The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 - Koll Center Newport - PA2006-095CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 13 October 10, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Koll Center Newport 4450 MacArthur Blvd. General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -001 (PA2006 -095) APPLICANT: The Koll Company ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a General Plan Amendment to increase the total gross floor area of general office in Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) by 24,016 gross square feet; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A? The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over a subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the request by adopting Resolution No. 2006 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 - 081039), and introducing Ordinance No. 2006 -_ approving Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -001, and passing the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on October 24, 2006. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on September 7 and 21, 2006, and voted 4 ayes (2 absents and one abstain) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. The Planning Commission has evaluated the project in the context of the 1988 Land Use Element and the 2006 Land Use Element since the recently adopted General Plan update is not effective until such time as the voters approve it in November 2006. The attached resolution, if adopted, would amend only the 1988 Land Use Element and not the 2006 Land Use Element. As noted, the 2006 Land Use Element does Koll Center Newport October 10, 2006 Page 2 not account for the proposed project. Should the voters approve Measure V in November; this proposed amendment would be brought back for reauthorization. The applicant proposes to construct a two -story, 21,311 gross square foot office building to function as their new corporate headquarters. The proposed construction site is centrally located in. Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The proposed 40 foot high building is designed over a 17 -space subterranean parking garage. The building features a modern, contemporary architectural design which consists of glass and stone fascia and stucco wall elements. The Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 436,079 gross square feet for non hotel uses for Koll Center Newport Office Site A (Sub -Area 1 -1) and it would not accommodate the proposed construction. This floor area limit includes the projected growth of 1,740 square feet for Steadfast Investment Properties permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and 1,222 square feet for the Pacific Club remaining after the implementation of their current expansion authorized by GPA 97 -3(E). No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 1,062,648 gross square feet to Koll Center Newport Office Site B (Sub -Area 1 -2). This total includes a projected growth of 1,750 gross square feet for Master Development Corporation authorized by General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -006. No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element. The basis upon which this project rests is the fact that there is unbuilt floor area identified by the Koll Center Planned Community that the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements do not recognize. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community presently authorizes 24,016 square feet of additional retail, office and restaurant floor area beyond that anticipated for Steadfast Investment Properties, Master Development Corporation and the Pacific Club. This un -built floor area was authorized prior to the original adoption of the 1988 Land Use Element. The 1988 Land Use Element established gross floor area limits at existing levels without accounting for the un -built floor area. To eliminate the discrepancy between the Land Use Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, the Koll Company requests an increase in gross floor area authorized by the General Plan to accommodate the additional development contemplated by the Koll Center Planned Community. Additionally, in reviewing this application, staff discovered that an error currently exists within the Koll Center Newport Office Site B, and recommends correcting the discrepancy in association with this application. A recent review of all existing building permits within Koll Center Newport Office Site B, revealed that the overall building gross floor area of this area is approximately 1,060,146 square feet, which is 2,502 square feet less than the current maximum contained within the Land Use Element (1062,648 current maximum — 1,060,146 existing = 2,502). The total existing floor area of Office Area B was derived from a combination of building plans and Koll Center Newport October 10, 2006 Page 3 permits and it is believed to be more accurate than the estimate included within the 1988 Land Use Element. A detailed discussion of the amendments and proposed corrections is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Charter Section 423 Analysis Amendment Area A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips Trips Prior Amendment GP 2001 -004 1,272 s.f. 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) 80% Prior Amendment GP 2004 -004 0 17.0(80%) 24.8(80%) Prior Amendment 1,400 s.f. 1.6(80%) 1.6(80%) GP 2004 -006 80% Prior Amendment 1,392 s.f. 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) GP2005 -007 80% Proposed Amendment 24,016 427(100%) 41.3(100%) 100% Total 28,080 66.1 72.5 As indicated in the preceding chart, the resulting total of the proposed amendment and prior amendments would not exceed the 100 peak hour trip or 40,000 square foot thresholds and a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it will become a "prior amendment' that will be tracked for ten years. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L4, Sub -Areas 1 -1 (KCN Office Site A) and 1 -2 (KCN Office Site B) and Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L4 Table are shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment A). Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by EDAW, Inc. for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment #F). No significant unavoidable impacts are identified based upon a comparison of the proposed project with established thresholds of significance. The MND was circulated for public review between August 10 and September 5, 2006. Comments were received from Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, City of Irvine and California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. Responses to comments received are included in the Errata attached to the MND. 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: Koll Center Newport October 10, 2006 Page 4 Submitted by: PAXI�Lch�, Patricia L. Temple, lanning Director Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution with revisions to Statistical Area L -4 B. Draft City Council Ordinance with revisions to PC Text C. Planning Commission Resolution No. D. Excerpt of the minutes from the September 7 and 21, 2006, Planning Commission meetings E. Planning Commission Staff Reports from the September 7 and 21, 2006 (Without attachments) F. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration &' G. Project Plans ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office. ATTACHMENT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION S RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2006 -081039) AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -003 TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION OF KOLL CENTER NEWPORT OFFICE SITE A OF AIRPORT AREA (STATISTICAL AREA 1-4) BY 24,016 GROSS SQUARE FEET (PA 2006 -095) WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Koll Company with respect to Office Sites A and B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Birch Street to the north and northeast and Jamboree Road to the southeast, requesting a General Plan Amendmend to increase the maximum gross floor area permitted in Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) by 24,016 square feet and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A. The aplications are requested to facilitate the construction of a 21,311 square foot, two-story office building over a subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. After receiving public comments, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the project to the September 21, 2006 meeting; WHEREAS, at the September 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 4 ayes (2 absents and one abstain), recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and approval of General Plan Amendmend No. 2006 -003; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on October 10, 2006 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the project site is designated Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element. The City has adopted Planned Community District Regulations (PC -15 Koll Center) that establish development standards and use regulations to implement the General Plan. The property is presently improved with a paved common parking area for Office Site A; and, WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared which, sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach and 0 Page 2 of 9 designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including commercial floor area limitations; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 436,079 gross square feet for non hotel uses for Koll Center Newport Office Site A (Sub -Area 1 -1). This floor area limit includes the projected growth of 1,740 square feet for Steadfast Investment Properties permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and 1,222 square feet for the Pacific Club remaining after the implementation of their current expansion authorized by GPA 97 -3(E). No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 1,062,648 gross square feet to Koll Center Newport Office Site B (Sub -Area 1 -2). This total includes a projected growth of 1,750 gross square feet for Master Development Corporation authorized by General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -006. No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, a recent review of all existing building permits within Koll Center Newport Office Site B, revealed that the overall building gross floor area of this area is approximately 1,060,146 square feet, which is 2,502 square feet less than the current maximum contained within the Land Use Element (1062,648 current maximum — 1,060,146 existing = 2,502). The total existing floor area of Office Area B was derived from a combination of building plans and permits and it is believed to be more accurate than the estimate included within the 1988 Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Koll Center Newport Planned Community presently authorizes 24,016 square feet of additional retail, office and restaurant floor area beyond that anticipated for Steadfast Investment Properties, Master Development Corporation and the Pacific Club. This un -built floor area was authorized prior to the original adoption of the 1988 Land Use Element. The 1988 Land Use Element established gross floor area limits at existing levels without accounting for the un -built floor area; and, WHEREAS, to eliminate the discrepancy between the Land Use Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, the Koll Company requests an increase in gross floor area authorized by the General Plan to accommodate the additional development contemplated by the Koll Center Planned Community; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan provides for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project would increase the development allocation in Office Area A by 24,016 square feet; however, only a total of 21,311 square feet would be used for the construction of the new office building to be occupied by the Koll Company. The remaining un -built square footage of 2,705 would be reserved for future office development within Office Area A. Although the proposed amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community eliminates a potential small retail site (10,000 square feet) and two potential restaurant sites (totaling 14,000 square feet), the Planned Community allows unused floor area allocated for these uses to be converted to professional and business office use (Section Group V - Restaurants). The