Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_Airport_Business_Area Conceptual_Dev_PA2008-063CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 9, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063) APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associated Planner rung(a city. newport- beach. ca. us (949) 644 -3208 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 - (Attachment PC -1), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007 -002 & 2008 -003). BACKGROUND: On July 22, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The report for that meeting is attached (Attachment PC -2). After hearing public testimony and discussing the project the Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to address issues and concerns that the Commission raised regarding the project. These issues are the proposed General Plan Amendment which would allow the Koll neighborhood park to have only one public street frontage instead of the required two, the overall size of the Koll neighborhood park, and connectivity between the Conexant Village and Koll Village. Public testimony raised issues regarding the applicants' rights to use of easements and issues regarding codes, covenants and restrictions (CC &Rs). DISCUSSION: Changes to ICDP in Response to Planning Commission Concerns The applicant for Koll Village has redesigned the neighborhood park with frontage on two streets. This meets the requirements of the General Plan. As such, the General Plan amendment as previously requested has been withdrawn and is no longer a part of the project that is under consideration. The applicant also has revised the project site area to exclude office buildings that are not proposed for any redevelopment. With the reduction in area from 16.08 to 12.7 acres, the required neighborhood park area is Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 2 1.016 acres. Koll is proposing a neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement. Additional connectivity between the two villages is demonstrated in new exhibits contained in the attached Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan dated August 2010 (Attachment PC -3). Seven pedestrian connections between the two sites are shown with enhanced paving and new landscaping to define the connections and screen them from parking areas. Where connections end at parks, additional treatment is shown to provide an arrival point or entrance to the park. The vehicular connection at the southerly edge of the project remains unchanged. Both applicants have provided letters addressing issues raised in public testimony at the meeting of July 22, which are attached to this report (Attachments PC -4 and PC -5). Comparison of the November 2008 ICDP and August 2010 ICDP The ICDP was previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in November of 2008. However, prior to the plan being considered by the City Council, questions regarding the environmental determination were raised, and the Council tabled the plan. During the intervening time the property owners and staff refined and revised the plan. At the July hearing, Commissioner Eaton asked about changes from the 2008 plan; they are summarized below. The areas of change include overall unit count, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the location of development areas. Overall Unit Count - Under the 2008 plan the overall allowable unit count between both villages totaled 974 residential units. The Conexant Village proposed 714 new residential units, with 424 units replacing existing industrial and office uses that would be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be "additive" units. The Koll Village would consist of 260 additive units since no existing industrial or office uses would be removed Under the current plan there would be a total of up to 1,504 new residential units, 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll site. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would still be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. The change in the number of units in the Conexant Village is due to the change in the net developable acres, as well as the inclusion of density bonus units which were not considered in the 2008 plan. Under the 2008 plan there were Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 3 approximately 14.28 net developable acres. The current plan proposes a net developable acreage of approximately 18.45 acres. The increase in net acres is due to the reduction in the area devoted to streets and rights -of -way. There is no change in the number of units proposed for the Koll Village. Location of Development Areas — There is only one notable difference in the areas identified for potential re -use for residential development. This area is located within the Koll Village along its eastern boundary with the Conexant Village. Under the 2008 plan this area was identified as a potential location for future "row" townhouse development. However, after further study it was determined by the applicant and concurred with by staff that this location for residential development was very restricted. Issues included limited and restricted vehicular and pedestrian access to the units, the location and cost of replacement parking, aesthetics of the residential units, relationship with adjacent office building and restricting pedestrian connectivity with the adjacent residential uses proposed in the Conexant Village. Under the proposed plan this area would remain as a parking area. The units would be absorbed into the other development locations within the Koll Village. The remaining development areas in Koll Village as well as the development areas of Conexant Village are substantially the same as the 2008 plan. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation — Pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the 2008 plan and the current plan are similar, following existing walkways and parking lot edges and aisles on the Koll site and the proposed grid pattern of streets and paseos on the Conexant site. The number of connections between the two sites and locations of the connections are also similar. However, the focus has shifted from vehicular to pedestrian connections, with pedestrian connections highlighted by enhanced paving, landscaping and screening from parking areas. The only vehicular connection remaining is located at the southern edge of the project sites. One reason for this change is Koll's elimination of previously proposed townhouses along the eastern edge of its residential area, which removed one vehicular connection opportunity and added an opportunity for a pedestrian connection. Another reason is Conexant's reduction in the number of streets in favor of more pedestrian and resident oriented paseos. In addition, both property owners agreed that it would be unwise to have vehicular through traffic crossing the north -south parking lot on the Koll property, at the boundary between the properties. This facility is not a street, and is not designed for through traffic or cross traffic. Finally, the property owners believe that vehicular access from off site is more important than between the sites. Both the Koll and Conexant sites are designed as pedestrian oriented villages. Residents and workers on one site who wish to use an amenity on the other site are more likely to — and should be encouraged to — walk rather than drive. The General Plan's Policy Overview for the Airport Area states that residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 4 centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways." Staff believes the ICDP's increased focus on pedestrian connections is consistent with the overarching policy for residential development in the Airport Area. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area from a single - purpose business park to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a 'complete' neighborhood." The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development area's General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6 and LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. Koll - The mixed -use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established. Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 5 Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du /ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low- income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low- income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high -rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartment/condominiums. • Conceptual Development Plan (LU6.15.11): One conceptual development plan is required for the Koll and Conexant properties when residential development is proposed on either property. The plan is to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." Koll - The plan for this village shows three residential buildings clustered around a new central neighborhood park. All of the land Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 6 proposed for redevelopment is currently used for surface parking, which is proposed to be replaced in subterranean structures or, in limited cases, new surface locations. Existing vehicular access from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue is integrated into the plan, with changes internal to the site to provide access to the new residential buildings and neighborhood park. The urban plaza adjacent to an existing office building and the new neighborhood park are integrated into the village with pedestrian connections proposed to be improved with enhanced paving and landscaping. In addition, new pedestrian connections will be added to provide access to existing restaurants on Jamboree Road and new parks and commercial uses in the Conexant Village. Conexant - There is little need to demonstrate integration with existing structures and uses because the proposal is to remove all existing industrial and office uses and replace them with a residential village. As phasing is proposed in the regulatory plan, that plan will need to address integration of new residential uses with existing nonresidential uses during early phases before the entire site is redeveloped. As part of the residential village, a new system of streets and paseos is proposed, which integrate with the existing vehicular access points from Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The plan for the Conexant site takes advantage of its proximity to amenities on the Koll site and properties along Jamboree Road (e.g., future neighborhood park, existing fitness center and restaurants) and addresses integration with those uses through enhanced pedestrian connections. Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.016 acre which meets the General Plan requirement of 1.016 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7 acres = 1.016 acres). This 1.016 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 7 community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on two sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. • Streets and Pedestrian Ways (LU 6.15.17 and LU 6.15.19): These policies encourage the development of streets and pedestrian ways that break up large block areas and that are residentially scaled to improve connections between neighborhoods and community amenities. New streets, as tentatively identified on Figure LU23 (Attachment PC -6), should connect with existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard, preferably at existing signalized intersections. Koll - The proposed residential street on the Koll site shown on Figure LU23 would extend the existing driveway that runs diagonally from Von Karman Avenue towards Birch Street so that it would connect MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street. Most of the area of this street extension is not part of the project area. The circulation plan proposed for the Koll Village utilizes a slightly altered alignment of the existing diagonal driveway, which does connect Von Karman Street with Birch Street and would allow for a future connection to MacArthur Boulevard if the residential village was to be expanded. The proposed street has been placed in a location that satisfies the requirements of General Plan polices. Conexant — The Conexant Village plan maintains a pattern of residentially- scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. Street connections are proposed in locations that are consistent with those identified on Figure LU23, including two connections to Jamboree Road and one connection to Birch Street. One connection is provided to Von Karman Avenue in a more southerly location than shown in the General Plan's illustrative concept diagram. This proposed connection uses an existing Conexant easement rather than converting an existing driveway aisle in an area of the Koll site that is not proposed for redevelopment. The Conexant Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page S street proposal does not preclude future extension of the north -south spine to the south, as shown on Figure LU23, if the residential village was to be expanded. Environmental Review Staff has revised the Initial Study prepared for the hearing of July 22, 2010 to reflect the withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request (Attachment PC -7). The changes to the ICDP described in this report do not change the conclusions in the Initial Study, and withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request further supports the conclusion of the Initial Study. Consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, staff has determined that the residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Azac,,< �w e ald S. Gilbert, Co t ra t Planner Submitted by: Sharon Wood, Special Projects onsultant Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS PC 1. Draft Resolution PC 2. Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 2010 PC 3. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan dated August 2010 PC 4. Letter from Allen Matkins on behalf of Koll PC 5. Letter from Manatt Phelps Phillips on behalf of Conexant PC 6. Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram (Figure LU23) PC 7. Initial Study Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL (PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. The Koll Company and Conexant have filed applications with respect to their properties located within a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. 2. The applications seek approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) for the Airport Area that will implement certain General Plan Land Use policies. 3. A public hearing was held on September 9th, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 2 of 2 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The Planning Commission finds that: 1. The Plan will ensure compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with the existing non - residential structures and uses. 2. The Plan is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy LU6.15.11, which requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to developing residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area of the Airport Area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan policies and recommends approval of the Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: ME Earl McDaniel, Chairman Michael Toerge, Secretary Tmplt: 04/14110 Attachment No. PC 2 July 22, 2010 PC Staff Report CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 22, 2010 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063) 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner runq((Dnewportbeachca.gov (949) 644 -3208 PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which requires a single conceptual development plan for that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street, prior to residential development in the area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language allowing new neighborhood parks provided for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area with one public street frontage with public parking. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -_ (Attachment PC 1), recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -_ (Attachment PC 2), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007 -002 & 2008 -003). Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 2 VICINITY MAP 1 GENERAL PLAN ZONING Aa •6 i �MU / -112 . MU-H2 Pf V - LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Koll Center Newport Business & Professional; Research & ON -SITE Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) Planned Community Development; Retail, Hotel; Restaurant; PC -15 Financial General Commercial Office(CO- G);General Koll Center Newport Business & Professional; Research & NORTH Commercial (CG);(MU -H2); Planned Community Development; Retail, Restaurant; Public Facilities PF (PC -15) Financial SOUTH Urban and Industrial (Irvine) IBC Mixed Use (Irvine) Irvine Business Complex (Irvine) EAST Institutional UCI (Irvine) Institutional 6.1 Irvine Vacant/Institutional (Irvine) WEST Airport Office & Supporting Newport Place Planned Business & Professional; Research & Development; Retail; Restaurant; Uses, MU -H2 & CG Community (PC -11) Financial Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION: Project Setting: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), as shown on Attachment PC 3, applies to a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street (Conceptual Development Plan Area). The Airport Area generally encompasses properties abutting the western edge of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and the Corona Del Mar Freeway. MacArthur Boulevard bisects the Airport Area in a north /south direction. The Airport Area is also in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, "high tech" industrial, and visitor - serving uses. In addition, there are a number of buildings occupied by corporate offices for industrial and financial uses. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which covers the area bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road, was adopted and developed in 1972 as a master planned campus to facilitate the development of an office /light industrial park that also includes supportive retail and visitor - serving uses. Other areas surrounding the proposed Plan are developed with a diverse mix of low- intensity industrial, office, and airport- related uses, including a number of auto - related commercial uses. More recently, residential development has been introduced in the IBC area to the east of the project site. Project Description: To allow residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one conceptual development plan that would "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses." The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared to satisfy this requirement. The Plan is a pre- requisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the General Plan. Once the City Council has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City a proposed regulatory plan for their property. The regulatory plans, along with any required environmental documents, will then be subject to a public review process. The proposed Plan has incorporated and complies with the General Plan policies that establish the fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area in all but one nonsubstantive respect. The neighborhood park proposed on the Koll property has Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 4 public street frontage on one side, rather than two sides as required by Policy LU 6.15.14. The Koll Company requests a modification to this policy language, which would allow one public street frontage, which must have public parking, for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Background: The General Plan 2006 Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. Specifically, the General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips. The 550 units, known as "additive" units, may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area is referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, which is identified in the Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram (Attachment PC 4). Within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are two large tracts of assembled property, owned by The Koll Company (75 acres) and Conexant (25 acres). These property owners initially were unable to come to an agreement on a single conceptual plan. The City then requested ROMA Design Group (who had prepared the framework for residential development in the Airport Area as part of the General Plan update effort) to evaluate the conceptual development plans prepared by each of the property owners, in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the City's consideration. The draft conceptual development plan prepared by ROMA was reviewed by the property owners, City staff and the General Plan /LCP Implementation Committee. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2008, and recommended to the City Council for approval. Prior to the City Council meeting, questions on the environmental determination were raised, and the matter was tabled. The property owners and staff have refined and revised the Plan since the Planning Commission's last review. Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 5 DISCUSSION: Analysis: Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to: "Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses. " The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 16.08 - acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures (Figure 1 - Illustrative Plan). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer- grained network of pedestrian - friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. Together, the two properties would use all 550 of the additive units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area by the General Plan, remain under the Airport Area cap of 2,200 dwelling units. Koll —The plan for this property includes three residential buildings with parking, one new neighborhood park, enhanced access to the existing parks with frontage on both sides of Von Karman, pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the ICDP and around the existing office buildings, and revisions to the vehicular access. (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Development Program and Figure 7: Koll Site Framework Plan). Building 1 (a "Wrap" product of rental units) contains 88 units on 3.1 acres for a density of 28.4 DU /AC with 4 levels of residential wrapping 5 levels of above- ground parking structure. Also, there is one level of below -grade parking solely for office use which has no direct vehicular access to the above -grade portion of the structure. Included in the at -grade portion of this site are 13 two -story town Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 6 homes which front on the 1 -acre park and 10 one -story flats. The residential height ranges from approximately 48' on the Von Karman side to 54' on the interior'Main Street' as to mask the 5 story structure. Building 2 contains 82 units on 1.46 acres for a density of 56.2 DU/AC with an approximate height of 70'. It is one level parking below - grade, one level parking /lobby at -grade and 4 levels of residential plus mezzanine elements above. Building 3 contains 90 units on 1.7 acres for a density of 52.9 DU /AC, Building height is approximately 90'. The building is one level below grade parking, one level of parking/ retail /lobby at -grade and six levels of residential above. Conexant — The proposed project would result in the demolition and replacement of 441,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses contained within two buildings, with a residential and mixed -use development, referred to as the Uptown Newport Village or the Village. The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial /office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial /office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organization of the Conexant mixed -use village, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a grid of pedestrian - scaled streets that break up the large superblocks of the area and provide connectivity with the existing street system and adjoining commercial properties. • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • Buildings should be massed to provide strong spatial definition along streets, and stepped down to promote a pedestrian - scaled character. • Create ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Parking should be either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid - rise and high -rise apartments. The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.44 x 50 du /ac), of which 290 would be additive units and up to 632 would be replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 7 will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,600 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. To meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements and Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes the addition of up to a maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that they meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the NBMC. The proposed Plan establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit for review by the City a regulatory plan for their holdings. Regulatory plans must be in substantial compliance with the Plan, particularly in terms of the number and density of residential units (except for any additional density bonuses for affordable units), the general location and configuration of residential development, the total amount and general location of open space, the general location of parking facilities, and the network of streets and pedestrian ways. Substantial deviations, or additions to the number of residential units, will require an amendment to the Plan. Lastly, the City has an interest in timely implementation of the Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of this Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area, from a single - purpose business park, to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood. The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 8 of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development areas General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. Koll - The mixed -use village is approximately 24.22 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of at least 300 units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 188 to 313 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du /ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low- income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low- income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate- Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 9 income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high -rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartment/condominiums. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately one acre, and for an additional 0.3 acres of open space areas on land that was previously used for surface parking. Although the neighborhood park falls short of the single open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8 percent of 15 acres), the plan achieves the total amount of open space required by the General Plan by utilizing and designating the existing lake park amenity as public open space, which is contemplated in Policy LU6.15.11. This is accomplished by interconnecting the existing open space amenities and the proposed one acre park through pedestrian linkages and promenades for a total park area of 2.64 acres. In addition, since the minimum park dedication requirement is not met, payment of an in lieu fee to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as provided in Policy LU6.15.13, Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 10 will be required. Staff believes that the park dedication requirements of these General Plan policies are being met. However, the Plan as proposed does not fully meet the provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14., which require neighborhood parks "be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park),..." The new neighborhood park shown the in Plan maintains public street access on one side and provides an "urban plaza" /public walkway on a second side. In addition, the existing lake park has a long frontage on Von Karman Avenue. Koll is requesting an amendment to the language of this policy that would apply to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area only. The proposed language would require public street access on one side of the park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely preferred. The Koll proposal would comply with the revised policy language. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. General Plan Amendment As mentioned, the Koll Plan as proposed does not fully meet the public street frontage provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14. As such, a General Plan Amendment is being requested in conjunction with the ICDP to add the following language to the policy: LU 6.15.14 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area park frontage on only one public street may be permitted. On- street parking shall be provided Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 11 along the street frontage of new parks, and is encouraged where an existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood park requirement. The intent of this policy is to provide parks that are visible and accessible to all residents of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting the General Plan's concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a development pattern that provides private open space that is accessible only to residents of the adjacent residential project. By applying only to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, the proposed policy language is consistent with other General Plan policies for the Airport Area (e.g., 6.15.5, 6.15.6 and 6.15.11), which recognize that infill development in this area will occur differently than redevelopment that completely replaces non - residential uses, including in the provision of park amenities. Staff believes that a park with one public street frontage that provides public parking will be accessible to all residents of the neighborhood and maintain the original policy's intent to provide parks that are visible and accessible to the general public. This General Plan Amendment does not require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423 because it would not increase the number of residential units or the amount of non - residential floor area allowed by the General Plan, nor the number of peak hour trips generated by allowed development. Environmental Review The consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and General Plan amendment is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Staff has prepared an Initial Study (Attachment PC 5) and determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the residential development included in the [CDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language. The amendment does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and meets the intent of the original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to residents of the new residential development and the general public. This change does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 12 No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: erald S. Gilbert, Contract Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant PC 1. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment PC 2. Draft Resolution for ICDP PC 3. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dated June 2010 PC 4. Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram PC 5. Initial Study F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 063\2010 -07 -22 PC\Koll- Conexant July 22nd 2010 PC Staff Report (Corrected 7- 14- 10).doc Attachment No. PC 3 Airport Business Area ICDP- August 2010 { : 'cam >� • _ - e-e°Lf k'rM N q♦ ,r•+Y'1 ^ 10 ��'�.6 r , ''7 ��' 1 r . . L �,.- ^�,'.v�.. a s �i /- r.� •'3.i � f -W �r T � �`5 A r M1 � I, __• �++P . rk ��,�r ��� i r + icy • ,ym, Ak Vr jo t ,l p' � • '� �' } - ¢ _,ter. N � i :. � - �Ty.��ir } f ! 1 1 ,{ ♦ / AI'.. n AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CONEXANT AND KOLL PROPERTIES AUGUST 2010 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES Introduction In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a compre- hensive update to its General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the Airport Busi- ness Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport, bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The policies promote the introduc- tion of residential and mixed -use development within this industrial and commercial district, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots or areas not used for occupiable buildings located east of MacArthur Boule- vard. This area, referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for the introduction of new residential devel- opment, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires the property owners in this area to collaborate in the prep- aration of a single Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recre- ational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses." The purpose of this Integrated Development Plan is to allocate the additive units to properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area and to satisfy the General Plan rquirements for a Conceptual Development Plan. Each of the principal property owners has prepared a Conceptual Development Plan for their properties which the City has evaluated in relation to the poli- cies and standards of the General Plan to formulate a recommended Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. General Plan Policies The General Plan provides policies for the orderly evolution of the Airport Business Area, from a single - purposed business park, to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport - related businesses. The goal of the Plan is to create livable neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and community — "residential villages centering on neigh- borhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walk- ways (with) a mix of housing types and buildings ... at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood." In formulating the General Plan policies, there was concern that residential development not occur on a "piecemeal' basis, and that there be sufficient critical mass to enable each new increment of housing to stand alone as a viable and livable neighborhood. This was felt to be particularly important in the Airport Business Area where there has been no residential development, and where the predominant land use pattern has been commercial and industrial. 2 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residen- tial villages in the Airport Business Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular: • Neighborhood Size: Each residential village shall be at least 10 -acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Concep- tual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LUIS 15.11). • Neighborhood Densities: In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established. The General Plan also establishes a minimum density of 45 units per acre for each five - acre first phase increment of residential develop- ment although the Conceptual Development Plan Area is exempt from this specific numerical require- ment, any first phase increment of residential development should demonstrate an appropriate critical mass (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9). • Diversity of Housing: Within the density enve- lope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. (LU6.15.7). • Neighborhood Parks: The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of commu- nity and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension, no less than 150 feet, and require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14). Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (here- after referred to as the Plan), provides for the rede- velopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 12.7 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain. Connectivity within and between the two properties will be provided with existing and new pedestrian ways, improved with parking lot screening, planting and /or enhanced pavings which are compatible between the Koll and Conexant properties (details of which will be included in the regulatory plans). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighbor- hoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of structures which will remain (Figure 1: Illustrative Plan). The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "addi- tive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite as an incentive to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Concep- tual Development Plan area by the General Plan. Conexant The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial/ office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial /office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organi- zation of the Conexant mixed -use village, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a pattern of pedestrian - scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • Provide for building massing that creates a strong spatial definition along streets, and steps down to promote a pedestrian - scaled character. UNIT ALLOCATION SUMMARY Property Additive Replacement Density Bonus Totals Koll 260 11,500 Density Bonus Units 260 Conexant 290 632 322 1,244 Totals 550 632 322 11504 • Integrate residential with ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Parking should either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartments. • Provide parking that reflects the mix of uses in the neighborhood. Encourage on- street parking to serve the neighborhood park and visitors. The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net develop- able residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du /ac), of which 290 would be addi- tive units and up to 632 would be replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. CONEXANT SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Conexant Net Area (Acres) Residential (Dwelling Units) Commercial (Gross Sq. Ft.) Totals 18.45 922 11,500 Density Bonus Units 322 Total(s) 18.45 1,244 11,500 Total Park Area 2.01 RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010 In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,500 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. The precise amount of commecial square footage will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Polciy LU6.15.5 To help meet the City's Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes up to a maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that affordable housing units are provided to meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Conexant proposal provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, which meets the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8% of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood and is clearly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground level uses. An additional 0.51 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the Conexant Site. Koll For the Koll property the Plan demonstrates how non- residential uses can be integrated with residential uses along with open space, parking and other amenities to create a livable and attractive neighborhood (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Plan). In seeking to meet the intention of the General Plan policies for a mixed -use village on the Koll Property, the Plan has established and followed the following principles: • Spatially organize new residential uses with existing office development in a way that creates an engaging neighborhood fabric of useable and defined open spaces, and pedestrian- friendly streets and promenades. • Balance the amount of surface parking with publicly accessible open spaces and streets, so that an appropriate residential environment is created, and the feeling of living in a parking lot is avoided. Provide replacement office parking for displaced surface parking in new structures that are encapsulated or screened. • Create a network of pedestrian - friendly streets and walkways that connect to existing and future activities within the area, and that give structure and organization to the village. • Create ground level retail and residential uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Create a neighborhood park as a focal point of the village with pedestrian connectivity to existing amenities that contribute to the residential quality of the village. The mixed -use village shown on the Integrated Plan for the Koll Company property exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement and can be considered to encompass approximately 12.7 gross acres of land north of Von Karman Avenue and south of Birch Street. The village area would include several existing office buildings and would provide for the conversion of parking lots into residential development parcels along with the creation of new open space amenities and the connection of these to existing open spaces. 