determined by the EIR consultant and City. Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks (including 2 week review by City of Newport Beach) Estimated Budget: $2,980.00 Task Three - Sub -Consultant Studies Several technical studies will be required to support the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Specifically, thesetechnical studies will include: (1) traffic analysis; (2) acoustical study; and (3) air quality assessment. A qualified and capable team of sub -consultants has been assembled to undertake each of these site specific analyses. Each consultant and their respective specialty are Identified below. Traffic Analysis RKJK 6t Associates, Inc. Acoustical Analysis BridgeNet Consulting Services, International Air Quality Assessment BridgeNet Consulting Services, International Scopes of work for each of the technical studies are presented in Appendix A, attached to this proposal. Estimated Time Frame: 7 Weeks Estimated Budget: $27,600.00 Task Four - Screencheck EIR The most significant task to be undertaken as part of the proposed work program is that of preparing the Draft EIR. A Screencheck EIR will be the precursor to the Draft document and will be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR. This work effort will encompass both primary and secondary research to establish the ambient environmental conditions, understand in detail the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, evaluate proposed mitigation measures and/or recommend additional mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level. ,�a Although the scope of the Draft EIR will be determined when the initial study (refer to Task Two) is completed, this proposal assumes that the EIR will address a range of issues based on the location and complexity of the subject property. Therefore, a complete Draft EIR outline is presented below that reflects the environmental issues anticipated to be the subject of the environmental analysis contained in the document, followed by a brief discussion of the information that will be included in each section of the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Table of Contents Koll Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment 97-3/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA CHAPTER 1.0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location 1.1.2 Project Description 1.1.3 Project Phasing 1.1.4 Project Objectives 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives 1.2.2 Environmental Superior Alternative 1.3 Areas of Controversy 1.4 Issues to be Resolved 1.5 Impact Summary Table CHAPTER 2.0 - INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR 2.1.1 Authority 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR 2.1.4 Related Approvals 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction 2.1.6 Availability of the Draft EIR 3 3 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Existing Environmental Setting 2.2.2 Significance Criteria 2.2.3 Project Design Features/Standard Conditions 2.2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures 2.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation 2.3 Definitions CHAPTER 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location 3.2 Definition of the Project Site 3.3 Environmental Setting 3.4 History and Evolution of the Proposed Project 3.5 Project Description 3.6 Project Phasing 3.7 Project Objectives CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4.1 Soils and Geology 4.2 Drainage/Hydrology 4.3 Traffic and Circulation 4.4 Noise 4.5 Air Quality 4.6 Land Use/Relevant Planning 4.7 Aesthetics 4 21-1 11 4.8 Public Services and Facilities 4.8.1 Police Protection 4.8.2 Fire Protection 4.8.3 Water Facilities and Service 4.8.4 Sewer Facilities and Service 4.8.5 Solid Waste Facilities and Service CHAPTER 5.0 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.1 Description of Cumulative Projects 5.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5.2.1 Soils and Geology 5.2.2 Drainage/Hydrology 5.2.3 Traffic and Circulation 5.2.4 Noise 5.2.5 Air Quality 5.2.6 Land Use/Relevant Planning 5.2.7 Aesthetics 5.2.8 Public Services and Facilities CHAPTER 6.0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Purpose and Scope 6.1.2 Criteria of Alternatives 6.1.3 Identification of Alternatives 6.2 Analysis of Alternatives 6.2.1 No Project Alternative (Existing General Plan/PC Land Uses) 6.2.2 Alternative Location (if appropriate) 6.2.3 Alternative Land Use (if appropriate) 6.2.4 Alternative Design (No Access on MacArthur Boulevard) 6.2.5 Alternative to be Determined 6.3 Summary of Alternatives 6.4 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative CHAPTER 7.0 - SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED CHAPTER 8.0 - GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS CP 0 CHAPTER 9.0 - INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES CHAPTER 10.0 - INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS CHAPTER 11.0 - ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CHAPTER 12.0 - BIBLIOGRAPHY TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B. Correspondence C. Traffic Analysis D. Acoustical Analysis E. Air Quality Analysis A summary of the information and analyses to be included in each of the sections identified in the preceding table of contents is presented below. 1.0 Executive Summary A summary of the project location, description and objectives will be presented in this section as well as a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable environmental consequences, presented in a matrix or table format. This section will also include a brief description of each alternative (including identification of the "environmentally superior" alternative), a list of potential areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.0 Introduction This introductory section will identify the purpose and scope of the Draft EIR, the contents of the document, the authority by which it has been required, the agencies having jurisdiction over the project, and the intended uses of the document (i.e., subsequent discretionary and/or permit approvals). 3.0 Project Description A complete description of the project, including its history and evolution (i.e., Koll Center Newport Planned Community), location, parameters, phasing (if available), and all actions necessary to Implement the proposed project will be presented in this section. The description will include a narrative component and statistical tables as appropriate to adequately describe the nature, scope and intensity of the project. This section will also include a brief presentation of background information necessary to provide a context for the applications. 4.0 Environmental Analysis The purpose of this chapter of the Draft EIR is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to identify the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This section will contain the environmental yL analysis for each issue which has been determined to be the subject of the Draft EIR. The extent of the analysis and documentation for each issue will be identified in the initial study undertaken in Task Two as well as in NOP comments received from public agencies and interested parties. In some cases, the discussion will be a summary of a technical study prepared by a member of the applicant's or EIR consultant's team. In each case where a technical study will be the basis for the environmental analysis contained in the EIR, the technical report will be condensed to present the existing environmental conditions, provide an assessment of the potential project -related impacts, and identify/recommend appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the environmental consequences are eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level, if feasible. It should be noted that a standard format will be employed to analyze each issue identified in this proposal thoroughly. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the information included within each topic. Existing Environmental Setting This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed project. This documentation will serve as the baseline upon which the project -related impacts will be evaluated. Significance Criteria Specific criteria will be identified and presented in this section of the Draft EIR upon which the significance of the project -related potential impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR will be derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local (i.e., City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, etc.), State and/or federal policies and programs that may apply; and other commonly accepted technical and non -technical standards determined to be appropriate by the lead agency (i.e., City of Newport Beach)._ Project Design Features/Standard Conditions This section of the document will identify specific project design features (PDF) that will be incorporated into the proposed project that are intended to pre-empt project -related impacts (e.g., incorporation of mature landscaping, etc.) by the applicant as well as standard conditions (SC) that are typically imposed by regulatory agencies (e.g., adherence to the Uniform Building Code) on development in order to ensure safety, and minimize adverse environmental effects. The discussion of potential environmental impacts in Chapter 4 will reflect the incorporation of any PDFs and SCs included this section. Environmental Impact Analysis The environmental analysis for each issue which has been determined to be the subject of the Draft EIR is contained in this section of the document. The extent of the analysis and documentation for each issue will be identified in the initial study (refer to Task Two). In some cases, as previously indicated, the discussion will be a summary of a technical study prepared by the EIR consultant's project team. In such case, the technical report will be 7 31 condensed to present the existing environmental conditions, provide an assessment of the potential project -related impacts, and identify/recommend appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the environmental consequences are eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level, If feasible. All project -related impacts, including those associated with all phases of the proposed project, will be clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with the both City and State CEQA Guidelines. It should be noted that any previous land use studies and/or other technical documentation prepared by/for the applicant and/or City of Newport Beach will be utilized to the extent it is applicable to the proposed project. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline will be utilized in preparing the project - related environmental analysis. Potential Effects of the Project Found to be Insignificant Short-Term/Construction Impacts Long-Term/Operational Impacts Potential Effects of the Project Found to be Significant Short-Term/Construction Impacts Long-Term/Operational Impacts Mitigation Measures Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified based on the criteria identified in analysis and that impact cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be identified and included in this section of the document which "... minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR", as prescribed in the State CEQA Guidelines. Level of Significance after Mitigation Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation is incorporated into the proposed project. These significant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the significant impacts. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts This section of the Draft EIR will focus on other projects that are proposed or approved in the project environs that would create demands on servicing agencies and affect the ability of those agencies to continue to provide an adequate level of service. The City of Newport Beach will identify any projects that have been proposed or are approved in the vicinity of the proposed project within its jurisdiction based on the criteria developed by the City. In addition, the environmental consultant will query adjacent jurisdictions (e.g., City of Irvine, County of Orange, etc.) in an effort to identify additional projects in the vicinity of the subject property, also based on the City's criteria. These projects will be evaluated with the proposed project to determine project -related cumulative impacts. Specific focus of the cumulative analysis will be traffic, noise, and air quality. This section of the Draft EIR will also provide a discussion of these cumulative projects and their potential impacts on the several issues analyzed in Chapter 4.0 of the document. 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Chapter 6.0 will provide a qualitative and quantitative impact analysis of the alternatives identified by the City of Newport Beach. Several potential alternatives have been identified in the proposed Table of Contents presented above; however, the type and number of alternatives to be analyzed in this Chapter of the Draft EIR will be determined through discussions with the City of Newport Beach staff. The alternatives that will be identified and included for analysis will be those that are determined to be feasible and are capable of achieving (some of) the goals of the applicant. It will be necessary to evaluate the "No Project' Alternative (i.e., existing General Plan/Koll Center Newport PC land uses), among others. 7.0 Significant Irretrievable Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Those impacts which cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, will be identified and summarized from the discussions contained in Chapter 4.0. 8.0 Growth -inducing Impacts The manner in which the project could foster economic and/or population growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding area will be thoroughly discussed. Specifically, the characteristics of the project which may encourage and facilitate such other development activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively, will also be discussed in this chapter and their potential effects identified. 9.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures This chapter of the document will include a comprehensive listing of the mitigation measures that will be required as a result of project implementation. This listing of mitigation measures will be used to create the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will stipulate the timing and responsibility for each mitigation measure. 10.0 Inventory of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts A comprehensive listing of the potential unavoidable adverse impacts (i.e., those that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level) that are anticipated as a result of project implementation will be presented in this section of the Draft EIR. In addition, cumulative impacts that are significant and unavoidable will also be identified and listed. 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted A comprehensive listing of each individual and the organization with which the individual is associated will be included in this Chapter of the Draft EIR to document the source of the information utilized in the environmental analysis. IR 12.0 Bibliography Each document used as a reference or source of information will also be identified and presented in the Bibliography which will serve as a reference to those reviewing the Draft EIR. Pursuant to current CEQA requirements, the location(s) where each of the bibliographic references are maintained will be identified in this chapter to facilitate the review should the reference materials be needed. Upon completion of the Screencheck EIR, the EIR consultant will print ten (10) copies of the document and submit them to the Newport Beach Planning Department for review and comment. Estimated Time Frame: 10 Weeks Estimated Budget: $17,900.00 Task Five - Draft EIR All comments on the information and analysis contained in the Screencheck EIR made by City staff during their review will be forwarded to the EIR consultant for incorporation into the Draft EIR. It is anticipated that the City's review will be completed within a two -week period. The City will review the document to ensure that the information contained within it is adequate and complete before the Draft EIR is printed and distributed. A total of fifty (50) copies of the Draft EIR will be printed once It is approved by the City's Planning Department staff. Once released by City staff, the environmental consultant will distribute the Draft EIR with the Notice of Completion (NOC) for a 45-day public review and comment period. The document will be mailed via certified mail (return receipt) to the entities identified on the master distribution list that also received the NOP. Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $3,420.00 Task Six - Response to Public Comments At the end of the State -mandated 45-day public review period, all comments received by the City from local, State and other responsible agencies and interested parties will be forwarded to the EIR consultant. Each comment will be addressed as it relates to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. An appendix to the Draft EIR will be prepared that includes a listing of each agency/individual commenting on the Draft EIR, the correspondence received from the commentator, and the responses prepared for each comment. The responses to public comments will be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Department for distribution with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. In addition, the EIR consultant will be responsible for distributing individual responses to public comment to the commentors no later than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing at which the EIR will be certified. Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $4,160.00 10 J �� Task Seven - Final EIR The Final EIR will consist of the response to comments appendix and all necessary testimony and minutes of the public hearings. If necessary, the Final EIR will include "redline/strikeout" revisions that reflect changes resulting from comments received during the public review and comment period. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will also be appended to the Final EIR. A total of twenty-five (25) copies of the Final EIR will be printed and submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Department. Estimated Time Frame: 2 Weeks Estimated Budget: $1,780.00 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations KKC will prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. This document will be presented to the City of Newport Beach and will identify each mitigation measure to be carried out if the project is implemented, the entity that will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measure(s), and when each measure will be implemented. The MMRP will be presented in a form that is acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. In addition to the MMRP, the EIR consultant will also be responsible for preparing the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations (if determined necessary), and Notice of Determination (with De Minimis Findings). Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $3,280.00 Task Nine - Public Hearings The EIR consultant will attend all public hearings, including those of the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council. The estimated budget proposed for this task will accommodate up to four (4) hearings, including two (2) before the Planning Commission and two (2) before the City Council. The Project Manager will attend each and be responsible for making all presentations and responding to questions raised during the public hearings. Should additional hearings be required, they will be charged at the appropriate hourly rate. Estimated Time Frame: As Required Estimated Budget: $1,680.00 PROJECT SCHEDULE The scope of services through Task Four (i.e., submittal of the Screencheck EIR) presented in this proposal can be accomplished in approximately 12 weeks from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. This schedule is presented below. 