project is I Page 3 of 9 consistent with this policy as the change of uses does not significantly alter the character of the area and the resulting office development is consistent with the surrounding uses and with the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan allows for the redevelopment of older or underutilized properties to preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The project consists of an increase of 24,016 square feet for office development. The proposed development is anticipated to generate less than 300 daily trips and therefore, does not require the preparation of a traffic analysis pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and, therefore is consistent with Policy B; and, WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are maintained and that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The City implements this policy through the Koll Center Planned Community Text. The project is designed to meet all applicable development standards contained within. The proposed building height, size, and, architectural design of the project will be physically compatible with the existing and surrounding professional office and commercial developments; and, WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy A -18 and a voter approval is not required as the project represent an increase of 42.7 — A.M. and 41.3 P.M. peak hour trips, 24,016 gross square feet of non - residential floor area and zero residential units. These increases, when added with 80% of the increases attributable to four previously approved amendments (GP2001 -004, GP2004 -004, GP2004 -006 and GP2005 -007), result in a total of 66.1 — A.M. peak hour trips and 72.5 — P.M. peak hour trips and a total increase in 28,080 square feet do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between August 4 and September 5, 2005. Comments were received from Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, City of Irvine, and California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and, WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 0 Page 4 of 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH NO. 2006 - 081039) including the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006- 003 by amending the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4, KCN- Office Site A, and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L4 Table of the General Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A" and subject to the standard code requirements listed in Exhibit "B ". This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the October 10, 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS. NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS. ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 0 Page 5 of 9 Exhibit "A" The following changes should be made to the Land Use Element and all other provisions of the Land Use Element shall remain unchanged: Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) 1 -1. KCN Office Site A. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 436,979 460,095 sq. ft. plus 471 hotel rooms. [GPA97- 3(E)][GP 2006 -003]. 1 -2 KCN Office Site B. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,860,893 1,060,146 square feet)[GP 2006 -003]. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. 12 Page 6 of 9 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 01/01/1987 Projection Growth 0110111987 Projection Growth 1 -1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 "' 780,223 8a o, 485 834,201 29,962 63,978 1 -2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 1;060;898 "" 1,060,146 1,G62,648 062;648 1,060,146 4;750 0 1 -3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1 -5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1 -6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,500 2,684 1 -7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1 -8. KCN OS 1 0 0 0 377,520 442,775 65,255 1 -9. KCN RS 1 0 0 0 52,086 120,000 67,914 1- Court 10. House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2 -1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2 -2. NPBLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2 -3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2 -5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 860,884 26,122 2 -6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 225,864 228,214 2,350 NP BLK G & 2 -7. H 0 0 0 342,641 344,231 1,590 2 -8. NP BLK 1 0 0 0 99,538 378,713 279,175 2 -9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 203,528 228,530 25,002 Campus 3 Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,991,618 6,900,858 8;099,552 8,121,066 1,187,942 1,220,208 Revised Population 0 0 0 0910712006 'Existing Existing square footage as of "Existing as of 05/2412005 as of " 01/22/2002 *"Existing as of 06/2212006 09/07/2006 Page 7 of 9 Exhibit "B" STANDARD CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies; and, standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans dated July 27, 2006 (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 5. The parking level shall have 8 feet 2 inches clear ceiling height. 6. The elevator shall not open to the stair enclosure. 7. The stairs shall have one -hour enclosure. 8. A preliminary code review is recommended. 9. The parking lot layout and the subterranean parking area shall comply with the City Standard Plans STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B; and, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. The ramp slope to the subterranean parking shall comply with City Standard Plan STD - 160-L-C. 11. Drive aisle leading into the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 12. The final on -site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. The mechanical equipment shall not impact the required parking stalls or drive aisle dimensions. 14. No above ground permanent improvements shall be built within the limits of the existing utilities and pedestrian easements adjacent to the property frontage, along the MacArthur Boulevard. 1), Page 8 of 9 15. The applicant shall submit a detail drainage plan to show how the storm runoff that travels down the driveway ramp will be discharged in a timely manner so as to prevent the underground garage from being flooded from raining. 