4 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES It also calls for the modification of surface parking areas to create a better balance of buildings and open spaces, link existing and future open space amenities and to create a network of pedestrian friendly streets. The implementation of the Koll plan will utilize land that is currently used for surface parking, which must be replaced to serve the office uses that will remain. Parking requirements will be addressed in the regula- tory plan. The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, and as such will allow for the development of 260 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. Three development areas comprise the 5.78 acres of residential land. To create an active street front, Koll is proposing to include 3,400 square feet of retail development in the village, with existing unused commercial entitlement in the General Plan and zoning. As existing entitlement, this square footage does not need to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. The Koll Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.016 acres which meets the General Plan requirement of 8% of the land area of the residential village (i.e. 8% of 12.70 acres = 1.016 acres) General Plan policies require neighbor- hood parks be public in nature and must have public streets on at east two sides as well as be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. (LU 6.15.3 adn LU 6.15.14) The plan as proposed meets this land use policy. KOLL SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Koll Site Area (Acres) Residential (Dwelling Units) Commercial (Gross Sq. Ft.) Total Park Area 1.016 The Plan also provides for enhanced access to existing amenities and destinations, pedestrian access into the existing office buildings, as well as revisions to the site's vehicular access. Implementation for the location of driveways, service and trash areas; a description of how commercial uses that enhance the residential uses will be incorporated; and how required parking is to be provided and treated so that it does not detract from the livability of the neighborhood and the quality of the pedestrian environment. They will also describe the proposed phasing of development and linkage of open space, street and infrastructure The approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development improvements in relation to development. Any use Plan by the City Council is a pre - requisite for the prep- of the City's density bonus provisions for affordable aration of the entitlement documents, called for in the General Plan. These documents include a Regulatory Plan and a Development Agreement. Once Council has reviewed and approved the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be respon- sible to independently prepare and submit to the City, the proposed Regulatory Plan for their property. The Regulatory Plans, along with any required environ- mental clearance documents, will then be the subject of a public review process as established by the City and the basis for action by the City Council. The Regulatory Plans will, in substantial compliance with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, describe more fully the proposed design of build- ings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure, including parking, required to support the proposed development will be provided. The Regulatory Plans should include suffi- cient detail for the City to determine that the design of infrastructure connecting the two properties is coor- dinated. They will also include provisionsto ensure compatibility with office, industrial and other nonresi- dential uses. The Regulatory Plan will thus provide a description of the location, intensity and density of allowable and conditional uses; the height and massing of buildings; required setbacks and stepbacks; the loca- tion, configuration and treatment of ground level uses; design standards and guidelines for streets, pedestrian ways and open spaces, including requirements for lighting and landscaping; standards and guidelines housing, or for the ransfer of development rights from other properties, will also be addressed in the Regula- tory Plan. Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Develop- ment Plan, particularly in terms of the number of addi- tive residential units and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant residential villages. The City of Newport Beach has an interest in timely implementation of this Integrated Conceptual Devel- opment Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development oppor- tunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of this Integrated Conceptual Development Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Develop- ment Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units. RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010 El MRK August 19, 2010 OFFICE OFFICE CONEXANT SITE AREA % •� OFFICE OFFICE p'A � 311 OFFICE JAMBOREE ROAD FIGURE 2: CONEXANT ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN f PARKING � TRUCTURE t` t t J ♦{ FED L RESTAURANT OFFICE LU w w cn 0 125 350 August 19, 2010 /Z Von Karmen Avenue FIGURE 3: CONEXANT SITE FRAMEWORK N SITE BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY EASEMENT PASEO ,-N FIGURE 3: CONEXANT SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN 8 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES a 2w 4w t s 40 FF CE qp 0-iii- IL ESIDENTI ■ 140 h RESIDENTIAL -' PARK RES4ENTIAL - = �' EXISTING PARKING S- RUCTURE' e- Shy, KOLL S ITE AREA FI Flxxsrr»u e:nu:e nc�nr:u ❑ mcr r FIGURE 4: KOLL ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN i -- I C: a.. - 41AL I 0 ?II ESIDENTIAL 0 1'_ 250 AuU :s� 19, 2010 r 'Al ------ J ILllllllllllllllt'I .1 I r ------------- (GEL, Cghff]-'=R NPAPORT ENWIVEG SITE PLM F71ZTA(;rdUlLVA15L9MEABQUMWY NII)AI Al: , m ------ 11 '= I --------------- 7TF W 5 .................. "HAGA PROPMDi=- PLM LL0-lPATlEG7Hr12J`AC"RULDARE ARFA7 30F17E8 JIIPPOD TO U'E PROMM: PLAN. r % j ` C, 7 AC j 7 A Id I PHASE wk E-1 -I I L 77 Ai w KOLL SITE, FRAMEWORK PLAN FIGURE 5: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN 7. I FESDEMML. =JMXITIPL -- ---- ---- Lola FRNEff OFN ",I -RMP%9b Lrrr 1. IAWC 15T 1: LOT 3: IJOAC LIZ 15:� AL - AD OU JLAC Lur, -I I L 77 Ai w KOLL SITE, FRAMEWORK PLAN FIGURE 5: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN 7. -- ---- ---- FRNEff OFN ",I -RMP%9b Lrrr 1. IAWC 15T 1: LOT 3: IJOAC PRUICTMIG: 26OUNI 15:� AL - AD OU JLAC -I I L 77 Ai w KOLL SITE, FRAMEWORK PLAN FIGURE 5: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN Attachment No. PC 4 Letter from Allen Matkins on behalf of Koll Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Allen Matkins Attorneys at Law 1900 Main Street, 5' Floor I Irvine, CA 92614 -7321 Telephone: 949.553.1313 1 Facsimile: 949.553.8354 w . allcnmatkins.com John Condas E -mail: jcondm @allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 949.851.5551 File Number: 215083 - 00007/00908078.01 Via Email/U.S. Mail September 1, 2010 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 (the "GPA") and Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Plan ") Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: We represent the Koll Company ( "Koll "), one of the two Plan applicants. Koll is the sole owner and developer of the Koll Site, which consists of 12.7 gross acres and 5.78 net acres. This letter is in response to the July 22, 2010 opposition letter submitted by Ryan M. Easter of the Palmieri Tyler law firm ( "Easter Letter "), and the July 21, 2010 opposition letter submitted by John S. Adams and Associates, Inc. ( "Adams Letter "). For the reasons discussed below, neither letter raises any legal arguments which would warrant continuance or denial of the Plan. We hereby request that this letter be included in the administrative record of the project. Since the last Planning Commission hearing on the Plan, Koll has modified the Plan to insure consistency with the General Plan by reconfiguring and expanding the proposed Neighborhood Park, eliminating the need for the GPA. These modifications further weaken the claims of both counsel. As is clear from the record, City staff has comprehensively evaluated the Plan's consistency with the General Plan and demonstrated why the General Plan EIR is sufficient for approval of the Plan, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21094 ( "§ 21094 "). The July 22, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report ( "Staff Report") provides a detailed analysis and support for its recommended conclusions. In addition to the Staff Report, City staff prepared an extensive environmental checklist form/initial study ( "Initial Study "), demonstrating that the Plan is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, eliminating the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights I Walnut Creek Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Planning Commission September 1, 2010 Page 2 1. The Plan is Consistent with the General Plan A. The City Staffs Analysis Demonstrates Consistency The Easter Letter sets out several contentions as to why the Plan allegedly is inconsistent with the General Plan. As discussed below, virtually all of these contentions now are inapplicable due to the modification of the Plan. Even if the Plan had not been modified, the Easter Letter contentions are not supportable. For an opponent to successfully claim that an approval is inconsistent with a city's general plan, the opponent has an extremely high hurdle to overcome, which has not been surmounted here. As stated by a California appellate court: "When we review an agency's decision for consistency with its own General Plan, we accord great deference to the agency's determination. This is because the body which adopted the General Plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity." (Save Our Peninsula Commission v. County of Monterey, 87 Cal.AppAth 99,142 (2001)) The court's review of a city's interpretation of its general plan is highly deferential because a city must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and a city has broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the general plan's purposes. (Friends of Lagoon Valley 154 Ca1.App.4th 807, 816 (2007)). A general plan consistency determination is a legislative decision and will not be set aside by a court unless the city has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without evidentiary support. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.AppAth 656, 668 (2002)). A court will defer to a city's interpretation of its own general plan and factual findings, unless based on the evidence before a city council, a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal.App.3d 223 (1987)). City staff exhaustively analyzed the Plan's consistency with the General Plan and properly concluded that the Plan is consistent with the General Plan. (Staff Report at 8 -11; Initial Study at 24- 26.) B. Koll's Proposed Neighborhood Park is Consistent with the General Plan The primary series of arguments raised in the Easter Letter focus on Koll's proposed Neighborhood Park and the status of the Koll Center's pre- existing lake (Easter Letter at 4 -5,7), treated in the Staff Report as being part of the Koll site's open space. The Easter Letter contends that the size of the proposed Neighborhood Park is inconsistent with the City General Plan because it is on less than one acre (Easter Letter at 4 -5); because it does not have frontage or parking on two public streets (Easter Letter at 6); and because the "Lake Park" will not be clearly public in character (Easter Letter at 7 -8). Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Planning Commission September 1, 2010 Page 3 However, Koll's proposed Plan is consistent with the General Plan, because the Plan includes a 1.016 acre Neighborhood Park, greater than the General Plan's one -acre required minimum size. Also, with the proposed modification, the Neighborhood Park now has frontage and parking on two public streets. While the modification also gives the Neighborhood Park street frontage on two sides, the previous orientation was public in nature and consistent with the General Plan as well. Unlike what is stated in the Easter Letter, the lake is not being counted towards Koll's park dedication requirement. Rather, the lake is being cited as an existing additional open space. (Staff Report at 9 -10.) While the lake certainly can be considered open space, it is not being treated as a park, for purposes of the City staff analysis. Therefore, the Easter Letter's discussion of the lake's lack of suitability as a park facility is irrelevant. C. The Plan is Consistent and Compatible with the General Plan and the Koll Center The Easter Letter also claims that somehow the Plan is inconsistent, apparently, with General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6. (Easter Letter at 8 -9.) This Land Use Policy and related Policies LU 6.15.10 and .11 require that each residential village must be at least 10 acres in size, and be organized around a neighborhood park or other similar amenities. (Staff Report at 8; Initial Study at 24.) There is no analysis as to why the Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan, or why the Plan is incompatible with the Koll Center. As City staff properly concludes, the Plan is consistent with these three policies. The Koll Site is 12.7 gross acres, greater than the 10 -acre minimum. The Koll Site is organized around its proposed Neighborhood Park and other amenities. The Neighborhood Park is located between two of the three residential buildings, and the other residential building located on the plaza, is across the street from the Neighborhood Park. It is easily accessible to all three buildings, with pedestrian pathways to allow residents and visitors to easily walk from the residential buildings to the Neighborhood Park. The Neighborhood Park is tied in with the Koll Site's proposed residential buildings. Certainly the Plan is consistent with these three General Plan Land Use Policies. The City has tremendous latitude in determining what is "compatible." The Plan is compatible with, and compliments the Koll Center, by making housing available for employees who work in the Koll Center. Pedestrian pathways and promenades connect the Koll Center's existing commercial buildings, the proposed plaza, the Neighborhood Park, the lake and the Koll proposed residential locations, to unify all of the elements of the Koll Center. 