11 y1 Project Schedule Koll Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA Task Schedule 1 Project Management As Required 2 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 4 Weeks 3 Sub Consultant Studies 7 Weeks 4 Screencheck EIR 10 Weeks (including 7 Weeks in Task 3) 5 Draft EIR 4 Weeks 6 Response to Comments 4 Weeks 7 Final EIR 2 Weeks 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings 4 Weeks 9 Public Hearings As Required IV. ESTIMATED BUDGET The scope of services and work project described in Section II of this proposal will be undertaken and completed for a fee of $68.200.00, not including printing and reproduction. This fee includes project management, preparation of several technical studies, the environmental impact analysis (including the Draft and Final E1Rs), and attendance at public hearings. In addition to the professional fees identified above, a fee of $6,250.00 has been estimated to be necessary for printing and reproduction. The total estimated budget, including printing and reproduction is $74,450.00. 12 y� 0 Estimated Budget Koll Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA Task Estimated Budget 1 Project Management $ 5,400.00 2 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 2,980.00 3 Sub -Consultant Studies $ 27,600.00 Traffic Analysis ( 21,300.00)' Acoustical Analysis. ( 2,800.00) Air Quality Assessment ( 3,500.00) 4 Screencheck EIR 17,900.00 5 Draft EIR 3,420.00 6 Response to Comments 4,160.00' 7 Final EIR 1,780.00 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings 3,280.00 9 Public Hearings 1,680.00 Sub -Total Professional Fees $ 68,200.00 Printing and Reproduction $ 5,500.00, Initial Study (50 Copies) ( 500.00) Screencheck Draft EIR (10 Copies) ( 500.00) Draft EIR (50 Copies) ( 3,000.00) Final EIR (25 Copies) ( 1,500.00) 'Maximum Budget. Includes preparation of the Traffic Analysis ($12,600.00), AFA modeling support ($1,500.00), and City of Irvine intersection analysis, if determined necessary ($5,800.00). 2Estimated Budget. A revised budget will be prepared, if necessary, upon a thorough review of all public comments received during the 45-day public review period. 3Estimated Budget. Subject to revision based on actual printing and reproduction requirements. Task Estimated Budget (Continued) Miscellaneous (Postage and Supplies) Certified Mail for NOP and Draft EIR Supplies Sub -Total Printing and Miscellaneous TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET Estimated Budget 750.00 500.00) 250.00) $ 6,250.00 $ 74,450.00 The estimated budget identifies all of the costs anticipated to prepare the Draft EIR as discussed with the City. However, some of the fees are estimates only; including project management, response to public comments, attendance at public hearings, and printing costs. Should it be determined that additional efforts are required that were not anticipated and/or that exceed the total estimated budget stipulated above, the City of Newport Beach will be notified in writing immediately and a supplemental budget proposed and approved to undertake the additional work efforts. The fees estimated for any additional work efforts are identified below. Public Hearings $105.00/Hour Project Management $90.00/Hour Response to Comments $60.00 - $75.00/Hour' Printing and Reproduction/Delivery Cost + 10% A detailed estimated budget is presented in Appendix B that reflects all of the costs anticipated for each work task, including personhours, hourly rates, and materials. V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal of Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, will serve as Project Manager for the scope of work presented in this proposal for environmental consulting services. Mr. Kreitzer has over 25 years of environmental planning experience and has served as project manager for several similar projects. He is currently managing the preparation of several environmental documents, including those for the Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program in the County of Orange, West Coyote Hills in the City of Fullerton, the Emery Ranch residential development plans in the Cities of La Mirada and Fullerton, and for a Redevelopment Project Area in the City of Bell Gardens. Mr. Kreitzer will be assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR by Mr. Thom Ryan. Mr. Ryan is also a land use and environmental planner who has over 20 years of experience in .the preparation of environmental planning documents throughout southern California. Together, Messrs. Kreitzer and Ryan have an impressive array of experience and both understand CEQA and the importance of the environmental review process. 'If necessary, this estimated budget will be negotiated after review of all comments received during the 45-day public review period to determine if it is adequate. 14 y q 9 As indicated in the scope of work several subconsultants will also provide technical support in the preparation of the Draft EIR. These technical specialists include: Technical Stud v Consultant Protect Manager Traffic Analysis RKJK az Associates, Inc. John Kain, AICP Acoustical Analysis BCS International, Inc. Paul Dunholter Air Quality Analysis BCS International, Inc. Paul Dunholter VI. RESPONSIBILITY OF PROJECT APPLICANT AND/OR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The following information shall be provided to KKC in order to complete the analysis described in this proposal. 1. All previous environmental documents prepared for the subject property. 2. All technical analyses, if available, prepared for the applicant and/or City, including, but not limited to: (1) soils and geology; (2) hydrology and engineering; (3) infrastructure assessment; and (3) Phase I and (if necessary) Phase II Assessments. 3. A large-scale topographic map (i.e., 1" = 100') of the subject property (in reproducible form). 4. Map of the study area that includes topographic information. S. Aerial photograph, if available. 6. A complete project description, including: a statistical summary of the proposed project, related discretionary actions (e.g., General Plan Amendment, etc.), development phasing, project objectives, etc. A large scale site plan with supporting information, including grading plan, landscape plan, etc. 8. Visual cross -sections of the proposed parking and professional office structures along MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard (parking structure only).. 9. The Newport Beach General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations. 10. Listing of agencies and/or organizations providing public services and utilities within the City of Newport Beach and, in particular, the project environs. 15 y5 0 VII. STATEMENT OF OFFER/TERMS OF AGREEMENT The EIR consultant and technical consultants identified In this proposal are prepared to begin work on the Draft EIR for the Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment 97-3/Planned Community Text Amendment immediately upon execution of the contract. You may be assured that should we be selected to provide the environmental services described in this proposal, we shall devote our full resources to the project and will approach it with the highest degree of enthusiasm, objectivity, and professionalism possible. We shall perform all work described in this proposal for an estimated budget of $68,200.00. In addition, a printing and reproduction budget of $6,250.00 has been estimated for the proposed project. A total estimated budget of $74,450.00 includes professional fees, the specialized technical studies stipulated in Task Three, and printing and reproduction. This offer is valid for a period of sixty (60) days. It should be emphasized that these costs are based upon the assumptions made on the scope of the project, should the scope change significantly, necessitating a change to the work program, we will contact you immediately and amend both the scope of services and estimated budget accordingly. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal of Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, is the individual authorized to bind the offer made above to the City of Newport Beach. Offer Presented By: on K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSUL I G Date: November 27, 1998 16 0 Appendix A Scopes of Work - Technical Studies qI Sent HOU-25-90 09:42an Cron 9494740992+949 756 2207 • 9 1;!QK & ASSOCIINC. November 25, 1998 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 ra9e I Post -it* Fax Noto 7671 paged' S To M1. J ( r` Ram Min c n„`W. Uu11 Leo p ZI�lgl a �y ,ao t� q)Q .'Uo�p•� ���yq� Fe Faxa , •6`1uv Subject: Koll Center Newport Traffic Study Dear Mr. Kreitzer: INTRODUCTION The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to submit this proposed Agreement to provide a traffic study for the requested General Plan Amendment to increase the office entitlements of Koil Center Newport Office Site B by 250,000 gross square feet. Two parking structures are proposed to accommodate the new requirement and displacement of existing parking. One parking structure would replace the existing structure located behind the 4000 MacArthur twin 10-story towers. The applicant is requesting that the proposed 250,000 square feet of new office entitlements be partially offset bythe conversion of approximately 9,470 square feet of restaurant and 10,000 square feet of retail uses that are undeveloped and permitted by the KCN P.C. Text. The traffic study would provide a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) short-range cumulative development analysis and General Plan build -out analysis of the proposed project to identify potential mitigation requirements to meet both short-range requirements and build -out issues related to a General Plan Amendment. The traffic study would be based upon peak hour traffic data provided by City staff as well as traffic modeling work provided by Austin -Foust Associates (AFA). The traffic study would review the following conditions: • Build -Out (for existing General Plan) • Build.Out (for existing General Plan plus Project) • Build -Out (for existing + project + pending general plan amendments) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects + project) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects + pending projects + project) I'RANSPURIAI ION PLANNING • GIS • TRAMC/ACOUSTIC•AL ENGINEERING '101 Dave Areeet, Suite 290 • Newport liearh, CA 92660 • Phoue: (949) 474.0009 • Fax. (949) 474-0902 qY Sent b9:RKJK NOV-25-98 09:42an Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1996 Page 2 from 94947409024949 756 2207 rage 2 0 RKJK would accumulate traffic information available from existing City and AFA sources. This Information will be documented into a traffic report for the City of Newport Beach. The following Scope of Work is proposed by RKJK for this initial study effort: 1. Discuss the project with representatives of the City (and the applicant if directed by the City). 2. Meet with City staff and Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. to review data in the short-range and build -out traffic forecasts. ' 3. Field review and verify intersection approach lane data for all study area intersections. 4. Review short-range traffic projections and levels of service with and without the project. 5. Identify potential capacity deficiencies (under TPO criteria) for short-range conditions. 6. Show build -out traffic projections and levels of service with and without the project. 7. Identify potential capacity deficiencies for build -out conditions. S. Provide mitigation measures for locations where deficiencies are identified (under terms of either the current TPO or the pending revised TPO) for both short-term and build -out conditions. 9. Identify project description refinements (if necessary) that could avoid triggering unfeasible mitigation requirements (for both short-term and long-term conditions). 10. Develop project recommendations and summary of the mitigation/project refinement program. Gj gent b9:RKJK Nov-25-98 09:43am Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1998 Page 3 from 9494740902*949 756 2207 rage 3 0 11. Evaluate two project access scenarios and internal circulation features of the proposed project. 12, Summarize the results of the study in a traffic impact analysis report. 13. Respond to comments regarding the draft report. 14. If necessary, analyze potential project traffic impacts at intersections In the City of Irvine for long range future conditions at up to six (6) locations. PROFESSIONAL FEES The fee for the, work outlined in this proposal is based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the attached Exhibit A. The estimated fee to accomplish the above Scope of Work Is $14,000,00 for RKJK Tasks 1 to 13 and 41,500.00 for AFA modeling support. The total fee adds to an amount of $15,500.00 for Tasks 1 to 13. The Irvine analysis (if needed) could be accomplished for an additional $5,800 (Task 14 above). The total effort would then add to an amount of $21,300.00 if the Irvine Intersection analysis is also included. Four copies (three bound and one original for the client's use) of the project report would be prepared. Monthly billings from RKJK will be based upon the attached Exhibit A - BILLING RATES FOR RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC.. The proposed fee includes attendance at up to four (4) meetings with the client/representatives. If additional meetings are required and requested, RKJK would be pleased to attend these meetings and billing would be based upon the billing rates included in Exhibit A. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the Koll Center Newport traffic study will take approximately 20 working days to complete from the date of authorization and receipt of data essential for the study. Additionally, any delays resulting from circumstances beyond our control, such as availability of modeling data, shall extend the time schedule. I• NO"25-98 09:43an from 9494740902,3949 756 2207 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1,998 Page 4 QUALIFICATIONS RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. is located in Newport Beach, California and specializes in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering for governmental agencies and the business community. The firm principals and associates have over 100 years of combined engineering and planning experience throughout Southern California at the regional, local and individual project levels. The experience of the firm's personnel In transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering provides the special skills necessary for determining practical and meaningful traffic solutions. This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this project. This proposal is valid for sixty days, if signed by the client. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (949) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. JKain, AICP ipai JK:kgd/9034 JN:1101-98-03 Attachments xc: Rich Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved by: Title: Firm: KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Date: rage 4, 5 1r116 o9+KKJK Nov-25-98 99=43an from 94947499924949 EXHIBIT A BILLING RATES FOR RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Compensation for Services The Consultants Billing rates for services are as follows: 756 2297 position HaurjY Rate Principal $110.00 Senior Associate $ 85.00 Associate $ 80.00 Senior Engineer/Planner $ 7Q.00 Engineer/Planner $ 60.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner $ 50.00 Engineering Technician IV $ 45.00 Engineering Technician III $ 35.00 Engineering Technician II $ 30.00 Engineering Technician 1 $ 25.00 Administrative Assistant $ 35.00 Administrative Aide $ 30.00 Clerical Aide $ 25.00 (1) Reimbursable direct coats, such as reproduction, supplies, messenger service, long-distance telaphons calls, and traffic counts will be billed at cost. (2) Hourly rates apply to work time, travel time and time spent at public hearings and meetings. For overtime work and public meetings, the above rates may be increased 50 percent. (3) Client payment for professional services is not contingent upon the client receiving payment from other parties. (4) Billing statements for work will be submitted monthly. Statements are payable within thirty 130) days of the receipt by client of statement. Any statement unpaid after thirty (30) days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. September 11, 1998 (With requested revisions for this job) Page 5, 5 5a2 Nov 24 98 05:08p BridgeNet mom �l R N A T l 0 November 24, 1998 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, California 92614 Consulting 1714) 540-31SG 0 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT NOISE & AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Keeton; BridgeNet Consulting Services, International is pleased to submit "proposal to conduct the noise and air quality studies for the EIR on the Koll Center Newport GPA in the City of Newport Beach. We propose to do this study on a time and materials basis at a cost not to exceed 6,300 dollars (Noise $2,800 & Air Quality $3,500). The above costs include the assessment of two development alternatives (one development alternative includes access on both Jtunboree and Mac Arthur) and the no project alterative. The study will address requirdthents relative to the City of Newport Beach. This cost is based upon an hourly rate of $125 dollars per hour for registered professional engineer and S85 dollars per hour for staff engineer. This cost includes all manpower, computer, and overhead expenses associated with completing this project as well as questions or comments. The above costs do not include attendance at any hearings, but can be accommodated at this hourly rate if desired. The proposed scope of work for this project is presented in the following page. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Yours very Truly, Brid eNet Consulting Services, International i By Pa H. Dunholter, P.E. President SRIOSGNET CONSULTING SERVICES 31SI AIRWAY AVE. Su1LO1NO P-I COSTA MOSA. CA 97626 TEL (714) 540.7t20 TAX (714) 540.3303 E•NAIL SALESCIAIRFORTRETWORR.CON VVWW.AIOPORTNETWORR.COM p.2 L53 oo uo:udp BridgeNet Consulting • (714) 540-3158 p,3 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ASSESSMENT - SCOPE OF WORK TASK I - EXISTING SETTING. The existing setting will be described through a modeling assessment o£existing noise sources. The noise modeling analysis will be designed to quantify the existing noise exposure at the adjacent noise sensitive land uses relative to existing traffic levels. Traffic noise levels will be determined utilizing the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model. Noise contours will be determined in terms of the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise scale for the nearby roadways and those roadways that will carry project generated traffic. The CNEL scale is used by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach and the State of California in assessing noise and land use compatibility impacts. The analysis will address the City of Newport Beach noise standards. TASK 2 - NOISE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES. An important part of a noise analysis is determining the impacts on noise sensitive land uses. This would include residential land uses, schools and hospitals that are near the project or situated along access streets to the project. The analysis will address both short-term and long-term noise impacts. Short-term impacts of the project include construction activities. Long-term impacts include impacts from increased traffic noise on roadways that carry project related traffic and activities on the Koll Center site itself. 2.I Short Term Noise Impacts Short-term noise impacts such as those associated with construction activities will be described based on the type of equipment that will be used for the construction of this project. Hours of construction and the estimated construction duration will be presented. Construction impacts Will include the developments on the project site, including the demolition of the existing parking structure. 22 Impacts from Project Generated Trof w- The noise impacts from project generated traffic will be assessed in terms of increase in the noise levels on land uses that are adjacent to roadways that will carry project related traffic. The noise levels for with and without the proposed project will be determined, and any increase will be quantified, and compared with applicable noise assessment criteria. These will be determined for the streets analyzed within the EEL 2.3 Impacts from On -Site Development. The potential impacts from noise as a result of development on the Koll Center Newport site itself will be addressed. This will include noise from mechanical equipment and, parking structure activities at commercial developments. Compliance relative to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinances will be identified. 5y iiav G9 UV 05:09p BridgeHet Consulting (71 540-3156 p.6 TASK 3 - MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation measures will be developed as indicated by the impact analysis. These measures may include dust control measures and vehiele miles traveled reduction measures. 56v "UV cY au u5:08p BrrdgeNet Consulting (71J6540-3156 p.5 • KOLL CENTER NEWPORT BEACH AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT - SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 - EXISTING AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT. The existing air environment will be described in terms of meteorology, local topography affecting pollutant dispersion, and ambient air monitoring data. A summary of current air management efforts, which may be related to the proposed project, will be provided. Sensitive receptor areas within the project vicinity will be identified. The Caline Model, developed by the California Department of Transportation, will be used to establish baseline carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project. TASK 2 - POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY The air quality impacts of the proposed project can be divided into the short term dust generation, local air impacts, and regional impacts. 21 Cons[rNction Impacts. Short-term dust and emission generation due construction activities will be forecasted. Measures to reduce dust generation are required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and will be discussed in detail. 2.2 .Regional Impacx Long term emissions will be generated due to increased traffic, the combustion of natural gas, and the generation of electricity. The emissions generated by these sources will be assessed for the project. These emissions will be compared to regional and sub -regional emissions to assess the potential.for regional air quality impacts. The primary regional air -planning document is the "Air Quality Management Plan," and a discussion of the projeces Consistency with the plan will also be provided. 23 .Loci[ Air Impact. Caline, a computer model developed by the California Department of Transportation, will be used to assess local pollutant concentrations along major roadways near sensitive areas. The model will be used, to assess on -site pollutant levels. Analysis will be conducted to instire that activities associated with the project will be consistent with the air levels generated by the nearby major roadways. Additionally, the Caline model will be used to assess potential impact areas. The intersections local to the project may experience a substantial traffic increase due to the project. The resulting air quality levels at the intersections will be analyzed to determine the potential impact of the project. An estimated two intersections will be modeled (for with and without the additional access on MacArthur Boulevard) �6 eq as 05:08p 8ridgeNet Consulting t71� 540-3156 p.4 • TASK 3 - COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WTrH FUTURE NOISE LEVELS. Ultimate noise levels on the project site will be determined for the traffic noise sources and commercial development. The analyse will include an assessment of the compatibility of the proposed uses with the projected noise levels. The analysis will include an assessment relative to the CNEL criterion. TASK 4 - DEVELOP MITIGATION MEASURES. ?aigation measures to minimize any potential noise impact of the proposed project will be developed. These measures may include site design, mechanical equipment siting, and indoor/outdoor budding noise reduction. 0 Appendix B Estimated Budget - Cost Summary 5ff Estimated Budget Summary Koll Center Newport GPA/PC Text Amendment Draft EIR Task $35/Hour $30/Hourr , $60/Hour- , VS/Hour $90/Hour $105/Hour Totef Task One - Project Management 60 $5,400.00 Task Two - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 8 20 20 $2,980.00 Task Three - Sub -Consultant Studies $27,600.00 Traffic Analysis $21,300.00 Acoustical Analysis $2,800.00 Air Quality Analysis $3,500.00 Task Four- Screencheck Draft EIR 60 40 80 120 $17,900.00 Task Five - Draft EIR 12 40 $3,420.00 Task Six - Response to Comments 16 48 $4,160.00 Task Seven - Final EIR 8 20 $1,780.00 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program/Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 40 $3,280.00 • Estimated Budget Summary Koll Center Newport GPA/PC Text Revision Draft EIR Task - --__- $35/Houi '- $50/Hour ,,$60/Hour.;-:_$75/Hour $90/Hour. -$105/Hour' Totai_ Task Nine - Public Meetings Hearings 16 $1,680.00 Sub -Total - Professional Fees $3,920.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $21,600.00 $5,400.00 $1,680.00 $68,200.00 Printing and Miscellaneous Printing $5,500.00 Miscellaneous $750.00 Sub -Total Printing and Miscellaneous $6,250.00 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED BUDGET $3,920.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.06 $21,600.00 $5,400.00 $1,680.00 $74,450.00 H 11 a ... ..... ..... ' .•.. � ISSUE GATE (MMrOOYYY) •. �. , a�N►i.u®.CWC7.CC.A U tlSCrICAC`tGC ... .............. ... i.i...... ! 130/98 ........ PRODUCER I THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE Donley, Renton & Associates ... POLICIES ... BELOW ............ ....................................................................................................................... License #0020739 3 Hutton Centre suite 450 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE SantaAna CA 92707.................................................................................................................................................................. COMPANY A Lloyds/Other London Insur LETER ............... ............... ..... ................ ........................................................................................................... ,.,,.. COMPANY B INSURED: ............................................................................................................................................... ............... i COMPANY C Robert Bain, Willlam Frost and Associates LETTER 14725 Alton Parkway ........................................................................................................................................................ COMPANY D Irvine CA 92713 LETTER ............ .... ....... ..... ............... ........................... ............ .................................... ...................... ...... ..... ..... COMPANY E LEM V v,A n^m* . '..... .............. ......, ... ..... ..... .. ....... THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, .............. .......... ...................... .... ............................ ................. ........ ........................ ........... ................................. ............................................. ........................................................................ '0 TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE 'POLICY EXPIRATION DATE (MMIODWY) DATE(MMIDI)n i LIMITS lAi :................................. ................................................. ................... .......................................................... ........... :............................................................... ..................... .......... GENERAL LIABLIfY ................. i GENERAL AGGREGATE :S •,S . I COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY i PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGO. ............................................... .......... ...••.•..•„••.......••• .................: :......... ' CLAIMS MADE 'OCCUR. I ' PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY :S OWNERS & CONTRACTOR'S PROT. : i i EACH• OCCURRENCE S .......................................... ............................ ,........; • FIRE DAMAGE (Any one IRe) is MED. EXPENSE (Any we perew) S .................. ....'................................ ............................................................................ ........................ ............... ................................................6..............................................1........................................ i AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY : COMBINED SINGLE IT :S LIMIT ANYAUTO ...................................... ............................... ?.... ...... ,........; ALL OWNED AUTOS ' BODILY INJURY S For per") (P SCHEDULED AUTOS ? ' '' . ......................................................................... .......< HMO AUTOS [ ( B ODIIY INJURY S ` : ( r ccidonp i NON -OWNED AUTOS ......................... ...................................... ................... ........: i GARAGE LIABILITY ' i PROPERTY DAMAGE :$ �...:....................... ....................................... ........................................................... ....... :.................. ...... ........................ ............... :EXCESS LIABILITY i : P..... .......................................... 0...... ................................ :EACH OCCURRENCE •S ,• I UMBRELLA FORM : AGGREGATE :S • .,• OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM ..., .. .. i ... . • ... ........... ......... .... .... .. .....: .. ... .. • • • i STATUTORY LIMITS WORKER'S COMPENSATION ........................... AND e EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY i i OTHER A Professional Liability P00433098 DESCRIPTON OF OPERATIONS•LOCATIONSNEHCLESMPECIAL ITEMS RE: JN 34777, BALBOA PENINSULA SIGN REGULATIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ATM.-PATRICIA TEMPLE, PLAH.DIR. P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658.8915 11/30/98 1 11/30/99 EACH ACCIDENT :S .. .:.......... .. ... ......... DISEASE • POLICY LIMIT i3 .......................... .......... ............. :............................... ....... { DISEASE • EACH EMPLOYEE i5 :Each Claim 1, 000,000 'Annual Aggregate 1,000,000 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL XN9XX=X19XXXXXX MAIL 30 * DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BtlRX3rMTO0006DCXd�(XNEIAXXT�$H)SDISOS)(A1RB IOSHN7mtX®RTiDDGDNHXX)(ff}12DL(RA`Xl(k . ..PYCPDT in nAVC FnP MnM PAYMFMT OF: PRFMII IM r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 June 30,1999 J. Patrick Allen, AIA Langdon Wilson Architects 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2725 Subject: Koll Center Project Dear Mr. Allen: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH AM JUL 01 1999 PM 718, 9110,11,1211121314, 516 V At our recent kickoff meeting for the subject project, we discussed the necessary developer deposit amount to pay for EIR preparation and project review. The estimated total deposit amount is $104,850. The deposit is to be paid in three increments, as follows: Increment 1: • Application Fee $10,400' • EIR Work: Initial Study, Sub -Consultant Studies, Screencheck EIR, Printing 40,130 • Contract Planner Work 7,000 TOTAL — TO BE DEPOSITED BY JULY 10: $579530 Increment 2: • EIR Work: Screencheck EIR, Draft EIR, Printing $21,620 • Contract Planner Work 7,000 TOTAL — TO BE DEPOSITED BY SEPTEMBER 1: $28,620 Increment 3: • EIR Work:, Response to Comments, Final EIR, Findings, Public Hearings $12,700 • Contract Planner Work 6,000 TOTAL — TO BE DEPOSITED BY DECEMBER 1: $189700 r Page 2 J. PatrickAllen • Pa • Langdon Wilson Architects The above amounts should be deposited with the City of Newport Beach by the dates indicated. If you have any questions, please contact me at 949-661-8175. Sincerely, Larry N. Lawrence c: Patricia Temple Keeton Kreitzer r LANGDON WILSON ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G INTERIORS Partners October 22, 1998 J Patrick Allen, AIA Asad M. Khan Ms. Patricia L. Temple Michael Schroeder, AIA Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, GA 92658-8915 Reference: Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment 97-3 Dear Patty: On behalf of Koll Center Newport, Langdon Wilson requests that the City of Newport Beach issue a request for proposal to consultants for the analysis and preparation of environmental and traffic documents for the requested General Plan Amendment to increase the office entitlements of Office Site B by 250,000 gross square feet. The following conceptually summarizes the proposed project. Office Building Area Building Height Offices Parking Los Angeles (213)259.1186 0Approximate City Net Area Newport Beach Parking Addition to Existing Office (714)833-9193 Site "B" Pool at 1/350 per P.C. Text Phoenix (602)252-2555 • Two parking structures are proposed to accommodate the new requirement and displacement of existing parking. One 1401 Quail Street parking structure would replace the Suite 100 existing structure located behind the NewportBeach, CA 4000 MacArthur twin 10-story towers. 92660-2725 (714) 833-9193 FAX (714) 833-3098 250,000 G.S.F. (1) 10 Stories/150 Feet 237,500 S.F. 679 Spaces J. Patrick Allen, AIA Architect � Ms. Patricia Pemple • October 22, 1998 LANGDON Director Planning Department Page 2 W I L S O N City of Newport Beach ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G INTERIORS Schedule Each of the following estimated time frames is in months from the date of General Plan Amendment Approval. First Parking Structure at MacArthur and Jamboree Second Parking Structure behind the 400 MacArthur Office Building Proposed 10-Story Office Building Complete Shell and Core Start Construction 4 months Complete Construction 9 months Start Construction 9 months Complete Construction 17 months Start Construction 9 months Complete Construction 22 months (1) Koll Center Newport requests that the proposed 250,000 G.S.F. of new office entitlements be partially offset by the conversion of approximately 9,470 S.F. of restaurant and 10,000 S.F. of retail uses that are undeveloped and currently permitted by the KCN P.C. Text. It is assumed that the conversion would be part of the traffic study and be based on appropriate trip generation rates. Enclosed for your use in obtaining the appropriate proposals are two site plans. One depicts the proposed project's relationship to the southerly portion of Koll Center Newport. The second concept site plan focuses on the project and its immediate neighbors. Based on the above project definition and the enclosed concept site plans, we request on behalf of Koll Center Newport that the City of Newport Beach Planning Department proceed with the following: • General Plan Amendment • CEQA Environmental Determination (EIR) • TPO Analysis and Reports 0 KCN P.C. Text Amendment (Zone Change) � Ms. Patricia Pemple October 22, 1998 LANGDON Director Planning Department Page 3 W I L S O N City of Newport Beach ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G INTERIORS In our capacity as consultants representing Koll Center Newport, we would appreciate your assistance in assembling the appropriate deposits, fees, etc. necessary to proceed with the above entitlement activities. Please give me a call if there are any questions or additional information you require at this time to obtain the necessary consultant(s). Sincerely, 46L'� J. Patrick Allen, AIA Partner cc w/enc: Tim Strader II/8559/005-L-Tem ple3 Xl� I M u WCAHiHON MVO. V, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT MASTER PLAN 0 00 uo zoo LANCDON S`llwMIN awu rte.... � io �xz-ve /j %RTWO l 5TOrt1' 0 0 KOro xxx n nn F1 P¢OPOS[O �_`\_`_`_`_��____ y Va ! � losroRr \s^/lG)JIII' zsB.oBO fs ; __ O PRo 0y� Fos R ' PAPC ST0. MCNF J� Q' i F%6TWG PR OSfDE F 105TORY O P STv �x f� O BF \ (—� JAMBOREE BLVD KOLL CENTER NEWPORT CONCEPT SITE PLAN D <D BD 160 LANGDON WILSON Rio �zx-ieP \� .�`°°� ?7��� / •i ��V IBiei�mi�csuumu �� veovoxo io non WCAHiN1Ai ELw. sso o0p GSi KOLL CENTER NEWPORT MASTER PLAN 0 60 120 240 IANGDON WILSON IL 11,11:7111a: . ,.. i to-22-99 • rI ►] PROPOSED 10 MACARTHUR BLVD. 250,000 GSF KOLL CENTER NEWPORT • MASTER PLAN O 60 120 240 LWGDON WILSON A UCXIT£CTUUE t I A: 1. f f I YTEI OII 10-22-98 • • a JAMBOREE BLVD KOLL CENTER NEWPORT 112 EX6TINC 3 STORY �j n D JE: 92 �INROCKWELL I I I I 1 1 mil KOTO U CONCEPT SITE PLAN 0 40 80 160 LANGDON WILSON ANL11lTECTUNE I LANK I N• 1 N T I f TO-22-92-98 • I& 0 VON KARMAN AVENUE PROPOSED TO STORY MACARTHUR BLVD. 250,000 GSF KOLL CENTER NEWPORT MASTER PLAN o 60 120 240 LANGDON WILSON ARCRtTECTURE I LA RRI R• I RTER1 RRt 10-22-98 City of Newport Beach 0 . City Council Minutes May 10, 1999 INDEX Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and authorize the City Clerk to release (38) the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable sections of the Civil Code. 8. MARINERS LIBRARY ROOF REPLACEMENT — AWARD OF C-3241 CONTRA&(C-3241). Approve the plans and specifications; award C-3241 Mariners Library to Long Beach RobAng, Inc. for the total bid price of $43,624.80 for Alternate Roof Replacement "A" and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and (38) establish an amount o-$2,375 for Alternate "A' to cover the cost of unforeseen work. 9. LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE BALBOA ANGLING CLUB. Approve C-1609; Balboa proposed lease. Angling Club (38) 10. RENEWAL OF CORONA DEL MAR FARMERS MARKET. Approve C-3143; Farmers Third Amendment to Encroachment Agreement, wli ch allows for annual Market Encroachment renewal by the City Manager for up to ten (10) additional oqe-year terms. Agreement (38) 11. PACIFIC PLAZA (BLOCK 800), NEWPORT CENTER.�p,Prove a C-3280 Professional Services Agreement with Bonterra Consulting of Costa Mesa for Pacific Plaza professional environmental services for a contract price of $51,510. (38) 12. KOLL CENTER NEWPORT OFFICE PROJECT. Approve Professional C-3281/C-3282 Services Agreements with Lawrence Associates of San Juan Capistrano and Koll Center Keeton Kreitzer Consultants of Irvine for professional project management (38) and environmental services. 13. \PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MAY 6, 1999. Receive and I Planning fib' ' (68) to approve the Consent Calendar, except for th 'tem removed (3). Council Member Ri g`way noted for the record that he erroneously stated that the trees were to beplantedat the Central Library when they were actually suppose to be planted at the Irvine Terrace Park (Agenda Item 16 of the April 26, 1999 regular meetigg). Without objection, the motion carried`by acclamation. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 99 _ ESTABLISHING TWO-HOUR PARKING ON HAZEL DRIVE FROM THE ALLEY NO T ''++�. COAST HIGHWAY TO SECOND AVENUE. Paul Glowienke, 427 Hazel Drive, stated that the homeowners need to be able to park in front of their homes and hoped that Council approves the 2-hour time limit on Hazel Drive. Additionally, he reported that "the residents are requesting that someone on Council make a motion to issue the Restricted Parking Hazel Drive (85) Volume 52 - Page 468 CITY OF FORT BEACH He ng Date: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: p �= PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644-3200; FAX (714) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Koll Center Newport Office Project May10, 1999 Patricia L. Temple (949)644-3200 FILE COPY ACTION: Approve Professional Services Agreements with Lawrence Associates of San Juan Capistrano and Keeton Kreitzer Consulting of Irvine, California, for professional project management and environmental services. Council Policy F-14, Authority to Contract For Services, authorizes Department Heads to award contracts for services of less than $30,000.00 without further review. However, contracts in excess of $30,000.00, contracts for service not specified in the approved budget; and contracts for services which exceed the amount authorized by the City Council in the budget must be submitted to the City Council for specific approval before the contract is awarded. Additionally, the City Attorney is required to review all specific contract documents prior to contract award. The attached consultant contracts are for the processing of the request of the Koll Company for additional office development at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. One of the two contracts, for Lawrence Associates, technically does not require City Council approval because it is under the $30,000 limit. However, this is the first time the Planning Department is utilizing an outside consultant to augment staff. We need to do this because of our extremely high workload combined with limited staff resources. As a result, this applicant has requested that a contract planner be retained to fulfill normal staff activities, like managing the environmental consultant, reviewing and processing applications, writing staff reports, and plan checking the building. We felt that the City Council should be aware of this fact, and felt the contract approval process provided a convenient mechanism for this information. The contract planner cost is to be covered by the applicant. Lawrence Associates has provided a proposal for project management for the project. This firm was selected after a Request for Proposals, a review of six different firms' Scope of Services, and an interview. In recommending the retention of this firm, staff believes that it possesses the level of experience necessary to manage the project with a level of competence similar to City staff. Mr. Lawrence has experience as a staff planner, and has an excellent understanding of this role. That of representing the applicant. Additionally, he has a good knowledge of the City and its processes, since he prepared the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan under contract to the City, and we were very satisfied with his work. In terms of the EIR consultant, it should be noted that the City's standard practice for more than 20 years has been to select environmental consultants from a list of firms previously qualified by the City, when agreed to by the applicant. The City has followed this practice because the time limits on EIR preparation make it impractical to do a full selection process for each case. Additionally, no City funds are involved in these contracts, as the applicant is responsible for the cost of EIR preparation. Keeton Kreitzer Cunsulting has provided a proposal to perform professional environmental services for the City of Newport Beach for the preparation and processing of a Focused Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents for the Koll Center Newport expansion. Attached is a copy of the proposal, containing the scope of services through the completion and certification of the Final EIR, proposed budget, and time schedule for preparation and processing the environmental documentation. Staff has reviewed the scope of services and determined that the services that will be provided meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental consulting fees for tasks described in the scope of services including staff hours, technical studies, direct expenses, and printing have been reviewed by staff and are considered appropriate and warranted. Additionally, the applicant has reviewed the contract proposal and finds that the scope of services and fees to be appropriate. The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the form and content of the Professional Services Agreements. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assis Ciry Manager Attachments: S e of Services Proposals Professional Services Agreements Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Page 2 n U SCOPE OF SERVICES KOLL OFFICE TOWER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOVEMBER 1998 LIAW'RENCE a AT sco t a r e s URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN .'s URBAN PLANNING ANb November 11,1998 Patricia Temple Planning Director, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 Dear Ms. Temple: In response to your request, Lawrence Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for staff augmentation services. I formed Lawrence Associates in 1986 to provide contract planning services to cities. My 25 years in planning includes 13 years on staff at the City of San Juan Capistrano, where I managed the development review division. Since becoming a consultant, I have served as a contract planner for review ofmajor development projects in Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, SanJuan Capistrano, La Palma, and Aliso Viejo. In presenting this proposal, I would like to emphasize several points: ■ If selected for the project, I will be the responsible person for the duration of the project. In other words, "who you see is who you get". ■ I am able to function independently to produce and prepare reports, letters and exhibits without the need for City clerical support. Throughout the review process, I will keep the Planning Director and the applicant fully informed. I will be readily accessible to City staff and the applicant and Will be available to meet as needed and on short notice if necessary. I am the principal of Lawrence Associates and the person authorized to bind this proposal and negotiate a contract. If you have any questions, please call me at 949-661-8175. Sincerely, Larry I awrence AICP Principal 0 0 32092 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • 949.661.8176 - Fax 949.661.4828 1 m CONTENTS SECTION P GE L APPROACH I 2. METHODOLOGY 2 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE 4 4. COST AND AVAILABILITY 6 5. RESUME 7 0 1. APPROACH This scope of services is for the provision of staff augmentation services for review of the proposed ten - story office tower in Koll Center Newport. The project will include the processing of an EIR and traffic study, a General Plan Amendment, and an amendment to the KCN PC text. The following sections describe our approach to the project, processing methodology, Larry Lawrence's experience with similar projects, and an hourly rate quote. All project management, report preparation, and other work related to the project will be performed by Larry Lawrence. My guiding principles in performing the work will be: ■ My client is the City of Newport Beach, not the applicant. The public interest, as defined by the City, will be the ultimate determinant of direction and recommendations. ■ The project proponents will be treated in an even-handed and responsive manner. I will listen attentively to their concerns and their project objectives, and respond promptly where required. ■ Project evaluation will be comprehensive, identifying every issue. ■ I will work to resolve any conflicts by offering alternatives that work for both the City and the proponents. Alternative solutions will fully conform to City standards and policies. ■ My knowledge and long experience with zoning regulations, CEQA and other state and federal regulations will be used to steer the project through all required "hoops". ■ Work will be done precisely to the specifications of the City of Newport Beach, ■ Deadlines will be met with no loss of work quality. LAWRENCEASSOCIATES I 0 M n u • Z. METHODOLOGY 0 Familiariration 0 Immediately upon project "kickoff", I will meet with the Planning Director and other relevant City staff, review the case file, other related files or projects, the General Plan, and applicable City policies and ordinances. I will also conduct site visits and meet with project proponents, under the auspices of the Planning Director, to more fully understand the project characteristics and objectives. I will then review, analyze and evaluate the project submittals for consistency with City policies and standards as well as the requirements of state law. Pfr lect Analysis And Processing I will coordinate review of plans by various City departments and outside agencies, consolidating comment and presenting recommendations and revisions to the applicant. I will also prepare screen check comments, letters to applicants, and staff reports. This will include the preparation of required notices of public meetings and hearings. Notices will be mailed, posted, and/or published as required by City codes and policies. I will maintain the quality of the city's discretionary review process by ensuring that all City standards and policies are implemented in a thorough and consistent manner. I will ensure that all written materials are thoroughly reviewed and consistent with the format established by the City of Newport Beach. Internal deadlines will be established for the processing of the assigned project to ensure that adequate time is spent reviewing drafts. Continued coordination and communications with the staff planner and affected departments and agencies will be maintained when preparing staff reports. In addition to review of the project for consistency with applicable codes, I will prepare the required environmental assessments, including initial studies, negative declarations, Program EIR checklists, and mitigation monitoring programs to ensure compliance with CEQA as necessary. 0 I will work closely with the EIR consultant to ensure that the project description is complete, that alternatives to the project have been identified, and that the consultant has all necessary information from the City and proponents to prepare the draft document. I will integrate the necessary EIR review steps into the project schedule and assist with scoping and other meetings and required noticing. Scheduling A processing schedule will be established in accordance with the city's calendar and processes. I will maintain the schedule, prepare regular status reports, and ensure that all deadlines for noticing, report preparation, review of reports and packet assembly are met. The applicant will be kept informed of the status of the project and of submittal deadlines to meet hearing dates. LAWRENCEASSOCUTES L 7 2. METHODOLOGY Meetings And Hearings 0 Once all the issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the city staff, I will attend meetings and make presentations to the Planning Commission, other advisory bodies, and the City Council. Prior to each meeting, I will contact the applicant and the other affected departments or agencies and determine whether their attendance will be required. Any exhibits or graphics will be prepared in advance of the meeting and I will ensure the exhibits are displayed at the meeting or hearing. If the project is approved, I will review grading and building plans for consistency with discretionary approvals and environmental mitigation measures. I will coordinate with the other departments to finalize the plan check process and ensure those planning related issues, conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City. Cost Control Lawrence Associates is sensitive to the need to minimize costs wherever possible, but not at the expense of quality review. Researching the project in advance of meetings, anticipating the issues and coordinating closely with the applicant, the other departments and the Planning staff -will avoid "late hits" and the need to delay or reassess the project. Since I have considerable experience in processing applications, the learning curve will be minimal. LAWRENCEASSOMTES 3 0 J 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE V• Cif of San Clemente Case Processing Mr. Lawrence was the contract planner and project manager for two major projects in San Clemente, the Forster Ranch Specific Plan.and the Plaza Pacific project. In the, Mr. Lawrence was responsible for coordinating and processing a major specific plan revision, General Plan amendment, EIR, and development agreement. In the Plaza Pacifica mixed use project, project plans include site plan, landscaping, architecture, grading, tentative map, tragic study, and development agreement. Contact: Jim Hare, City Planner 949-361-6185 • _City of Laguna Niguel Case Processing Larry Lawrence did the staff analysis, review, and processing for a number of proposed development projects. Mr. Lawrence acted as city staff for these projects, including liaison with project sponsors, reports to staff managers, preparation of initial studies and public notices, analysis of site plans, architecture, landscaping, compliance with zoning code and general plan, preparation of staff reports and resolutions in the City's formats, presentation of projects and staff recommendations at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and followup/file closeout after final action. Mr. Lawrence also assisted in setting up the Laguna Niguel Community Development Department upon incorporation, including the preparation of standard resolutions and conditions of approval for tentative map, site plan, and other development entitlements. Contacts: Robert Lenard, Community Development Director: 949-362-4314 William Cunningham, Planning Manager: 949-362-4360 • Community of Aliso Viejo Case Processing Lawrence Associates is the planning consultant for the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPC), which is the advisory planning body for the Aliso Viejo Community Association. Mr. Lawrence and his staff are responsible for preparing reports on proposed projects referred to AVAPC by the County of Orange and forwarding recommendations to the County. Representative projects reviewed by Mr. Lawrence include site, architectural, and landscape plans for the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. Contact: Steve Dickey, AVAPC Chairman 800-926-3766 x301 LAWAENCEASSOCUTES N 3. RELATED EXPERIENCE • City of San Juan Capistrano Case Processine 0 Mr. Lawrence acted as an extension of city staff, providing the same staff review, analysis and processing services as for the City of Laguna Niguel, described above. Representative projects include the Pueblo Serra Planned Community office project and the Capistrano Collection retail project. Before becoming a consultant, Mr. Lawrence spent 13 years as a staff planner for San Juan Capistrano. During that time, he managed the current planning division and processed a large number of development projects and other land use entitlements. Contact: Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Director 949-493-1171 • City of La Palma Case Processing Mr. Lawrence provided staff services for land use applications for a city without its own planning department. In addition, Mr. Lawrence overhauled and rewrote the City's nonresidential zoning regulations. Contact: Ismile Noorbaksh, Public Works/Planning Director 714-523-7700 0 LAWRENCEASSOCUTES 3 E %D r � • 4. COST AND AVAILABILITY Hour& Rate I I propose to perform the work described in this proposal on a time -and -materials basis, at the following hourly rates: 1•- Direct Work .......... $80 1' Travel ................ 40 AvailabilitX 1 If selected, I will be available to begin work immediately. I estimate that for the duration of the project, _ approximately 30 percent of my time will be spent in work on the project. 1 r 1 i i LAWRENCEASSOCUTES 11 n l� S. RESUME /,2 . L?IA Vint E N C E • e• ojajora, - VABAN FLANNIND AND OLSION LARRY N. LAWRENCE AICP .5VAI/Ylf RY: Larry Lawrence has over 25 years of experience as a planning consultant and city staff planner. During that time, Mr. Lawrence has analyzed dozens of proposed development projects and land use applications, prepared zoning codes, sign and subdivision codes, general plan elements, specific plans, environmental impact reports, hillside protection ordinances, open space acquisition programs, and annexation studies. Prior to forming Lawrence Associates, I& Lawrence was a planner for the City of San Juan Capistrano. His responsibilities included managing the current planning division and coordinating the Environmental Review Board. He also prepared the City's Land Use Code, growth management ordinance, and various planned community ordinances. Mr. Lawrence holds a masters degree in city planning, is a member of the American Planning- Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), and is past Director for AICP Certification for the Orange County Section, Cal Chapter APA and Registration Chair for the 1998 Cal Chapter APA Conference. rereatE� �/a�vfl! • Principal, Lawrence Associates f//uTa�{y,• • Senior Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano • Assistant/Associate Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano • Planning Intern, County of San Diego ELUCtI %/alp/; • Master of City Planning, San Diego State University • B.A. Psychology, University of California, Berkeley • Graphic and design courses, UCI landscape arch. certificate program. • American Planning Association • American Institute of Certified Planners CONAVIlCr • San Juan Capistrano: Current Planning - As manager of current PLANNING planning and later as a contract planner for the City, analyzed and EXPEre/Eli/CEt processed over 50 major projects, including tentative maps, grading and landscape plans and schematic elevations. These included most of the residential projects submitted to the City during that heavy growth period. Responsibilities included liaison with applicants and city staff, preparation of staff reports, presentations to the Architectural Board of Review, Planning Commission, and City Council, and followup and file closure after final action. Representative projects included the Lomas San Juan and Pueblo Serra planned communities, Bank of America, and Sycamore Plaza. 