2. Koll Has Withdrawn Its GPA Application The Easter Letter claims that somehow approval of the GPA would unlawfully "piecemeal" the Plan, citing the Mc ueen case. (Easter Letter at 9.) Even though this argument is invalid, this argument is also no longer applicable because the GPA application has been withdrawn. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Anomeys at Law Planning Commission September 1, 2010 Page 4 3. The Citv's Proposed Determination of Relvin¢ Upon § 21094 is Appropriate The Easter Letter claims that the Project is not exempt from CEQA, and an EIR is required, if there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, if it can be "fairly argued" that the Project may have a significant impact. (Easter Letter at 10.) The Easter Letter cites the Plan's possible environmental impacts to include parking and traffic impacts, land use and planning impacts caused by the GPA which has been withdrawn, some unspecified GPA impact due to wetlands located on the other side of Jamboree Road, and other land use and planning impacts apparently caused due to the Koll site's proximity to the "habitat" of the pre- existing lake. (Easter Letter at 10- 11.) The Easter Letter also asserts, citing no evidence whatsoever, that the pending PRES B project may have impacts on the Plan. (Easter Letter at 11.) The Adams Letter similarly alleges various environmental impacts associated with approval of the Plan, but also with no support or appropriate evidence. Contrary to what is stated in the Easter Letter, the applicable legal standard to determine whether the General Plan EIR may be relied upon for approval of the Plan is far different and much more deferential than the test as to whether an EIR needs to be prepared. The "substantial evidence" test, not the "fair argument" test suggested in the Easter Letter, applies to determination of whether a later EIR is required following a program -EIR level of review. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 134 Cal.AppAth 598 (2005).) The General Plan EIR is a program EIR, and thus City CEQA determinations related to § 21094 are subject to this more relaxed standard of review. The "evidence" proffered in the Easter and Adams Letters do not constitute "substantial evidence." Both letters consist of uncorroborated and subjective opinion. Substantial evidence is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as "...enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached...." (CEQA Guidelines § 15384). Mere uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (CalBeach Advocates v. City of Solana Beach, 103 Cal.AppAth 529 (2002).) Therefore, the allegations in the Easter and Adams Letters do not constitute "substantial evidence ". These inadequacies, coupled with the deferential standard of review which applies to the City's CEQA determination, do not defeat the use of § 21094. There is substantial evidence to support the use of § 21094. The Staff Report provides extensive analysis and evidence supporting the applicability of § 21094. The Staff Report summarizes the City staff s prior analysis, and concludes that relying upon § 21094 is appropriate. (Staff Report at 11 -12.) The City undertook an extensive analysis in its 29 -page Initial Study. The Initial Study addressed 16 types of environmental impacts, with numerous sub - impacts under each main impact. Along with the environmental checklist, the Initial Study analyzed in more detail all Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attomeys at Law Planning Commission September 1, 2010 Page 5 applicable impacts, including an extensive discussion of how the Plan's impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Initial Study also analyzed the Plan impacts based upon Public Resources Code § 21166, as required by § 21094(b). (Initial Study at 29). 4. The Plan Does Not Violate the Koll Center CC &Rs Koll disagrees with the Easter Letter contentions that somehow the Plan violates the Koll Center CC &Rs. The alleged inconsistency appears to be that residential development of the Koll Site, creating a mixed -use project, is not "incorporated harmoniously" with the existing Koll Center office buildings. (Easter Letter at 11 -12.) Koll has spent extensive time and resources collaborating with its professional architecture and land use planning team, and its landscape architecture firm, to create a Plan which would integrate with the pre- existing uses of the Koll Center. The Plan also integrates the proposed Neighborhood Park with the proposed residential uses. The Easter Letter's subjective, vague standard cannot support a claim of inconsistency. Nevertheless, any disagreement that Mr. Easter's clients and Koll may have concerning the interpretation of the CC &Rs is merely a private matter between these parties. This disagreement is irrelevant to this matter before the City. 5. Conclusion Virtually all of the claims raised in the Easter Letter no longer are applicable due to Koll's modification of the Plan. Even if the modifications to the Plan had not been made, the claims are invalid. The claims in the Adams Letter consist of uncorroborated assertions, do not constitute substantial evidence, and thus are insufficient to warrant a continuance of the matter or denial of the Plan. Very truly yours, John Condas JCC:pmc Attachment No. PC 5 Letter from Manatt Phelps Phillips on behalf of Conexant manatt manatt I phelps I phillips August 31, 2010 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: Tom Muller Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (310) 312 -4171 E -mail: TMuller@manatt.com Client-Matter: 41392 -031 We represent Conexant Systems, Inc., one of the two applicants for City approval of the proposed Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. This letter addresses an issue raised at the July 22, 2010, hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission on this matter, relating to the use of an easement running from the Conexant property north to Birch Street. At that hearing, Brian C. Adams of John S. Adams & Associates, Inc., called into question Conexant's right to use the easement for the proposed residential redevelopment of the Conexant property. The 1978 easement (copy attached) granted Conexant "a non exclusive easement for passage in, over and along the real property ... including the right to maintain driveways, roadways, sidewalks and passageway on said property." The grant is broadly- worded and the document contains no restrictions at all on the use of the easement —it is not limited to any particular volume or type of traffic or any particular use of the Conexant property. Nor will the proposed residential project substantially increase the peak use of the easement over the levels of use when the easement was granted, or even over current levels. While precise data are apparently not available for the period, Conexant's records show that well over a thousand cars per shift were present at the Conexant property in the late 1970's and early 1980's- -and those cars entered and left the property all at once, at the beginning of each shift, a far more intense peak use than will result from the proposed residential development. Of course, this 33- foot wide easement is just one of several accessways from the proposed project to the surrounding public streets, so, as is currently the case, traffic will be distributed over this and the other accessways. The City's Planning, Traffic, Fire and Public Works Departments have all reviewed the proposed plan for compliance and their recommendations have been incorporated into the project design. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project is underway, which will 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064 -1614 Telephone: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. manatt manatt I phelps I phillips City of Newport Beach August 31, 2010 Page 2 include in -depth traffic analysis and provide for mitigation measures to render any traffic impacts insignificant. S n ere T l. m Muller 300142929.1 Attachment No. PC 6 Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram (Figure LU23) a L CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT DIAGRAM Legend OPPORTUNITY SITES _ PROPOSED OPEN SPACES MPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS T� PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 10111 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS ...• y> CNEL NOISE CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL PLAN REAUIREO T"M CNEL Ndse Cq ix Is sham Wr ilWdresw pu W sONY S am RpMD gn Gwg PROJECTM BER. 16790 Wle. OBO:KB Attachment No. PC 7 Initial Study 2. 3. °.1 N1 6. 7. 8. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, rung(a)newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3208 Project Location: 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California (also refer to Figure 2 [Project Site Location]) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Conexant Systems, Inc. 4000 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: MU -H2, Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 Zoning: PC - Planned Community Description of Project: The Koll Company 17755 Sky Park Circle East Irvine, CA 92614 In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a comprehensive update to its General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the Airport Business Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport, bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The General Plan policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use development within this industrial and commercial district, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 1 clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area, referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires the property owners in this area to collaborate in the preparation of a single Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses." The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Plan "), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 12.7 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain. The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighbor hoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of pedestrian - friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual Development Plan area by the General Plan. The total number of units allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within the limit of 2,200 units that the General Plan allows in the Airport Area. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is a pre- requisite for the preparation of regulatory plans for each property. The regulatory plans will then be the subject of a public review process, including environmental review, by the City. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 2 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: To the north: Campus Office Park development within the Koll Center consisting of clusters of office buildings ranging in height from 1 to 4 stories and up to 15 stories are located to the north of the project site and set back by large surface parking Iots.Three fast food restaurants are located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. Refer to Figure 2. To the east: Across Jamboree Rd to the east is an expanse of undeveloped open space owned by the University of California, Irvine (UCI) referred to as the North Campus Area of the UCI campus. The North Campus area, at its eastern border, Is located 150 feet outside of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh (SJFM) Reserve study area. Refer to Figure 2. To the south: Campus office park development within the Koll Center which consists of two high -rise office buildings approximately 20 stories in height surrounded by expansive surface parking lots is located just south of the project site. A Taco Bell restaurant is located along Jamboree Road. The Irvine Business Complex located across Jamboree Road consists of several mixed -use buildings ranging in height from 9 to 15 stories. Refer to Figure 2. To the west: Campus Office Park development within the Koll Center is located to the west of the project site on both sides of Von Karman Avenue and range in height from 1 to 4 stories. Two lakes surrounded by office buildings on either side of Von Karman Avenue and some open space features are also located to the west of the project site. Refer to Figure 2. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 3 ,1111 /1!1l +IJ1, (/11,1,1 .1I� l.,-- .� ,....._ . .YAK. fit- wort Ns 11 y1� oTM 1 r. �..r.r t1O�G7ri P➢[IrC T4tt �- �` � a npxx.W 161iMY gpmlrO. '. f a Z 1, ' "'• R w INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 4 I] CONEXANT SITE AREA 0 Conexant Conceptual Site Plan s E E E i� Fx ut..c o to +So Aw t1B. MIO Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 5 EXISTING PARKING KOLL SITE AREA E .04 -I f = . _ -111 0 125 250 2010 Koll Conceptual Site Plan Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 6 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1�►1 �/ I: Z•], IJtl�, rr_ ��yd• �� •l:�yl•���;r� /_1�A'L1yyX•����� 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. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Agriculture & Forest Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Utilities & Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Circulation Systems Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 7 ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006 pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Submitted by: Planning Department Prepared by: Gerald S. Gilbert, Project Planner Signature Date Signature Date F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Forms \New Forms \CEQA \Initial Study.doc Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: a) 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Lessthan No Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 9 C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Potentlany Less Iran Lessthan No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Result in the loss of forest land or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conversion of forest land to non - forest use e) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ Q implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ Z substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 10 a) 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? b) 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? C) 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? d) 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 impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ LE El 0 0 0 LE El 0 0 0 LE El 0 Impact J J ❑ Q ❑ o Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 11 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priclo 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) 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? Potentlany Less Iran Lessthan NO Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ Incorporated 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ D Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 12 d) 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? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? rotenoany Less man Less than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impact J J ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 13 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? rmeuuauy 'ess 111e11 mesa u.an nu Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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)? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 14 Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 15 Potentlany Less Iran Lessthan No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated C) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ Q which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ Q water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Q hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 15 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an 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? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentlany Less Iran Lessthan NO Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ p known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) 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? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 16 e) For a project located within an airport land use 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? f) 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? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: rmeuu euy Significant Impact El LE a) Induce substantial population ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less 111.11 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated El LE 0 Less wen Significant Impact LE 0 IYu Impact J J b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 17 Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION Would the project: a) 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? XVI. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? rotenoany Significant Impact El 0 0 0 Less roan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated El El 0 0 0 Lesstnan Significant Impact El El El 0 0 0 NO Impact Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 18 C) 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? XVIL UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment Significant requirements of the applicable Significant Impact Regional Water Quality Control Mitigation Board? b) 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? C) 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? Potentlany Less Iran Lessthan NO Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 19 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) 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.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 LE El 0 0 LE 0 0 LE El Impact D a J Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 20 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Earlier Analyses The 2006 General Plan, including the land use plan for the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, was analyzed in the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006. The Plan does not propose any substantial changes to the General Plan's provisions and policies for the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and does not deviate from the number and density of residential units allowed or the amount of parkland required by the General Plan. The Plan does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR, as discussed below. EIR(s) will be prepared on regulatory plans for development in the ICDP area, when additional detail is available to allow for full environmental review. Aesthetics The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts in the areas of obstruction of scenic vistas and change in the visual character of portions of the City, and no mitigation measures were required. The only area in which significant unavoidable impacts due to new sources of light and glare could occur was Banning Ranch, not the Airport Area. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Agriculture Resources Agriculture resources were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the Initial Study for that project found that there was no potential for environmental impacts in this area. The Conceptual Development Plan Area is currently developed with urban uses and there are no agricultural resources on the site. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Air Quality The General Plan EIR found that there would be significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan, construction emissions that would contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, and cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under a national or State standard. All feasible mitigation measures were included in the General Plan EIR, and would be required for development to implement the Plan. The General Plan EIR found impacts to be less than significant in the areas of exposing sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations and creating objectionable odors. The Plan does not increase the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 21 Biological Resources The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status plant and wildlife species; less than significant impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; interference with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or corridors. No mitigation measures were required. The Conceptual Development Plan Area has been developed with urban uses for over thirty years, and has no natural habitat areas or areas identified on a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, or the areas in which development may occur, and and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Cultural Resources The General Plan EIR found that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required. However, significant unavoidable impacts were identified with regard to the potential for the demolition of historic structures. None of the eleven properties identified in the General Plan EIR as being or potentially being historically significant is in the Airport Area or the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Therefore, the Plan does not have the potential to impact these resources. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Geology and Soils The General Plan EIR found that geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the General Plan, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The General Plan EIR found that hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. Potential impact areas analyzed in the General Plan EIR included oil and gas seeps from oil fields in the Newport Oil Field and West Newport Oil field, both of which are approximately five miles from the ICDP site. Another potential impact was the location of existing hazardous materials sites within one - quarter mile of existing or proposed schools. The two existing sites identified were Hixson Metal Finishing in West Newport, approximately five miles from the ICDP site, and Big Canyon Reservoir, approximately 3.5 miles from the ICDP site. There are no existing or proposed schools within one - quarter mile of the ICDP site. The General Plan EIR identified both the Conexant and Koll sites as EPA - registered large quantity generator facilities. General Plan Policy S7.1, which requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments and, if necessary, to undertake remediation procedures under the supervision of the appropriate agency, Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 22 was identified in the EIR as reducing impact in this area to a less than significant level. Development within the Conceptual Development Plan Area will be subject to this policy. The Conceptual Development Plan Area is within the John Wayne Airport land use plan area and within two miles of the airport. The General Plan EIR found that the development of new residential neighborhoods in this area would not result in a significant impact because all development would be required to comply with the JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" (AELUP) and be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. In addition, the ALUC reviewed and certified the General Plan as being in conformance with the AELUP, and regulatory plans for the Conexant and Koll properties will be reviewed by the ALUC. Finally, General Plan policies in the Safety Element were cited as reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Development in the Plan would be required to comply with these policies, and no change to the amount or location of development is proposed in the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality The General Plan EIR found that hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is the same as contemplated in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Land Use and Planning The General Plan EIR's analysis of the Airport Area noted that the introduction of residential neighborhoods could create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. However, the Land Use Element policies calling for the creation of residential villages designed to ensure compatibility with existing uses and the requirement for the preparation of a plan for the Conceptual Development Plan Area would ensure that development is designed to be compatible with non - residential development. Therefore, this impact was considered less than significant. The Plan implements and is consistent these General Plan policies, as discussed below. Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. Koll - The mixed -use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 23 densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10- acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du /ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11 % of the base units (101 units) for very low- income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low- income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high -rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground- level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartment/condominiums. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement of 1 acre or 8 percent of the village land area (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7acres = 1.016 acre). Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 24 area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 - acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground - level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. The General Plan limits the number of residential units in the Airport Area to 2,200. The total number of units allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within this limit. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of physically dividing an existing community. The Plan implements the General Plan's policies regarding residential development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and does not propose any changes in the amount, intensity or location of new residential development. Because the Plan implements and is consistent with the General Plan and its policies for development in the Airport Area and Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mineral Resources The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the General Plan, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Noise The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of exposure of persons to substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise increases, and no mitigation measures were required. Significant unavoidable impacts were found in the areas of exposing persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards, exposing persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities, substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels, and exposure of sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. Among the roadway segments that would have a significant increase in traffic - related noise are Birch Street and Jamboree Road, which are adjacent to the Conceptual Development Plan Area. General Plan Noise Element policies require the use of interior noise insulation, double paned windows or other noise mitigation measures, and these policies would apply to development pursuant to the Plan. The Conceptual Development Plan Area is outside the 65 CNEL contour, but within the 60 CNEL contour, for John Wayne Airport, and residential land use is considered a "conditionally consistent: land use in the AELUP. Policy N3.2 in the General Plan Noise Element requires that any residential use in this area maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA. The Plan proposes no change in land use, or location or intensity of development, from that which was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and all General Plan noise policies will apply to development pursuant to the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 25 Population and Housing The General Plan EIR found that the increase in residential units and associated population increase in population allowed by the General Plan would exceed projections by the Southern California Association of Governments, which would be a significant unavoidable impact. The development of 1,504 new residential units allowed in the Plan was included in the General Plan EIR's analysis. These units, in particular the affordable and density bonus units, would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals. There are no existing residential units in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and the Plan would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people. The Plan proposes no changes to the amount of residential development allowed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Public Services The General Plan EIR found that public services impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Recreation The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts resulting from the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, including as a result of residential development in the Airport Area. Policy LU6.15.13 requires residential developers in the Airport Area to dedicate and develop neighborhood parks. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Initial Study, the Plan complies with this policy. Residential development pursuant to the Plan will also be subject to the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, and contribute funds for the maintenance and preservation of existing park and recreation facilities. The amount of residential development allowed, and the amount of park dedication required, by the Plan is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Transportation /Traffic The General Plan EIR found that there would be a significant unavoidable impact from a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. All other transportation and traffic impacts were considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The Plan incorporates the same level of development as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Utilities and Service Systems The General Plan EIR found that utilities and service systems impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is the same as that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 26 Mandatory Findinas of Sianificance No substantial changes to the development intensity contemplated by the General Plan would occur as a result of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Summary The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 27 Item 4: Materials Received After Packet Published PC 9/9/10 Agenda Item #4 — Revised Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL (PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. The Koll Company and Conexant have filed applications with respect to their properties located within a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. 2. The applications seek approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) for the Airport Area that will implement certain General Plan Land Use policies. 3. A public hearing was held on September 9th, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 3 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The Planning Commission finds that: 1. The Plan will ensure compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with the existing non - residential structures and uses. 2. The Plan is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy LU6.15.11, which requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to developing residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area of the Airport Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan policies and recommends approval of the Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. 2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicants shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicants shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in Tm plt: 04/14/10 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 3 of _ 3 enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicants shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: I:ya Earl McDaniel, Chairman Michael Toerge, Secretary Tm plt: 04/14/10 ITEM 4: Koll /Conexant - Birch Street Easement RECORpI•tdG C{1;4TiE5'SkD [l4- AND- - RECOJtOfD AT^>ZEQOW Of Wfi£.`7 RI.COiij)FD IL 0 - - - - TITt"iN5 rdi Tit'U'aT CO . .1j - 1% Off ICtAL '1<E..Ut ?OS'OF • a, 08ANCt COUNTY, CAOt bliNiA •G?DSUN[ DUNiZ b• CItUTCHFii - s -•: SQOA.M. OY-- `P. Z-09Li - 'Ltik BAI�NUt. tounr?',R,ltandu{ - ' �.' � � _ - At -Xn: (`ri C4 VC'Ik:.�r:. :•F�d't/aTDEiL .. - _ - •r _ - -r {e, v. . _ - '9f ';:q ^<itl- L'14,j�'fR '_f._i• i :,NS 9ryp .; YE:� •vii: ^v' 1.- . "..✓ _'i�N� bi'!L�1.lEY.' �,. - � rS f•Yl:.,:AI Gfi: b'..:n � /..o t� J._�'��I —�. mSpar;[;• atsaT :���z�:Gfe� ^�uruoz''��x:•u�a .. •:.�•"J} - ''GfL12r'1': ANDSQ133'CCr,AI4 _OF EAS$:ME:jT'$ .. - . I' 2fiS- IN4STIbi ;I:iT. his._ �iL`;r,'.a .g J°, •nf_k -1:.' `,��r,,''. dn[i between- RocRWELL INTEIvIA3iaiJAiF a �eiaware c6rpf>ra " tltn -;' RockweiV''•J; _and Ar*PNA •U k.t-_WSURAN('e. Cb�hj,+fiY;,Zj,-Con' c.taEUt.' . co g©ration .('ACt'na,,_l' s« RrCITAZS- ` t4H1 11EA a' c a wa the, owner of the ri6a _.,dnelt [3�a� r •. - - Bribed as t9t -15 oE - 'isact .!ho- }953 -as ah:o%vr on .j rac ret.rorde3 inn'Ropk 3i.D• Paqes 7 tc) I-1,rnciiisrve -,'rf hi5C�3laneoa5. Maps ,fOEf -- •..c:.'La1 . u•.+rr�rds nT .isrnnq. 'L`r unty._'C,�liiorn .-1 (the'-+':. "Aetna Psgpd�sty'Jj:; sand' y. �. .. WHEREAS;• said Aetna'Prol�crty;(�as tifcn.:*re)b[iivza[•d 'intc) _ + Parcels f through .4, ,as showri op. :a Parcel Maa.�r.,4gYdec'' on Aedembos'1rj; 1973 Tn Veik:1U8, Fatge. _2.7 and. fig.. °�f [3C.ccI Maps OP, iaiCal- ReCOrdsFbf..or>;�outity4 parcel;2`Nvifig,t2ee co�sv'eped L0 uveY Flieners3rhi itzel InternatioQdL, -Inc by.,Grarit Deed i reoordet3 on'.F.eb>?p,r • -l;d;' 1:478, and Pargel 1 havih" been' c+3FrVe e8.. ' r to Jdreellcssocies:.bjt Gr:i4t.Deed reac,r.ed:.oFi i►P.ri1. t aecf s ' 7. < -_ �... •�.:,.e:•:.. 1 tR ..;... ;, .:i, r. . -`. -...t ..:c.,. �y:� „�'. _ 4.i�' '. r`<• • i�r ::,ysir • "1� i � .(i'' J •=Vh.T JS: `)i•- � 'S.: .�,' '.i'}'',:.A��..n,: "'1f '�. . ' :k�;h,'' 'tii:n�..f.. .;;;... y;r -.- ::. f•. .: i.' _ - -.. „aVyp.:... M•M'.� \, ,,N!... ?4:A - � T. 1: _ .::M.i -i .•�_' ,; tl,.:y l,- ' -'i.•' %.' :t. ':i��l Y'Z'+W'�•f`t� �,...� __ vaV"�`'S:-�'..*rtXY-t :.- ° @yi ca {• ... 1!..- .rye ..L n�:.�..� �:F�.. r. }ac= •..':SJ'.'�s'. °- _..:J4M:�'.'�_�li•YJ'�•� ` -Y- _s2_ !1 '•1...' 1 � -¢::.X : «��i{[!•i:4.. "� $��'° -° $, � «gig :�.. � � .� s *:� ..�, � �.. Item 4: August 2010 ICDP Text with Strikeout AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES August 2010 Changes to the Text are represeted in Underline for additions and Strikethrough for deletions. Introduction In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a comprehensive update to its General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the Airport Business Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport, bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use development within this industrial and commercial district, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots or areas not used for occupiable buildings located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area, referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires the property owners in this area to collaborate in the preparation of a single Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses." The purpose of this Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is to allocate the additive units to properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area and to satisfy the General Plan requirements for a Conceptual Development Plan. Each of the principal property owners has prepared a Conceptual Development Plan for their properties, fee r� ty— sic::, but these plaRS a;a RAt . „L,o +tie Al'AARtoAn Af +ho 550 "additive , ni+s° which the City has evaluated the Seaseptual Deye' ,PFReRt PlaRS . Fed by aGh of the . PeFt , , , in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan aad to formulate a recommended Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. General Plan Policies The General Plan provides policies for the orderly evolution of the Airport Business Area, from a single - purposed business park, to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses. The goal of the Plan is to create livable neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and community — "residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways (with) a mix of housing types and buildings... at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood." In formulating the General Plan policies, there was concern that residential development not occur on a "piecemeal' basis, and that there be sufficient critical mass to enable each new increment of housing to stand alone as a viable and livable neighborhood. This was felt to be particularly important in the Airport Business Area where there has been no residential development, and where the predominant land use pattern has been commercial and industrial. The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Business Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular: Neighborhood Size: Each residential village shall be at least 10 -acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11). At the ,diSGFe+ieR of the Gi+., the aGFeage Gan nd de paFt of n prepeFty iR a .diff..FeRt IaR d u oategeFy, if the Gi+., fiR ds that ur Neighborhood Densities: In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of_ t4ea&t-� residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established. The General Plan also establishes a minimum density of 45 units per acre for each five -acre first phase increment of residential development ( "F dWGI'iR9 UR't &); although the Conceptual Development Plan Area is exempt from this specific numerical requirement, any first phase increment of residential development should demonstrate an appropriate critical mass (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9). Diversity of Housing: Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. (LU6.15.7). Neighborhood Parks: The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension, no less than 150 feet, and that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. F ^r infiu resideRtial devei,,... ent in the GE)R eptuai Dever,,.,. eRt Ra Aroma ark fFORtage . ..h, . UbliG o +root .......... . - +„ rneet the r ighbeFheed park ro 8Rt (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14). Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 24 22 12.70 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain ( Figure 1: 11lustFative RaR Connectivity within and between the two DroDerties will be Drovided with existing and new Dedestrian ways, improved with parking lot screening, planting and /or enhanced pavings which are compatible between the Koll and Conexant Drooerties (details of which will be included in the regulatory plans The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of structures which will remain (Figure 1: Illustrative Plan). AM I:e eA Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 24 22 12.70 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain ( Figure 1: 11lustFative RaR Connectivity within and between the two DroDerties will be Drovided with existing and new Dedestrian ways, improved with parking lot screening, planting and /or enhanced pavings which are compatible between the Koll and Conexant Drooerties (details of which will be included in the regulatory plans The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of structures which will remain (Figure 1: Illustrative Plan). The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite, as an incentive to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual Development Plan area by the General Plan. UNIT ALLOCATION SUMMARY Property Additive Replacement Density Bonus Totals Koll 260 - - 260 Conexant 290 632 322 1244 Total Plan 550 632 322 1504 Conexant The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial /office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial /office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organization of the Conexant mixed -use village, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a grid atp tern of pedestrian - scaled streets and paseos that break up the large superblocks Af the area and provide connectivity with the eXi6tiRg StFeet SySt8fn and adjGl^l^^ GGFnFReFGiaI pmperties within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • B ildiRgs should be massed to pFevide StFGRg Provide for building massing that creates strong spatial definition along streets, and stepped stepse down to promote a pedestrian - scaled character. • Greate Integrate residential with ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Parking should either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartments. • Provide parking that reflects the mix of uses in the neighborhood. Encourage on- street parking to serve the neighborhood park and visitors. Conexant Illustrative Development Program Conexant Site Net Area (Acres) Residential (Dwelling Units) Commercial (Gross Sq. Ft.) ParGel1 3.94 447 r°a rn^i 2 446 63 Parap' 3 &.53 27-6 Parr-PI 4 74-2 3" Total 18.45 922 11.50011600 Density Bonus Units 322 Total(s) 18.45 1,244 11,500 14,690 Park A 449 Pa* B 26 PaFk -C 26 Total Park Area 2.01 .. The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.44 x 50 du /ac), of which 290 would be additive units and up to 632 would be replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11.600 11.500 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. The precise amount of commercial square footage will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. To help meet the City's ' ^ ^' °' ^ ^ ^^ hO U°'^^ FequiFemeRts and Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes the addit"on a# up to a maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that they affordable housing units are provided to meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Conexant proposal provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, which meets the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8% of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood, clearly Nighty public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground level uses. An additional 0.51 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the Conexant site lvillann Koll ::- - - - - -- -- - - -- - M -- - I- MN Hill TT,h,p Pl;;a demonstrates how non - residential uses can be integrated with residential uses along with open space, parking and other amenities to create a livable and attractive neighborhood (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Plan). In seeking to meet the intention of the General Plan policies for a mixed -use village on the Koll Property, the Plan has established and followed the following principles: • Spatially organize new residential uses with existing office development in a way that creates an engaging neighborhood fabric of useable and defined open spaces, and pedestrian - friendly streets and promenades. Balance the amount of surface parking with publicly accessible open spaces and streets, so that an appropriate residential environment is created, and the feeling of living in a parking lot is avoided. Provide replacement office parking for displaced surface parking in new structures that are encapsulated or substaRtially helpw grade screened. • Create a network of pedestrian - friendly streets and walkways that connect to existing and future activities within the area, and that give structure and organization to the village Create ground level retail and residential uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. • Create a neighborhood park as a focal point of the village and ° _x+° °r' the I- ,- lon.donope +r°o+ men+ pf the lake pork ale Rg Von Karmon in +p the n Village W p Vid8 p°n+ip„ity ona p °p+iVity, with pedestrian connectivity to existing amenities that contribute to the residential quality of the village. Koll Site Illustrative Development Plan Koll Site Net Area (Acres) Residential (Dwelling Units) Commercial (Gross Sq. Ft.) 3A 88 Paine l!Buiia•..e. 2 4-:46 92 PaMeMuild++g -3 44 99 Total Residential 6:26 5.78 260 3,400 Park A 4:B Cvisiting Lake DnrL 4-.64 Total Park Area 2.64 1.016 The mixed -use village shown on the Integrated Plan for the Koll Company property exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement and can be considered to encompass approximately 24 22 12.70 gross acres of land north of Von Karman Avenue and south of Birch Street. The village area would include several existing office buildings and would provide for the conversion of parking lots into residential development parcels along with the creation of new open space amenities and the connection of these to existing open spaces. It also calls for the modification of surface parking areas to create a better balance of buildings and open spaces, link existing and future open space amenities and to create a network of pedestrian friendly streets. The implementation of the Koll plan will utilize land that is currently used for surface parking, which 1s stall ired must be replaced to serve the office uses that will remain. Parking requirements will be addressed in the regulatory plan. The Plan provides for 6-26 5.78 net acres of new residential land, and as such will allow for the development of 260 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. Three development areas comprise the 6-.2-6 5.78 acres of residential land and provide f °r ° diversity of nit types as nulled fer in the GeRer°I Dh°n (Figure 5� k °II Site Cra..°\.,nrk- Plan)The plan's 260 residential units are —serer ,.ed d.n. thmee baildiRg figWF°�� ,hiGh II., .t° 'h the hl° h II serer, sue.,— �e�eaera,.�— u�ssr;,� �„— .,,e�a,� v� °.,era., To create an active street front, Koll is proposing to include 3,400 sq.ft. of retail development in the village, with existing unused commercial entitlement in the General Plan and Zoning. As existing entitlement, this square footage does not need to comply with General Plan Policy LU6.15.5. The Koll Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of eae 1.016 acres, as °u As „tili,ing the ° °itn^ 14 ° e lake park which meets the General Plan requirement of 8% of the land area of the residential villaae (i.e. 8% . ��sre' rse: r _er_rnssr_rrnna:r.�:err:�:ens�l •. MOM ■_ General Plan policies require neighborhood parks be public in nature and must have yublic streets on at least two sides as well as be connected with ad;acent development residential by pedestrian . streets Devel9PM8Rt PlaR Area, park .. and LU6.15.14). The plan as proposed meets this land use policy. The Plan also provides for enhanced access to existing parks With fFE)Rt ge ^^ 139-thsidesA-f VAR KarmaR, amenities and destinations, pedestrian access around the existing office buildings, as well as revisions to the site's vehicular access. Implementation The approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan by the City Council is a pre- requisite for the preparation of the entitlement documents called for in the General Plan. These documents include a Regulatory Plan and a Development Agreement. Once Council has reviewed and approved the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City the proposed Regulatory Plan for their property. The Regulatory Plans, along with any required environmental clearance documents, will then be the subject of a public review process as established by the City and the basis for action by the City Council. The Regulatory Plans will, in substantial compliance with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, describe more fully the proposed design of buildings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure, including parking, required to support the proposed development will be provided. The Regulatory Plans should include sufficient detail for the City to determine that the design of infrastructure connecting the two properties is coordinated. They will also include provisions to ensure compatibility with office, industrial and other nonresidential uses. The Regulatory Plans will thus provide a description of the location, intensity and density of allowable and conditional uses; the height and massing of buildings; required setbacks and stepbacks; the location, configuration and treatment of ground level uses; design standards and guidelines for streets, pedestrian ways and open spaces, including requirements for lighting and landscaping; standards and guidelines for the location of driveways, service and trash areas; a description of how commercial uses that enhance the residential uses will be incorporated; and how required parking is to be provided and treated so that it does not detract from the livability of the neighborhood and the quality of the pedestrian environment. # They will also describe the proposed phasing of development and linkage of open space, street and infrastructure improvements in relation to development. Any use of the City's density bonus provisions for affordable housing, or for the transfer of development rights from other properties, will also be addressed in the Regulatory Plans. Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated .. Plan, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units, and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant AgFeerneit is G-alled. for in the N.M. rovol W- ._ The City of Newport Beach has an interest in timely implementation of this Integrated Conceptual Development Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of this Integrated Conceptual Development Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units. IO //I Materials Received after Packet Published Cornerstone Partners IV, LLC September 8, 2010 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associated Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2001 -170 & PA2008 -063) Dear Ms. Ung: I am writing to you as the representative to the owners of 5000 Birch, a 297,577 sf high rise office complex located in the Koll Newport Center master - planned office project. I request that you delay consideration of the above referenced matter to a date in October 2010. Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers LLC, as representative for ownership of 5000 Birch has not been able to review any information relating to this proposed conceptual development plan, and such continuance will provide the necessary time for Cornerstone to meet with the City and project proponent to provide meaningful input on the applicant's request. As owners of 5000 Birch, this property will be the most directly impacted by the proposed conceptual development plan. At this time, we are very concerned about the deleterious effect such a change could have on our multi - million dollar investment. The current design of the office park offers a unique office experience for our current and future office tenants. The proposed change has the potential to disrupt the current aesthetic appeal of our property, and negatively impact its attractiveness to tenants and the property's overall value. Please delay consideration of the applicant's conceptual development plan and allow a significant owner in this master - planned development to meet with the city and applicant to better understand the development proposal. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sandy Throop Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers LLC JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5100 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 [949] 8 33-197 2 FAX [949] 851 -2055 Materials Received After Packet Published September 9, 2010 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dear Ms. Ung: I am submitting these comments as President of Courthouse Plaza Association. This association includes 5100, 5120, 5140 and 5160 Birch Street, a four building office complex located immediately adjacent to the proposed Koll and Conexant projects. We have reviewed the amended application for the Koll/Conexant project. The development plan still proposes to utilize private easements for two of the four proposed access points. These easements were never intended for the high traffic use that will be generated by the proposed high - density use. The Birch Street driveway is a private easement. The easement area is not owned by Conexant. The proposed developments should not be allowed to utilize private easements to mitigate their on -site traffic issues. In addition, the project appears to provide access through the Conexant property to the adjacent office buildings within Koll Center Newport. This access would allow additional traffic from these adjacent properties to further burden the Birch Street driveway. The proposed Koll/Conexant development is attempting to turn our driveway into a public street. Moreover, the existing Birch Street driveway is narrower than typical street standards. The applicants should not be allowed to burden adjacent property owners with their traffic and other impacts. The applicants should be required to move this driveway onto their own property to relieve our property from this burden. Sincerely, JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. John S. Adams