13 0 RESUME LARRXLAWRENCE • AlisoVigjo:AdyisoryReview-Reviewed alarge number ofprojects referred to the Aliso Viejo Advisory Planning Committee (AVAPC) 'by the County of Orange for recommendations and conditions of approval. Representative projects include the Summit and Summit South office tower projects, the Pacific Park business park complex, the Columbia Square office project, the Pacific Park Medical Office Building, the Shea Town Center Corporate Park, and a large number of residential tentative maps and site plans. • La Palma: Land Use Applications - Prepared staff analysis, environmental documentation, hearing notices and related documentation on controversial land use applications. • San Clemente: Forster Ranch Specific Plan - As a city contract planner, created specific plan regulations for the 1900-acre Forster Ranch planned community in San Clemente. The bulk of the specific plan is the zoning component, consisting of regulations relating to permitted uses, development standards, and review procedures. The plan also contains land use and circulation master plans and related elements. • Laguna Niguel: The Marketplace at Laizuria Niguel - Reviewed all architectural elevations and design details for a major shopping center recently completed at Pacific Park Drive and Alicia Parkway. The project includes a WalMart, Mervyns and Vons and a large number of smaller shops. Consulted with, city staff, project represen- tatives, architect, and landscape architect. Reviewed plans, prepared relevant staff report sections, and presented design analyses to the Planning Commission and City Council. Also prepared slide shows to illustrate good and bad design approaches and show that it is possible to build a non -ugly WalMarL • Laanna Niguel: HomeBase - Project manager for review of a major store remodel, including expansion of the garden center and reconfiguration of the parking lot. Provided design feedback to the project architect and landscape architect, reviewed proposed architecture in light of City's Community Design Guidelines, prepared staff reports, and presented the project to decision -makers. •Laguna Niguel: Architectural Review -Assisted planning staff as a design consultant in the review of architecture, landscape 2 0 ly 0 Is RESUME VING Uvc' RE'GUM UOlN/vr 0 LARRYLAWRENCE architecture, and site design for various projects. Projects included the St. Timothy's and Seventh Day Adventist church expansions, St. Anne private school, the Mimi's, Chevy's, In-N-Out, and Yankee Tavern restaurants, ARCO gas station, and Smith's Market. • La Ouinta: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of La Quinta, including computer graphics to illustrate required setbacks and building heights, fence regulations, and other development standards. • La Palma: Zoning Code - Prepared nonresidential district regulations, including permitted uses, development standards, and supplemental regulations. Future phases will encompass residential regulations, permitting procedures, special purpose districts, adult business regulations, signs, parking, and a general overhaul of the ordinance. • Laguna Niguel: Design Guidelines - Prepared citywide community design guidelines for the City of Laguna Niguel, including residential, office, industrial, and commercial architecture, site planning, and landscaping. The Guidelines addressed such items as outdoor lighting, pedestrian spaces and walkways, parking layout, street trees, entry landscaping, building mass and form, building elevations, architectural style and harmony, roofs, materials and colors sign design, fences and walls. • Laguna Niguel: Zoning Code - Prepared a new zoning code and consistency rezoning for the City of Laguna Niguel to replace seven planned community ordinances. The project involves a complete land use/development survey of the City in order to determine the setback and other standards of development on the ground, the preparation of a new zoning scheme, district regulations and zoning map, preparation of new supplemental regulations, such as special events, accessory uses, adult businesses, etc., and the overhaul of City permitting procedures. San Juan Capistrano: Zoning Code -Drafted the San Juan Capistrano Land Use Code. The Code includes overlay districts to address such concerns as hillside protection, historic preservation, and floodplain zoning. Subdivision regulations, with provisions for lot design, undergrounding of utilities, park dedication, and other issues, are also integrated into the Code. 3 /5 RESUME LARRYLAWRENCE • Claremont: Subdivision Regulations - Completed comprehensive subdivision regulations for the City of Claremont, including provisions for compliance with state law regarding vesting maps, 'environmental review, review period limitations, park dedication, school site reservation, rental conversions, lot line adjustments, mergers, and reversions to acreage. COMPUTA? • WordPerfect, Excel, HTML Assistant, Aldus Photostyler, Omnipage SXILiu; Pro, CorelDraw, and CAI) Designer. 4 AO 0 I* PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of May, 1999, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Lawrence Associates whose address is 32092 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano, California, 92675, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide project management and staff services upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. C. The principal member of Consultant is, for purpose of this Project, Larry Lawrence. . D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant,' has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 17th day of May, 1999, and shall terminate on the 17th day of May, 2000, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the scheduled billing rates, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and • incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of 1 this Agreement without prior written approval of City. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of Sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000). The Planning Director shall have the authority to authorized work beyond this amount, not to exceed an additional $4,OQO. 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee,,type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses Including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of City. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with Exhibit "B". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant, or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, : 1- if 0 0 0 qualifications and approvals required of its and warrants that it shall keep in effect all during the term of this Agreement. profession. Consultant further represents such licenses, permits and other approvals 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. S. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details in means of performing the work provided that Consultant is compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to 'the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only with respect to the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Larry Lawrence to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "B", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by name and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance In writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12, HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall Indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal 4 ,?a 0 injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in .V Its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that, in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any Insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability Insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any for the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant Is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint -venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. AIR 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. Access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Blueprinting, CADD plotting, copying and other services through City's reproduction company for each of the required submittals. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required submittals with City's reproduction t company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to ,�3 appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional Inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating In making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. 0?V All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax 644-3350 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Larry Lawrence Lawrence Associates 32092 Via Carlos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949) 661-8175 Fax 661-4828 26. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the -provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the 9 45 • 0 same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the Parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and' Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 31. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall Indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for Infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk By: City Manager for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT By: 10 4(o • 0 Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 November 27,1998 Ms. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear p - PLANNING DRECEIVE ARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM 01 1998 PM 7181911011111211121314i&�6 As you requested, I have enclosed a proposal for environmental consulting services for the preparation of the Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proposed in the City of Newport Beach. I have based my proposal on our discussions and those with Ms. Lauren Jeu of Planning Consultants Research and Mr. Patrick Allen of Langdon Wilson Architects. I believe this proposal addresses the issues associated with the proposed project and presents a comprehensive scope of services necessary to implement the City's environmental review process. Two firm's will assist Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (KKC) in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., will prepare a detailed traffic analysis, consistent with the City's requirements (including the Traffic Phasing Ordinance). In addition, BridgeNet Consulting Services International will prepare the acoustical and air quality assessments. All three of these technical analyses will evaluate the project -related impacts based on vehicular access as proposed (i.e., from both Jamboree and MacArthur Boulevards) and the alternative scenario you described, with project vehicular access from Jamboree Boulevard only. The technical studies will be summarized and appended to the Draft EIR. As indicated in the scope of services, KKC will work directly with City staff during the preparation of the Draft EIR and ensure that the City's environmental review process is carefully implemented and completed. I shall be responsible for project management and preparation of the Draft EIR, response to public comments, and Final EIR. hi addition, the proposal reflects preparation of all of the requisite CEQA notices associated with the preparation of the document. Finally, we will prepare the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, findings and statement of overriding considerations (if necessary), and will attend all public meetings and hearings held for the proposed project. 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 - Irvine, CA 92614 - (949) 756-2202 -Fax (949) 756-2207 Ms. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director City of Newport Beach November 27,1998 Page Two Thank you for providing KKC with the opportunity to provide the City with this proposal for environmental consulting services for the Koll Center Newport project. If you have any questions regarding either the scope of services or estimated budget after you have reviewed the proposal, please don't hesitate to call me. Very sincerely, KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING &41-11- _. KeetonK. Kreitzer Principal KKKsjr Enclosure 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 - IrvLre, CA 92614 - (949) 756-2202 -Fax (949) 756-2207 0 0 04V Proposal for the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Koll Center Newport General Plan Amendment 97-3 and Planned Community Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA 0 Submitted to: Newport Beach Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ATTN: Patricia L. Temple, Director Submitted by: Keeton Kreltzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 November 27, 1998 E �9 Proposal for the Preparation of a Draft is Environmental impact Report Table of Contents I. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................. 1 Task One - Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 1 Task Two - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation ............. .. ............. 2 Task Three - Sub -Consultant Studies ................................... 2 Task Four - Screencheck EIR......................................... 2 Task Five - Draft Project EIR ........................................ 10 Task Six - Response to Public Comments ................................ 10 Task Seven - Final EIR ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 11 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................. 11 Task Nine - Public Hearings ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 [l. PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................ 11 Ill. ESTIMATED BUDGET ........................................... 12 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL .......................... 14 V. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROJECT APPLICANT AND/OR CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 VI. STATEMENT OF OFFER/TERMS OF AGREEMENT ...................... 16 Appendices A. Technical Studies Scopes of Work B. Cost Summary Breakdown 1] 3b 0 PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . KOLL CENTER NEWPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-3 AND PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AMENDMENT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES As indicated above, the scope of services for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) comprises several discrete steps that implement both the State and City of Newport Beach California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The major objective to be achieved is the certification of the Draft EIR that will require the implementation of several tasks to be undertaken that include, but not limited to, the following: (1) project management and coordination; (2) preparation of technical studies; (3) preparation of the Draft EIR; (4) EIR processing and public participation; (5) preparation of the Final EIR; and (6) preparation of the legal documents that support the Final EIR, Including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Consideration, if necessary. Each work task to be undertaken is identified and described below. Task One - Protect Management/Coordination Project management will be an integral part of the planning process. As a result, this task will involve management and coordination of all work to be undertaken to prepare the Draft EIR. In order to ensure that work associated with the preparation of the Draft EIR is progressing in accordance with the schedule, meetings as determined necessary will be conducted that include representatives of Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (KKC), City of Newport Beach, EIR technical consultants, the project applicant (if desired by the City), and/or other agencies having an interest in the proposed project. Specifically, this task will accommodate up to six (6) such meetings and will Include coordination between the EIR consultant, City staff, project applicant and/or designated representative, and EIR technical specialists. In summary, this task will include: • Management and supervision of the EIR consultant team; • Coordination of the proposed project and environmental document with the City of Newport Beach staff to ensure that City policy Is incorporated into the Draft EIR; • Consultation with the City of Newport Beach staff and other responsible agencies as determined necessary; and • Attendance at up to six (6) meetings with City staff, project applicanttrepresentative, and the consultant team. Estimated Time Frame: As Required Estimated Budget: $5,400.00 21 • `J 1] The environmental consultant will prepare an initial study utilizing the City of Newport Beach environmental assessment form. The purpose of the initial study Is two -fold: (1) to identify those issues that will be the subject of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR; and (2) to eliminate from further analysis those environmental Issues, if any, where it can be shown that potential impacts resulting from project implementation will be less than significant. The cursory environmental analysis included in the initial study will be based on the existing data base, including previous environmental document, applicable technical studies, and the City's General Plan. Once the initial study Is completed and the environmental determination made, a Notice of Preparation will be prepared by KKC. The NOP, together with the initial study, will be distributed via certified mall (return receipt) to all recipients Included on a master distribution list established in consultation with City staff as determined appropriate by the City of Newport Beach. The recipients will include all responsible and trustee agencies as well as interested organizations and individuals as determined by the EIR consultant and City. Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks (including 2 week review by City of Newport Beach) Estimated Budget: $2,980.00 KMV1,17 •,.:, Several technical studies will be required to support the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Specifically, these technical studies will include: (1) trafflc analysis; (2) acoustical study; and (3) air quality assessment. A qualified and capable team of sub -consultants has been assembled to undertake each of these site specific analyses. Each consultant and their respective specialty are Identified below. Traffic Analysis RK)K at Associates, Inc. Acoustical Analysis BrldgeNet Consulting Services, international Air Quality Assessment BridgeNet Consulting Services, International Scopes of work for each of the technical studies are presented in Appendix A, attached to this proposal. Estimated Time Frame: 7 Weeks Estimated Budget: $27,600.00 The most signiflcant task to be undertaken as part of the proposed work program is that of preparing the Draft EIR. A Screencheck EIR will be the precursor to the Draft document and will be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR. This work effort will encompass both primary and secondary research to establish the ambient environmental conditions, understand in detail the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, evaluate proposed mitigation measures and/or recommend additional mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce environmental Impacts to an acceptable level. 2 0i a n u n u Although the scope of the Draft EIR will be determined when the initial study (refer to Task Two) is completed, this proposal assumes that the EIR will address a range of issues based on the location and complexity of the subject property. Therefore, a complete Draft EIR outline is presented below that reflects the environmental issues anticipated to be the subject of the environmental analysis contained In the document, followed by a brief discussion of the Information that will be included In each section of the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Table of Contents Koli Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment 97-3/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA CHAPTER 1.0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location 1.1.2 Project Description 1.1.3 Project Phasing 1.1.4 Project Objectives 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives 1.2.2 Environmental Superior Alternative 1.3 Areas of Controversy 1.4 Issues to be Resolved 1.5 Impact Summary Table CHAPTER 2.0 - INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR 2.1.1 Authority 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR 2.1.4 Related Approvals 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction 2.1.6 Availability of the Draft EIR 0 3 93 • 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Existing Environmental Setting 2.2.2 Significance Criteria 2.2.3 Project Design Features/Standard Conditions 2.2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures 2.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation 2.3 Definitions CHAPTER 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location 3.2 Definition of the Project Site 3.3 Environmental Setting 3.4 History and Evolution of the Proposed Project 3.5 Project Description 3.6 Project Phasing 3.7 Project Objectives CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4.1 Soils and Geology 4.2 Drainage/Hydrology 4.3 Traffic and Circulation 4.4 Noise 4.5 Air Quality 4.6 Land Use/Relevant Planning 4.7 Aesthetics E of 0 4 2°I rl L_� n u 4.8 Public Services and Facilities 4.8.1 Police Protection 4.8.2 Fire Protection 4.8.3 Water Facilities and Service 4.8.4 Sewer Facilities and Service 4.8.5 Solid Waste Facilities and Service CHAPTER 5.0 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.1 Description of Cumulative Projects 5.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 5.2.1 Soils and Geology 5.2.2 Drainage/Hydrology 5.2.3 Traffic and Circulation 5.2.4 Noise 5.2.5 Air Quality 5.2.6 Land Use/Relevant Planning 5.2.7 Aesthetics 5.2.8 Public Services and Facilities CHAPTER 6.0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Purpose and Scope 6.1.2 Criteria of Alternatives 6.1.3 Identification of Alternatives 6.2 Analysis of Alternatives 6.2.1 No Project Alternative (Existing General Plan/PC Land Uses) 6.2.2 Alternative Location (if appropriate) 6.2.3 Alternative Land Use (if appropriate) 6.2.4 Alternative Design (No Access on MacArthur Boulevard) 6.2.5 Alternative to be Determined 6.3 Summary of Alternatives 6.4 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative CHAPTER 7.0 - SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED CHAPTER 8.0 - GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS 5 4PS 0 CHAPTER 9.0 - INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES CHAPTER 10.0 - INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS CHAPTER 11.0 - ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CHAPTER 12.0 - BIBLIOGRAPHY TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. Notice of Preparation/Initial Study B. Correspondence C. Trafflc Analysis D. Acoustical Analysis E. Air Quality Analysis A summary of the Information and analyses to be included In each of the sections identified in the preceding table of contents is presented below. 1.0 Executive Summary A summary of the project location, description and objectives will be presented in this section as well as a summary of the potential Impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable environmental consequences, presented In a matrix or table format. This section will also include a brief description of each alternative (including identification of the "environmentally superior" alternative), a list of potential areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.0 Introduction This introductory section will identify the purpose and scope of the Draft EIR, the contents of the document, the authority by which it has been required, the agencies having jurisdiction over the project, and the intended uses of the document (i.e., subsequent discretionary and/or permit approvals). 3.0 Project Description A complete description of the project, including Its history and evolution (i.e., Koll Center Newport Planned Community), location, parameters, phasing (if available), and all actions necessary to implement the proposed project will be presented in this section. The description will include a narrative component and statistical tables as appropriate to adequately describe the nature, scope and intensity of the project. This section will also Include a brief presentation of background information necessary to provide a context for the applications. 4.0 Environmental Analysis The purpose of this chapter of the Draft Elk is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to Identify the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This section will contain the environmental Ll 6 A analysis for each Issue which has been determined to be the subject of the Draft EIR. The extent of the analysis and documentation for each issue will be identified in the initial study undertaken in Task Two as well as in NOP comments received from public agencies and interested parties. In some cases, the discussion will be a summary of a technical study prepared by a member of the applicant's or EIR consultant's team. In each case where a technical study will be the basis for the environmental analysis contained in the EIR, the technical report will be condensed to present the existing environmental conditions, provide an assessment of the potential project -related impacts, and Identify/recommend appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the environmental consequences are eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level, If feasible. It should be noted that a standard format will be employed to analyze each issue identified in this proposal thoroughly. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the Information included within each topic. Existing Environmental Setting This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed project. This documentation will serve as the baseline upon which the project -related impacts will be evaluated. Significance Criteria Speciflc criteria will be identified and presented in this section of the Draft EIR upon which the significance of the project -related potential Impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR will be derived from the significant effects presented In Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local (i.e., City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, etc.), State and/or federal policies and programs that may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non -technical standards determined to be appropriate by the lead agency (i.e., City of Newport Beach). Project Design Features/Standard Conditions This section of the document will Identify specific project design features (PDF) that will be Incorporated into the proposed project that are intended to pre-empt project -related impacts (e.g., incorporation of mature landscaping, etc.) by the applicant as well as standard conditions (SC) that are typically imposed by regulatory agencies (e.g., adherence to the Uniform Building Code) on development in order to ensure safety and minimize adverse environmental effects. The discussion of potential environmental Impacts in Chapter 4 will reflect the Incorporation of any PDFs and SCs included this section. Environmental Impact Analysis The environmental analysis for each issue which has been determined to be the subject of the Draft EIR is contained in this section of the document. The extent of the analysis and documentation for each issue will be identified in the initial study (refer to Task Two). In some cases, as previously indicated, the discussion will be a summary of a technical study prepared by the EIR consultant's project team. In such case, the technical report will be condensed to present the existing environmental conditions, provide an assessment of the potential project -related Impacts, and identify/recommehd appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the environmental consequences are eliminated or reduced to a less than signlflcant level, If feasible. All project -related Impacts, including those associated with all phases of the proposed project, will be clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with the both City and State CEQA Guidelines. it should be noted that any previous land use studies and/or other technical documentation prepared by/for the applicant and/or City of Newport Beach will be utilized to the extent it is applicable to the proposed project. in order to facilitate the Impact analysis, the following outline will be utilized in preparing the project - related environmental analysis. Potential Effects of the Project Found to be Insigniflcant Short-Term/Construction Impacts Long-Term/Operational Impacts Potential Effects of the Project Found to be Significant Short-Term/Construction Impacts Long-Tenn/Operational Impacts Mitigation Measures Where a potential signlflcant environmental effect has been Identifled based on the criteria identfled in analysis and that Impact cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be identified and included in this section of the document which "... minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect Identified in the EIR", as prescribed in the State CEQA Guidelines. ,Level of Slgniflcance after Mitigation Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain signlflcant even after mitigation is incorporated into the proposed project. These signlflcant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that idendfles and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project Implementation that offset the significant Impacts. 5.0 Cumulative impacts This section of the Draft EIR will focus on other projects that are proposed or approved in the project environs that would create demands on servicing agencies and affect the ability of those agencies to continue to provide an adequate level of service. The City of Newport Beach will Identify any projects that have been proposed or are approved in the vicinity of the proposed project within Its jurisdiction based on the criteria developed by the City. in addition, the environmental consultant will query adjacent jurisdictions (e.g., City of Irvine, County of Orange, etc.) in an effort to identify additional projects in the vicinity of the subject property, also based on the City's criteria, These projects will be evaluated with the proposed project to determine project -related cumulative Impacts, Speclflc 3� focus of the cumulative analysis will be traffic, noise, and air quality. This section of the Draft EIR will also provide a discussion of these cumulative projects and their potential Impacts on the several issues analyzed In Chapter 4.0 of the document. 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Chapter 6.0 will provide a qualitative and quantitative impact analysis of the alternatives identified by the City of Newport Beach. Several potential alternatives have been Identified In the proposed Table of Contents presented above; however, the type and number of alternatives to be analyzed in this Chapter of the Draft EIR will be determined through discussions with the City of Newport Beach staff. The alternatives that will be identified and included for analysis will be those that are determined to be feasible and are capable of achieving (some of) the goals of the applicant. It will be necessary to evaluate the "No Project" Alternative (i.e., existing General Plan/Koll Center Newport PC land uses), among others. 7.0 Significant Irretrievable Environmental Changes Which Would Be involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Those impacts which cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, will be identified and summarized from the discussions contained in Chapter 4.0. 8.0 Growth -Inducing Impacts The manner in which the project could foster economic and/or population growth, either directly or Indirectly, in the surrounding area will be thoroughly discussed. Specifically, the characteristics of the project which may encourage and facilitate such other development activities that could significantly affect the environment, either Individually or cumulatively, will also be discussed in this chapter and their potential effects identified. 9.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures This chapter of the document will include a comprehensive listing of the mitigation measures that will be required as a result of project implementation. This listing of mitigation measures will be used to create the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will stipulate the timing and responsibility for each mitigation measure. 10.0 Inventory of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts A comprehensive listing of the potential unavoidable adverse Impacts (i.e., those that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level) that are anticipated as a result of project implementation will be presented In this section of the Draft EIR. In addition, cumulative Impacts that are significant and unavoidable will also be Identified and listed. 11.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted A comprehensive listing of each individual and the organization with which the Individual is associated will be included in this Chapter of the Draft EIR to document the source of the information utilized • In the environmental analysis. 9 �9 12.0 Bibliography 0 Each document used as a reference or source of information will also be identified and presented in the Bibliography which will serve as a reference to those reviewing the Draft EIR. Pursuant to current CEQA requirements, the locations) where each of the bibliographic references are maintained will be identified in this chapter to facilitate the review should the reference materials be needed. Upon completion of the Screencheck EIR, the EIR consultant will print ten (10) copies of the document and submit them to the Newport Beach Planning Department for review and comment. Estimated Time Frame: 10 Weeks Estimated Budget: $17,900.00 All comments on the Information and analysis contained in the Screencheck Elk made by City staff during their review will be forwarded to the EIR consultant for incorporation into the Draft EIR. It Is anticipated that the City's review will be completed within a two -week period. The City will review the document to ensure that the information contained within It is adequate and complete before the Draft EIR is printed and distributed. A total of fifty (50) copies of the Draft EIR will be printed once it is approved by the City's Planning Department staff. Once released by City staff, the environmental consultant will distribute the Draft EIR with the Notice of Completion (NOC) for a 45-day public review and comment period. The document will be mailed via certified mall (return receipt) to the entities Identified on the master distribution list that also received the NOP. Is Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $3,420.00 At the end of the State -mandated 45-day public review period, all comments received by the City from local, State and other responsible agencies and interested parties will be forwarded to the EIR consultant. Each comment will be addressed as It relates to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. An appendix to the Draft EIR will be prepared that includes a listing of each agency/individual commenting on the Draft EIR, the correspondence received from the commentator, and the responses prepared for each comment. The responses to public comments will be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Department for distribution with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. in addition, the EIR consultant will be responsible for distributing individual responses to public comment to the commentors no later than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing at which the EIR will be certified. Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $4,160.00 10 qd 0 Task Seven - Final EIR The Final EIR will consist of the response to comments appendix and all necessary testimony and minutes of the public hearings. If necessary, the Final EIR will include "redline/strikeout" revisions that reflect changes resulting from comments received during the public review and comment period. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will also be appended to the Final EIR. A total of twenty-five (25) copies of the Final EIR will be printed and submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Department. Estimated Time Frame: 2 Weeks Estimated Budget: $1,780.00 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations KKC will prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. This document will be presented to the City of Newport Beach and will identify each mitigation measure to be carried out if the project is implemented, the entity that will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measure(s), and when each measure will be implemented. The MMRP will be presented In a form that is acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. In addition to the MMRP, the EIR consultant will also be responsible for preparing the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations (if determined necessary), and Notice of Determination (with De Minimis Findings). Estimated Time Frame: 4 Weeks Estimated Budget: $3,280.00 Task Nine - Public Hearings The EIR consultant will attend all public hearings, including those of the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council. The estimated budget proposed for this task will accommodate up to four (4) hearings, including two (2) before the Planning Commission and two (2) before the City Council. The Project Manager will attend each and be responsible for making all presentations and responding to questions raised during the public hearings. Should additional hearings be required, they will be charged at the appropriate hourly rate. Estimated Time Frame: As Required Estimated Budget: $1,680.00 II. PROJECT SCHEDULE The scope of services through Task Four (i.e., submittal of the Screencheck EIR) presented in this proposal can be accomplished in approximately 12 weeks from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. This schedule is presented below. 11 q) 0 Project Schedule Koil Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA ink 1 Project Management 2 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 3 Sub Consultant Studies 4 Screencheck EIR 5 Draft EIR 6 Response to Comments 7 Final EIR 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings 9 Public Hearings IV. ESTIMATED BUDGET As Required 4 Weeks 7 Weeks 10 Weeks (including 7 Weeks in Task 3) 4 Weeks 4 Weeks 2 Weeks 4 Weeks As Required The scope of services and work project described in Section Ii of this proposal will be undertaken and completed for a fee of $68.200.00, not Including printing and reproduction. This fee includes project management, preparation of several technical studies, the environmental Impact analysis (including the Draft and Final EIRs), and attendance at public hearings. In addition to the professional fees identified above, a fee of $6,250.00 has been estimated to be necessary for printing and reproduction. The total estimated budget, including printing and reproduction is $74,450.00. 0 0 12 yO? Estimated Budget Koll Center Newport Draft EIR General Plan Amendment/PC Text Amendment Newport Beach, CA Task Estimated Budget 1 Project Management $ 5,400.00 2 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 2,980.00 3 Sub -Consultant Studies $ 27,600.00 Traffic Analysis ( 211300.00)' Acoustical Analysis ( 21800.00) Air Quality Assessment ( 3,500.00) 4 Screencheck EIR 17,900.00 5 Draft EIR 3,420.00 6 Response to Comments 4,160.002 7 Final EIR 1,780.00 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program/Findings 3,280.00 9 Public Hearings 1,680.00 Sub -Total Professional Fees $ 68,200.00 Printing and Reproduction $ 5,500.003 Initial Study (50 Copies) ( 500.00) Screencheck Draft EIR (10 Copies) ( 500.00) Draft EIR (50 Copies) ( 3,000.00) Final EIR (25 Copies) ( 11500.00) 'Maximum Budget. Includes preparation of the Traffic Analysis ($12,600.00), AFA modeling support ($1,500.00), and City of Irvine Intersection analysis, if determined necessary ($5,800.00). 2Estimated Budget. A revised budget will be prepared, if necessary, upon a thorough review of all public comments received during the 45-day public review period. ;Estimated Budget. Subject to revision based on actual printing and reproduction requirements. 13 ,/2 Estimated Budget (Continued) is Ink Estimated Budget Miscellaneous (Postage and Supplies) $ 750.00 Certified Mall for NOP and Draft Elk ( 500.00) Supplies ( 250.00) Sub -Total Printing and Miscellaneous $ 6,250.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET $ 74,450.00 The estimated budget identifies all of the costs anticipated to prepare the Draft EIR as discussed with the City. However, some of the fees are estimates only, including project management, response to public comments, attendance at public hearings, and printing costs. Should it be determined that additional efforts are required that were not anticipated and/or that exceed the total estimated budget stipulated above, the City of Newport Beach will be notified in writing immediately and a supplemental budget proposed and approved to undertake the additional work efforts. The fees estimated for any additional work efforts are identified below. Public Hearings $105.00/Hour Project Management $90.00/Hour Response to Comments $60.00 - $75.00/Hour4 Printing and Reproduction/Delivery Cost + 10% A detailed estimated budget is presented in Appendix B that reflects all of the costs anticipated for each work task, Including personhours, hourly rates, and materials. V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL Keeton K. Kreltzer, Principal of Keeton Kreltzer Consulting, will serve as Project Manager for the scope of work presented in this proposal for environmental consulting services. Mr. Kreltzer has over 25 years of environmental planning experience and has served as project manager for several similar projects. He is currently managing the preparation of several environmental documents, including those for the Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program In the County of Orange, West Coyote Hills to the City of Fullerton, the Emery Ranch residential development plans in the Cities of La Mirada and Fullerton, and for a Redevelopment Project Area in the City of Bell Gardens. Mr. Kreltzer will be assisted in the preparation of the Draft El by Mr. Thom Ryan. Mr. Ryan is also a land use and environmental planner who has over 20 years of experience in the preparation of environmental planning documents throughout southern California. Together, Messrs. Kreltzer and Ryan have an impressive array of experience and both understand CEQA and the Importance of the environmental review process. 41f necessary, this estimated budget will be negotiated after review of all comments received during the 45-day public review period to determine if it is adequate. 14 y� 1�1 As indicated in the scope of work several subconsultants will also provide technical support in the preparation of the Draft EIR. These technical specialists Include: Technical Study Consultant Project Manager Traffic Analysis RK)K 8T Associates, Inc. John Kain, AICP Acoustical Analysis BCS International, Inc. Paul Dunholter Air Quality Analysis BCS International, Inc. Paul Dunholter VI. RESPONSIBILITY OF PROJECT APPLICANT AND/OR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The following information shall be provided to KKC in order to complete the analysis described in this proposal. 1. All previous environmental documents prepared for the subject property. 2. All technical analyses, If available, prepared for the applicant and/or City, including, but not limited to: (1) soils and geology; (2) hydrology and engineering; (3) infrastructure assessment; and (3) Phase I and (if necessary) Phase 11 Assessments. 3. A large-scale topographic map (i.e., 1" = 100') of the subject property (in reproducible form). 4. Map of the study area that includes topographic information. S. Aerial photograph, if available. 6. A complete project description, Including: a statistical summary of the proposed project, related discretionary actions (e.g., General Plan Amendment, etc.), development phasing, project objectives, etc. 7. A large scale site plan with supporting Information, including grading plan, landscape plan, etc. 8. Visual cross -sections of the proposed parking and professional office structures along MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard (parking structure only).. 9. The Newport Beach General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations. 10. Listing of agencies and/or organizations providing public services and utilities within the City of Newport Beach and, in particular, the project environs. 15 qj 0 VII. STATEMENT OF OFFER/TERMS OF AGREEMENT The EIR consultant and technical consultants identified in this proposal are prepared to begin work on the Draft EIR for the Koli Center Newport General Plan Amendment 97-3/Planned Community Text Amendment immediately upon execution of the contract. You may be assured that should we be selected to provide the environmental services described In this proposal, we shall devote our full resources to the project and will approach it with the highest degree of enthusiasm, objectivity, and professionalism possible. We shall perform all work described in this proposal for an estimated budget of $68,200.00. In addition, a printing and reproduction budget of $6,250.00 has been estimated for the proposed project. A total estimated budget of $74,450.00 Includes professional fees, the specialized technical studies stipulated in Task Three, and printing and reproduction. This offer is valid for a period of shay (60) days. It should be emphasized that these costs are based upon the assumptions made on the scope of the project, should the scope change significantly, necessitating a change to the work program, we will contact you immediately and amend both the scope of services and estimated budget accordingly. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal of Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, is the individual authorized to bind the offer made above to the City of Newport Beach. Offer Presented By: an K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSUL 1 G Date: November 27, 1998 16 y6 P-j Scopes of I 0 09e42an rroe 9494740982+949 756 2207 • RIN K d ASSOCATE5 INC. November 25, 1998 Mr. Keeton K. Kraltzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92814 �1 ' i1all. F 1 Subject: Koll Center Newport Traffic Study Dear Mr. Kreltzer: The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to submit this proposed Agreament to provide a traffic study for the requested General Plan Amendment to increase the office entitlements of Koll Center Newport Office Site B by 250,000 gross square feet. Two parking structures are proposed to accommodate the new requirement and displacement of existing parking. One parking structure would replace the existing structure located behind the 4000 MacArthur twin 10-story towers. The applicant is requesting that the proposed 250,000 square feet of new office entitlements be partially offset by the conversion of approximately 9,470 square feet of restaurant and 10,000 square feet of retail uses that are undeveloped and permitted by the KCN P.C. Text. The traffic study would provide a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPOI short-range cumulative development analysis and GenerahPian build -out analysis of the proposed project to Identify potential mitigation requirements to meet both short-range requirements and build -out Issues related to a General Plan Amendment. The traffic study would be based upon peak hour traffic data provided by City staff as well as traffic modeling work provided by Austin -Foust Associates (AFA). The traffic study would review the following conditions: • Build -Out (for existing General Plan) • Build -Out (for existing GeneralPlan plus Project) • Build -Out (for existing + project + pending general plan amendments) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects + project) • Short -Range (for existing + committed projects + pending projects 4- project) rRANSPORIAi IUN PLANNINU • UIS • TRAFFIC/ACOUSTICAL ENGINURIN4 7 bo1 Dove Street, Suite 290 • Newpnrt Reath, CA 9266D • Phonh: (949) 474. 809 • PItx• (949)474.0902 I] 0 90 09:42ah • from 9494740902d949 756 2207 • rage 2 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1996 Page 2 RKJK would accumulate traffic information available from existing City and AFA sources. This Information will be documented into a traffic report for the City of Newport Beach. The following Scope of Work is proposed by RKJK for this initial study effort: 1. Discuss the project with representatives of the City (and the applicant if directed by the City). 2. Meet with City staff and Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. to review data in the short-range and build -out traffic forecasts. I Field review and verify intersection approach lane data for all study area intersections. 4. Review short-range traffic projections and levels of service with and without the project. 5. Identify potential capacity deficiencies (under TPO criteria) for short-range conditions. 6. Show build -out traffic projections and levels of service with and without the project. 7. Identify potential capacity deficiencies for build -out conditions. S. Provide mitigation measures for locations where deficiencies are identified (under terms of either the current TPO or the pending revised TPO) for both short-term and build -out conditions. 9. Identify project description refinements (if necessary) that could avoid triggering unfeasible mitigation requirements (for both short-term and long-term conditions). 10. Develop project recommendations and summary of the mitigation/project refinement program. q� n0v-z5-99 89143&n iron 9494740902*949 756 2297 Pago 3 • Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1998 Page 3 11. Evaluate two project access scenarios and internal circulation features of the proposed project. 12, Summarize the results of the study In a traffic impact analysis report. 13. Respond to comments regarding the draft report. 14. If necessary, analyze potential project traffic impacts at intersection$ In the City of Irvine for long range future conditions at up to six (0) locations. PROFESSIONAL FEES The fee for the work outlined In this proposal Is based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the attached Exhibit A. The estimated fee to accomplish the above Scope of Work Is $14,000,00 for RKJK Tasks 1 to 13 and 41,500.00 for AFA modeling support. The total fee adds to an amount of $15,500.00 for Tasks 1 to 13. The Irvine analysis (if needed) could be accomplished for an additional $S,800 (Task 14 above). The total effort would then add to an amount of $21,300.00 if the Irvine intersection analysis is also included. Four copies (three bound and one original for the client's use) of the project report would be prepared. Monthly billings from RKJK will be based upon the attached Exhibit A - BILLING RATES FOR RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC.. The proposed fee includes attendance at up to four 14) meetings with the client/representatives. if additional meetings are required and requested, RKJK would be pleased to attend these meetings and billing would be based upon the billing rates included in Exhibit A. It is estimated that the Kell Center Newport traffic study will take approximately 20 working days to complete from the date of authorization and receipt of data essential for the study. Additionally, any delays resulting from circumstances beyond our control, such as availability of modeling data, shall extend the time schedule. W ••-- +-ro ur:gsan from 9494740902->949 756 2207 rage 4/ 5 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING November 25, 1998 Page 4 QUALIFICATIONS RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. is located in Newport Beach, California and specializes in transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering for governmental agencies and the business community. The firm principals and associates have over 100 years of combined engineering and planning experience throughout Southern California at the regional, local and individual project levels. The experience of the firm's personnel In transportation planning and traffic/acoustical engineering provides the special skills necessary for determining practical and meaningful traffic solutions. This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this project. This proposal is valid for sixty days, if signed by the client. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (949) 474•0809. Respectfully submitted, RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. h Kain, AICP Ipal JK:kgd/9034 JNA 101-98-03 Attachments xc: Rich Edmonston, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved by: Title: Firm: KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Date: 0 5) F from 9494?/e9e2i949 736 2267 0 1-49e 5i 5 EXHIBIT A BILLING RATES FOR RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. The Consultants Billing rates for services are as follows: Position Haurly pMre Principal f 110.00 Senior Associate $ 85.00 Associate $ 80 00 Senior Engineer/Planner 0 70.00 Engineer/Planner $ 60.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner $ 60.00 Engineering Technician IV $ 45.00 Engineering Technician III $ 35.00 Engineering Technician II 430.00 Engineering Technician I 4 25.00 Administrative Assistant $ 35.00 Administrative Aide $ 30.00 Clerical Aide g 26.00 (1) Reimburssblo direct costs, such as reproduction, suppNes, messenger service, long-distance telephone calls, and traffic counts w10 be billed at cost. (21 Hourly fates apply to work tkne, travel time and time spent at public hearings and meetngs. For overtims work and public meetings, the above rates may be Increased 50 percent. (3) Client payment for professional services is not Contingent upon the client receiving payment from other parties, (4) Billing statements for work will be submitted monthly, Statements are payable within thirty 130) days of the receipt by client of statement. Any statement unpaid after thirty 130) days $hall be atrbjeot to interest at the maximum permitted by law, September 11, 1998 (iMth requested revisions for this job) 0 0 Consulting 1714) 540-315S p.2 0W /'RNAT1 November 24, 1998 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer Principal KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 109 Irvine, California 92614 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT NOISE & AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ON KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Keeton; BridgeNet Consulting Services, International is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct the noise and air quality studies for the EIR on the KOH Center Newport GPA in the City of Newport Beach. We propose to do this study on a time and materials basis at a cost not to exceed 6,300 dollars (Noise $2,800 & Air Quality $3,500). The above costs include the assessment of two development alternatives (one development alternative includes access on both Jamboree and Mac Arthur) and the no project alternative. The study will address requirements relative to the City of Newport Beach. This cost is based upon an hourly rate of $125 dollars per hour for registered professional engineer and $85 dollars per hour for staff engineer. This cost includes all manpower, computer, and overhead expenses associated with completing this project as well as questions or comments. The above costs do not include attendance at any hearings, but can be accommodated at this hourly rate if desired. The proposed scope of work for this project is presented in the following page. Thank you for the opportunity to putt to you this proposaL If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Yours Very Truly, Bridge -Net Consulting Services, International i �E21,,-- By �z� P H. Dunholter, P.E. President N AIOSrNrT CONsULTIMO SERVICES 31$1 AIRWAY AVE. NUILOINO P-i COSTA MESA. OA 576E5 TEL (714) 540.51E0 TAX (714) 540.3303 E-MAIL SALESOAIRPORTNETWORN.COM WWW,AIRPORTMETWORK.COM 53 Consulting (7141 540-315S • p.3 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT BEACH NOISE ASSESSMENT - SCOPE OF WORK TASK I - EXISTING SETTINC. The existing setting will be described through a modeling assessment of existing noise sources. The noise modeling anobvis will be designed to quantify the existing noise exposure at the adjacent noise sensitive lend uses relative to existing traffic levels. Traffic noise levels will be determined utilizing the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction ModeL Noise contours will be dctenni ned in terms of the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise scale for the nearby roadways and those roadways that will Carty project generated traffic. The CNEL scale is used by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach and the State of California in assessing noise and land use compobbitity impacts. The analysis will address the City ofNewport Beach raise atandaamls. TASK 2 - NOISE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES. An importsot part of a noise analysis is determining the impacts on noise sensitive land uses. This would include residential land uses, schools and hospitals that are near the project or s(tuatcd along access streets to the project. The analysis will address both short-term and long -tern noise in vacts. Short-term impacts of the project include construction activities. Long-term impacts include impacts from increased traffic noise on roadways that carry project related traffic and activities on the Koll Center site itself 2.15boR Term Noire Inpoft Short-term noise impacts such as those associated with construction activities will be desenbmxf based on the type of equipment that will be used for the construction of this pmje t. Hours of construction and the estimated construction duration will be presented. Construction impacts Will include the developments on the project site, including the demolition oftbe existing parking structure. 2.2 I*Vocb fmm PA*d Camwkd 7}r,(k The noise impacts from project generated traffic will be assessed in terms of incraue in the noise levels on land uses that arm; 4acent to roadways that will carry project related traffic. The false levels for with and without the proposed project will be determined, and awry iacreese will be quantirod, and be determined for the � analysed within the EIR. criteria These will 2.3 Inrwb jra(s On ke 00doptrsctsR The potential W4Wts tiom noise as a result of development on the Koll Center Newport site itself will -be addressed This will include raise from mMbanicah equipment and parking structure activities at commercial developments. Compfianoe relative to the City of Newport Burch Noise Ord'unenovs will be identified. E 0 0 -1 Consultin6 • t7141 540-3156 p.6 is TASK 3 - MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation measures will be developed as indicated by the impact analysis. Tbese measures may include dust control measures and vehicle miles traveled reduction measures. 0 55 )tint • (714) 540-3159 • p.5 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT BEACH AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT - SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1- EXISTING AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENT. The existing air covironmart will be described in terms of moteorology, local topography affecting pollutant dispersion, and ambient air monitoring data. A summaty of current air management efforts, whieh may be related to the proposed project, will be provided Sensitive receptor areas within the project vicinity will be identified. The Caiine Motel, developed by the CoMmk Department of Transportation, will be used to establish baseline carbon tmnoxide levels in the vicinity of the project. TASK 2 - POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY The air quality impacts of the proposed project can be divided into the short term dust generation, local air impacts, and regional impacts. 21 Construction I►epects: Short-term dust and emission generation due construction activities will be forecasted Measures to reduce dust generation are required by the South Coast Air Quality Managemalt District, and wilt be discussed in detail. 22 ReSkad Ingrnctu Long term emissions will be gencrated due to increased traffic, the combustion of natural gas, and the generation of eketrlcity. The emissions generated by these sources will be assessed for the project. These emissions will be congared to regional and suh•regional emissions to assess the potential forinknal sir quality *v4s. The ptlnoary regional air -planning document is the "Air Quality Managetneid PIM" and a discussion of the pmjwes consistency with the plan will also be provided. 23 Loan! Air lmpm s: Calinq a cogwter model developed by the California Department of Transportation, will be used to now local pollutant concentrations along major roadways new sensitive areas. The model will be used to asses on -site poltutatd levels. Analysis will be conducted to iusute the activities associated with the project will be consistent with the air levels generated by the nearby major roadways. Additamdty. the Caliue nxxiel will be used to assess potential innpact areas. The interxctioat local to the project maY e)cpakm a substantial U*Mc increase due to the project. The resting air gwlity buck at the mkrsections will be saafy ed to determine the potential igmd of the project An estimated two b*rsections will be modeled (for with and without the additional secess on MacArthur Boulevard) 0 '56 rIogeNet Consulting (714) 54(1-3156 p.4 • 0 TASK 3 - COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FUTURE NOISE LEVELS. UHimate noise levels on the project site will be determined for the traffic noise sources and commercial development The analysis will include an assessment of the compatibility ofthe proposed'uses with the projected noise levels. The analysis will include an assessment relative to the CNEL criterion. TASK 4 - DEVELOP MITIGATION MEASURES. Wigation measures to minimize any potential noise impact of the proposed project will be developed. These measures may include site design, mechanical equipment siting, and indoor/outdoor Wilding noise reduction. 1] E 57 Appendix B Estimated Budget, Cost Summary 5ff 0 — =Task = $35/Hour $50/1-lour $60/Hour $75/Hour $90/Hour_, •$105/Hour Total Task One - Project Management 60 $5,400.00 Task Two - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 8 20 20 $2,980.00 Task Three - Sub -Consultant Studies $27,600.00 Traffic Analysis $21,300.00 Acoustical Analysis $2,800.00 Air Quality Analysis $3,500.00 Task Four- Screencheck Draft EIR 60 40 80 120 $17,900.00 Task Five - Draft EIR 12 40 $3,420.00 Task Sbc - Response to Comments 16 48 $4,160.00 Task Seven - Final EIR 8 20 $1,780.00 Task Eight - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program/Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 40 $3,280.00 Estimated Budget Summary KOB Center Newport GPA/PC Text Revision Draft Elk Task $35/Hour $50/Hour $60/1-lour $75/Hour $90/Hour $105/Hour Total Task Nine - Public Meetings Hearings 16 $1,680.00 Sub -Total - Professional Fees $3,920.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $21,600.00 $5,400.00 $1,680.00 $68,200.00 Printing and Miscellaneous Printing $5,500.00 Miscellaneous $750.00 Sub -Total Printing and Miscellaneous I I I 1 $6,250.00 TOTALNOTTO-EXCEED BUDGET $3,920.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $21,600.00 $5,400.00 $1,680.00 $74,450.00 0 ... . .. ..... . I ... .... ikAir Oki- CERTIFICATIL'OF IN ORANCC* I f 130198 PRODUCER THIS 6iRiF�Aii IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFOR`kK-h6R­6EY­A6 .... CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE Dooley, Renton & Associates ;,.POLICIES. BELOW. ponso #0020739 on Centre Suite 450 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE W=Ana CA 92707 ..... ................................. I .... .................................................................................................................. COMPANY A Lloyds/Other London Insur LETTER .. . . . ........ COMPANY LETTER B NaIRED ......................... COMPANY Robert Rein, William Frost and Associates LETTER0 14725 Alton Parkway ........................ COMPANY D Irvine CA 92713 LETTER ................ COMPANY E LETTER . ..... .... .. . ...... .... 11.1 . . . ...... .. ....... ... . .. VbRAQrR THIS IS To CERTIFY THAT THEPOLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, PX(1IIJqInNR ANn rnNDlnf)Ns OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ;, POLICY EFFECTIVE .POLICY EXPIRATION TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE (MMIDDNY) DATE (MMIDONY) ........................................................ .......................... ...... ............................. ...... j�OKMERCLAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE OCCUR. OWNERS & CONTRACTORS PROT. 4DSLE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS GARAGE LIABILITY UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM ..... . ............................ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS! LIABILITY .. .. .............. ......... ...... . . ....... ? ...... .... .. . . ..... ... . ...... ........ . . . .. ....... ..... OTHER Al Professional Liability P00433098 11/30198 ..J ........ ......... ... ................. ........ . . . ...... ... .. ................. .......... .. . ................ OF OPERATIDNSLOCATIONSIVEIiIOLES Cn ITEMS RE. JR r4777, BALBOA PENINSULA SIGN LIMITS ................. .. . .... . ... .... PRODUCrCOMPMP AGO. ....... . ... ..... ............ .. :$ ...................................... ............................................... PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY :S .......... OCCURRENCE ... . ....... .5 .EACH ...................................................................................... FIRE DAMAGE (Any crr,rr fire) :$ . . . . . .. .... ........ ...................... MED. EXPENSE (AnY we celw):$ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY :S (Pat par=) ............................................... i..................................... BODILY INJURY :3 (Par atmIdent) ......................... ...... 1PROPERTY DAMAGE EACH OCCURRENCE ��6W S "' ­ ..... 1IEG STATUTORY UMiTS : ...................................... EACH ACCIDENT .. ....... .... . . . ....... ......... DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT .............................................. DISEASE - EACH EMPLOYEE . ... . ................ I ....... I ...... 11130/99 !Each Claim ,Annual. Aggregate .. .. .. ................... .. . . .. . . ... . ................ ........... .. .... ............ ........ ............................. .............................. ................................... 1,000,000 1:000,000 ............. . ..... .. .. . ... ............... SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL XMLXX=X*OO(XXX MAIL 30 * DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE Din. LEFT, MOL4XXXXXXIODOOM(XVX)OOMCK)OLVMMMKKXXXtIK04XXXKEXXM CA 92658-8915 i 4-EXnFpTio DA AUTHORIZED REPF if 61 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of May, 1999, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Keeton Kreitzer Consulting whose address is 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108, Irvine, California, 92614, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide project management and staff services upon the terms and conditions contained In this Agreement. C. The principal member of Consultant Is, for purpose of this Project, Keeton Kreitzer. D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: it:01,i The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 17th day of May, 1999, and shall terminate on the 17th day of May, 2000, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the scheduled billing rates, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of 1 to this Agreement without prior written approval of City. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of Seventy-four thousand, four hundred, fifty dollars ($74,450). The Planning Director shall have the authority to authorized work beyond this amount, not to exceed an additional 10 %. 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the name of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of City. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of City. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with Exhibit "B". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10%) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant 2 Ll represents and warrants to City that it has or shall qualifications and approvals required of its profession. and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses during the term of this Agreement. obtain all licenses, permits, Consultant further represents , permits and other approvals 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant Is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant•or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details In means of performing the work provided that Consultant is compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only with respect to the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Keeton Kreitzer to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "I3", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by name and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. 3 0 641 • Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant 'shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the- circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 0 4 b6�- 0 12, HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, l boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This Indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred In defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an Insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class ViI (or larger) In accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide: unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily Injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 5 Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that, in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and, automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any for the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by: operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint-venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. 47 0 Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services In this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. Access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Blueprinting, CADD plotting, copying and other services through City's reproduction company for each of the required submittals. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required submittals with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Patricia Temple shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority act for City Under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records during normal business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. f`L-.J 7 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22.' CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements .of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. s ON 26. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA, 92658,8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax 644-3350 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Keeton Kreitzer Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17910 Sky Park Circle, Suite 108 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)756-2202 Fax 756-2207 26. TERMINATION In the event either part hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the nondefauiting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at Its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. ' 0 0 ,7: E 0 0 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the Parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective ..only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 31. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed'on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: By:. Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach City Manager for the City of Newport Beach iul V 0 ATTEST: CONSULTANT By: By: LaVonne Harkless City Clerk 11 0 102 AUG 13 '99 11:46 LANGDON P.2 y r LANGDON WILSON ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Partisan August 11,1999 d. PatrlCk AIIen, AIA Aged M, Khan Michael Schroeder, AIA Mr. Larry N. Lawrence Lawrence Associates 32092 Via Carlos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Reference: Koll Center Newport Langdon Wilson has prepared and assembled the following response to your request for materials and information for the EIR preparation and review of the proposed Koll Center Newport (KCN) General Plan Amendment, 1. PROJECT HISTORY: 1.1 Collins Radio held a long-term lease of approximately 177 acres from The Irvine Company. The Collins Radio improvements were developed on a portion of the site in the late 1950's or early 1960's and consisted of three buildings, a utility (central plant) open structure and related surface parking and landscape improvements. The property was under the County of Orange jurisdiction. 1,2 The Collins property was annexed by the City of Newport Beach on Crum December 23,1970- Las Angelas (213) 260-1186 1.3 In early 1972 Collins initiated an entitlement process with the City of Newport Beach for a mixed -use professional and business development in Orange County collaboration with The Koll Company (currently Koll Development). See (9491833.9193 Enclosures 1,3,1 through 1.3.9 for historical environmental, traffic, Phoenix economic and staff reports developed during the entitlement process. (002) 252.2565 1.4 In 1972 The Koll Company negotiated the purchase of the Collins property subject to the City of Newport Beach's adoption of Planned 19990Von KarrnonAve. Community Development zoning entitlements. Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612-1517 1949)B33-9193 'Ax 0491833-3098 J. Patrick Allen, AIA Architect AUG 13 '99 11:47 LANGDON P.3 LANGDON WILSON ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS Mr. Larry N. Lawrence Lawrence Associates August 11, 1999 Page 2 1.5 The Koll Center Newport Planned Community (P.C.Text) was established under Ordinance No.1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14,1972 (Amendment No. 313). See Enclosure 1.5 for a copy of the original approved P.C. Text. 1.6 Initial Development occurred in 1993 and consisted of widening existing perimeter streets, creation of new interior public streets, utility infrastructure and parkway landscaping of the project perimeter and the new streets. 1.7 Multiple building office development by The Koll Company occurred from 1973 through 1985 on office sites A, B and D. Other portions of Koll Center Newport were developed by other entities during this same timeframe including office, hotel, restaurant and courthouse uses, 1.8 The KCN P.C. Text has been amended twenty-five (25) times from August 1972 through August 1998. These amendments were initiated by a variety of sources including The Koll Company and the City of Newport Beach. See pages 49 through 52 of the current P.C. Text for a description of each amendment. 1.9 The majority of the Koll Center Newport improvements required only a building permit. Others were required by the P,C. Text and were subject to obtaining a Use Permit. if a listing of individual project approval is required, this information would have to be obtained from the City, 2. EXISTING SITE INVENTORY: 2.1 A tabulation of the existing site development is contained in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. A copy of the Koll Center'Newport section is enclosed (See Attachment 2.1). (Caution —verification should be made with the City that this is the current version.) 2.2 Langdon Wilson does not possess information of existing parking for all the developments within Kell Center Newport, however, we can provide the following. OLIG 13 '99 11:47 LANGDON Mr. Larry N. Lawrence LANGDON Lawrence Associates WILSON ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G INTERIORS Office Site A Office Site B Office Site D Surface Parking Structure Total Surface Parking Structure Total Surface 1,068 246 1,314 spaces 2,219 879 3,098 spaces 1,067 spaces P.4 August 11,1999 Page 3 The parking described above is for the office development within these P.C. Text planning areas and is based on the cumulative totals developed in conjunction with successive building permits. The parking for Office Sites A, B and D is contained on a common area parcel for each site shared by the office uses. See Attachment 2.2 for illustration of the Office Site B common area parcel. Parking provided by the hotel, restaurant and private club uses located within these sites is not included, These uses provide their own on -site parking, 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION'. 3.1 Discretionary actions requested by the project applicant: • General Plan Amendment • EIR Approval • Traffic Phasing Ordinance Approval • P,C. Text Amendment (Zone Change) 3.2 Precise Land Use Tabulation for the requested Entitlements • 250,000 gross square feet of additional office use entitlements. This area will be offset by the conversion of existing Office Site B entitled, but undeveloped, uses to office based on a trip -conversion formula. The uses and square footages to be converted are: Retail 10,000 gross S.F. Restaurant 5,000 gross S.F. AUG 13 '99 11:47 LANGDON W" LANGDON WILSON ARCHITECTURE PLANNINA INTERIORS • Mr. Larry N. Lawrence Lawrence Associates 0 August 11, 1999 Page 4 The City will determine the conversion ratios, however, we believe that to be consistent with the T,P.O. the PM. peak ratios would be appropriate. The resulting "net" project will be less than 250,000 gross square feet. The project will require the addition of approximately 679 new parking spaces based on the P.C. Text requirement of one space for each 350 square feet of "Net Floor Area" as defined by the City, The precise number of required spaces will be determined based on the Net Floor Area of the final building design, The above estimate is based on 250,000 S.F. times 95%divided by 350. These spaces will be added to the existing Office Site B common area parking pool. As illustrated on the accompanying site plan (see Enclosure 3.2) the proposed development, based on conceptual site analysis, consists of a ten to twelve story office building, an approximate 1,250 car six - level parking structure that replaces the existing two -level structure and an approximate 380 space new two -level parking structure located where existing surface parking exits. The anticipated existing and proposed office common area parking pool for Office Site B would be as follows: Proposed i tin (Approximate) Surface Parking 2,219 1,681 Structured Parking 879 2,030 Total 3,098 3,711 3.3 See Enclosure 3.3 for the proposed P.C. Text Amendment (zone change). 4. CURRENT P.C. TEXT: 4.1 See Enclosure 4.1. 5, AVAILABLE TECHNICAL ANALYSES AUG 13 '99 11:4B LANGDON P.6 0 0 August 11, 1999 Mr, Larry N. Lawrence Page 5 LANGDON Lawrence Associates WILSON ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 5.1 See Enclosure 5,1 for original master plan level exhibits to the P.C. Text covering the following: • Land Use • Grading and Roads • Topography and Boundary • Storm Drain Master Plan • Sewer and Water Master Plan 5.2 Final engineering and infrastructure drawings for road improvements and each development within Koll Center Newport are on record with the City of Newport Beach. 5.3 Soil and geology studies and reports developed incrementally for each of the individual projects within Koll Center Newport are too numerous and scattered to retrieve. Attachment 1.3.1 contains general geologic information. 6. LARGE-SCALE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 6.1 A 1 "=100' site plan is enclosed. 7. PHASE I SITE ASSESSMENT: 7.1 Langdon Wilson does not believe that a Phase 1 site assessment exists for the project site. 8, RECENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: 8.1 Various vertical and oblique aerial photographs are enclosed --both historic and current 9. REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SECTIONS: 9.1 The proposed project's concept cross sections are enclosed. Representative cross sections of the existing site conditions will be sent under separate cover. See Enclosure 9.1. r AUG 13 199 11:48 LANGDON P•7 August 11, 1999 Mr. Larry N. Lawrence g LANGDQN Lawrence Associates Page 6 WILSON ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G INTERIORS If you have not already obtained a copy of the Conexant (Rockwell) EIR you might check with Ms. Patricia Temple. This EIR addressed development immediately to the east of the proposed Koll project and may contain relevant information. Please give me a call at 949 833-9193 if there are any questions regarding the enclosed or if you or Keeton Kreitzer require additional information. Sincerely, a c't.' LLA\� J. Patrick Allen, AIA Partner Encs. cc w/enc.: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Keeton Kreitzer cc w/o enc. City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple — via fax 949 644-3250 7242\wp\672L•LawrenceAss0c I IN 0 KOTO THIS SITE PUN 15o A CONCEPTUAL VDWE ILLUSTRATION ENTITLEMENTS D ITS POTENTIAL FEET LA EMEICE NT y ENTITLEMENTS AND ITS AND IMP OVEMENS- AND RELATED PARKING AND SITE IMPRDVEMEMS. /Z `` KOLL CENTER NEWPORT MASTER PLAN no� LANCDON I WILSON 0 RO' W' TRO' ARCNItt Ct URI I LAXX INR X T I ICRI ... . ........ .. . ...... PROPOSED 6. LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE EXTG 10 STORY OFFICE BLDG SECTION A -A PROPOSED 2 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE MACARTHUR BLVD li PROPOSED 6 LEVEL PROPOSED 10 STORY OFFICE BLDG MACARTHUR BLVD PARKING STRUCTURE SECTION B-B D THIS SITE PIAN IS A CONCEPTUAL VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF 210,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE ENTITLEMENTS AND ITS POTENTIAL PIACFMENT AND REUTEDPMKINCAND SUE IMPROVEMENTS. KOLL CENTER NEWPORT SITE SECTIONS LANGDON —D- 777 WILSON 0 2W 40' RO'RRcxlTRa t=R[ ILAMNI XR I Nt IRI0R/ Q I a C7 L Q KOLL CENTER NEWPORT MASTER PLAN (EXISTING) 777 LANCDON WILSON 0 40' W 160, ARCHITLCTUXL L LAXX I XC X TLRIURL W aT JAMBOREE BLVD EX STING 3 STORV V u � VLJ U 112 /I r7/I n �0� / K� R O CED EXST2 STORY J lJ 92 '!II I I I I I KOLL CENTER NEWPORT CONCEPT SITE PLAN 0 40 80 160 LANGDON mmiloI. Af CNITECT40E •LAEMa EE 1 Y 10-22-9822