16. All improvements shall be constructed per the Public Works Department standards. Additional public works improvements may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Department. 17. An ADA compliant curb access ramp shall be constructed at each of the MacArthur Boulevard curb returns, at the entrance to the shared service driveway. 18. All above ground utilities shall be located outside the sight distance planes per City Standard Plan STD - 110 -L. 19. A construction traffic control plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit. Said plan shall be wet sealed, signed and dated by a California Registered Traffic Engineer. 20. Elevator shall be gurney accommodating in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition. Interior cab dimensions shall be a minimum of 54 inch by 80 inch. 21. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 22. The sprinkler system shall be monitored. 23. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible materials and contrast with their background and shall be either internally or externally illuminated by a photo cell to visible at night. The numbers shall be no less than six inches in height with a one -inch stroke. 24. The parking garage gate shall be strobe and knox key switch. 25. The building shall be provided with a knox box. 26. A Fire Department connection shall be located within 150 feet if a fire hydrant. 27. The building plans shall specify the occupancy classification. 28. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and any adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. The landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site 15 Page 9 of 9 moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 29. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs; and, cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 30. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets; and, shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department, 32. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 33. A six -foot high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. 34. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. H ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 15 ORDINANCE NO. 2006- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -001 TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES OF SITE A BY 24,016 SQUARE FEET AND ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE RETAIL SITE #1, AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF RESTAURANT SITE #2 AND THE ENTIRE RESTAURANT SITE #5 (PA 2006 -095) WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Koll Company with respect to Office Sites A and B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Birch Street to the north and northeast and Jamboree Road to the southeast, requesting a General Plan Amendmend to increase the maximum gross floor area permitted in Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) by 24,016 square feet and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A. The aplications are requested to facilitate the construction of a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over a subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. After receiving public comments, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the project to the September 21, 2006 meeting; WHEREAS, at the September 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 4 ayes (2 absents and one abstain), recommended approval of Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -001 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on October 10, 2006 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the project site is designated Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element. The City has adopted Planned Community District Regulations (PC -15 Koll Center) that establish development standards and use regulations to implement. the General Plan. The property is presently improved with a paved common parking area for Office Site A; and, WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are maintained and that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible ) ID Page 2 of 10 with surrounding land uses. The City implements this policy through the Koll Center Planned Community Text. The project is designed to meet all applicable development standards contained within. The proposed building height, size, and, architectural design of the project will be physically compatible with the existing and surrounding professional office and commercial developments; and, WHEREAS, an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow the conversion of retail site #1, an undeveloped portion of restaurant site #2 and the entire restaurant site #5 from Office Site B, a total of 24,016 square feet, to professional and business office use is consistent with the provisions stated in Group V and VI of the Planned Community Development Standards that allow retail and restaurant acreage not utilized for that purpose to be developed as office use; and WHEREAS, the proposed office development meets all the development standards for building setbacks and on -site parking; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between August 4 and September 5, 2005. Comments were received from Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, City of Irvine and California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and, WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations (PC- 15) shall be revised as provided in Exhibit "A ", with all other provisions of the existing Planned Community District Regulations remaining unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall attest to, the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. 11 Page 3 of 10 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR (. V Page 4 of 10 Exhibit "A" PART II COMMERCIAL, Section I. Site Area and Building Area Group I PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. Building Sites (4) B. Allowable Building Area Site A 242,11 sgtt ae feetTl�(2� 66147 (16) (29) Site B 965,216 .,,..,.._o r t (13)(16),( g) 7 80 (13, Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site U 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 24,300 square feet (4) Site G 45,000 square feet (8) 2 350,699 - ---ffe 6fi- 5N69-9 - feet C. Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for sites C, D, E, F and G. (Text Page) 15 M Total Acreage Office Acreage Site A 30.939 acres * 30.939 acres Site B 43.703 acres (11) 43.703 acres (11) Site C 18.806 acres (10) 18.806 (10) Site D 19.673 acres 19.673 acres Site E 2.371 acres 2.371 acres Site F 1.765 acres 1.765 acres Site G 5.317 acres (8) 5.317 acres (81 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11)122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) B. Allowable Building Area Site A 242,11 sgtt ae feetTl�(2� 66147 (16) (29) Site B 965,216 .,,..,.._o r t (13)(16),( g) 7 80 (13, Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site U 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 24,300 square feet (4) Site G 45,000 square feet (8) 2 350,699 - ---ffe 6fi- 5N69-9 - feet C. Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for sites C, D, E, F and G. (Text Page) 15 M *(3)(4) Page 5 of 10 In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) b. One (1) space per 300 square feet of net building area 120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (11) 1. Site A Allowable Building Area ...... 342,131 131 square feet (1 6)(29` Site Area 19.399 acres *(3)(4)(16) a. Building Height Land Coveraee (I Two story development ayes Three story development 2.`= 61 aerr Four story development 1.96 acres Five story development 1.°�es Six story development 1.31 acres Seven story development 1.1'x^ es Eight story development nn names Nine story development 8:87 -ages Ten story development 0 -78 acres Eleven story development " 'v 1 m Rc.Feg Twelve story development 0- 5 - acres 366,14? square feet'( 16)(29J(3.0) b. Parkine Land Coverage 1,139 ears ;1,221 cars 949 -ac�- I*l6)(29) c. Landscaped Open Space (4) (11) (16)Land Coveraee (29)(301 Two story development 5.99 acre Three story development 7 -30 acre Four story development 7�95 acre Five story development 8:34 -acres Six story development 9 6 0 .. Seven story development 8.79 acre Eight story development 8 -93 -acres Nine story development 9.04 cres Ten story development 9.13 sere Eleven story development 9-20-aefes Twelve story development 9.26 acres Site B Allowable Building Area ........�65�)(16}{28) 967483 Sc3uare. fee, t (.13)('f 6) (28)(30) Site Area ........43.703 acres (4)(1 1) (Text Page) 16 gb S a. Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Fivc story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 9,219 ms 3 226 e3 C. Landscaped Open Space (1 Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Sevcn story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Site C (10) Page 6 of 10 Land Coverage (11) (13) (16) (28 (-4' 26. °� - of -asre� 26 88 aargs Allowable Building Area .......674,800 square feet (15) (17)* Site Area .........18.806 acres (4) a. Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development (Text Page) 17 Land Coverage (15) .......7.75 acres .......5.16 acres .......3.87 acres ....... 3.10 acres .......2.58 acres .......2.21 acres .......1.94 acres .......1.72 acres .......1.55 acres .......1.41 acres .......1.29 acres vZ' Page 7 of 10 E. Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation authority for Orange County Airport. Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS A. Building Site (4) (5) (11) Site 3: 1.765 acres 1.765 acres Service station site 3 shall be located within Office Site F and shall not exceed 1.765 acres in size. Any portion or alI of Site 3 not utilized for service station use shall revert to either professional and business office use or restaurant use. (4) Group V. RESTAURANTS (1) (4) A. Building Sites Maximum acreages for Site 2 shall not exceed 1.25 (18) acres. Maximum acreage for Site 3: 1.765 acres. Maximum acreages for Sites 4 and 5 shall not exceed 3.0 acres. Maximum acreage for Sites 6 and 7 shall not exceed 2.2 acres. (8) (The following acreages are for information only.) Site 1 Deleted see Group ViL ...................(18) Site 2 1.25 acres Site 3 1.765 acres Site De7eter1'( 30) ...... ............................... Site 5 I3e10 €cd,{ X47 ............... ............................... 449 aorzq Site 6 1.50 acres (8) Site 7 0.70 acres (8) 4i 5, es uii 5 1 "'�cre� Fi09 Site 1 Deleted see Group VII Private Club (18) Site 3 located within Office Site "F ". (4) Any portion or all of the restaurant, bar, theater /nightclub acreage for Sites 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. Any portion or all of the restaurant acreage for Site 3 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to either professional and business office use or service station use. (4) (8) (18) (Text Page) 22 IN 11 C. D E. Page 8 of 10 The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. Building Area (4) Parking Criteria: 300 occupants/ 10,000 sq. ft. 1 space /3 occupants and 120 cars per acre. Site 2 50 ears ...........................0.42 aere .............. ,#',tttt cars 0 �0 ac�es;,(30) Site 3 100 cars ........................ 0.84 acres Site 6 ( 8) ... ............................... 70 cars................ 0.58 acres Site 7 (8) ................... 30 cars ...............0.25 acres a94:ea_ --- ------------3,23- acres....... Landscaped Open Space (4) Site 2 0.72 acres Site 3 0.70 acres .mp,. v-aciys Site 5 -0- 76-ae fe-, Site 6 (8) ................... Site 7 (8) ..... Building Height 19 acr9$ (?O) .............. 0.76 acres ............. 0.38 acres 4. Q n nQ .o iQ) (IQ 2$3 acres 2.83 ages,:($? (18) (30) Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER A. Building Site (4) (5) ('Text Page) 23 R-3 Page 9 of 10 Site 1 ... .......................... 5.026 acres Site 2 .........................'.'c, 00w -.5 D'146d(30) 6.526 ae3€ s ............................... 6.42A acres 5, 026 acres 5 026 acres (3D) Site 2 shall be located within Office Site "B." any portion or all of the retail and service Site 2 acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (4) (16) B. Allowable Building Area (5) *Retail Site No. I ..................102,110 sq. ft. (14)(27) Retail Site Pio. 2 ....................10,000 sq. (30) *Retail Site No. I (S. Ft.) Parcel Existing Total Parcell,R /S 588 (H} (H) 70,630 Parcel 3,R/S 506 (R) (R) 0 (0) (0) 22,000 Parcel 4, R/S 506 (R) 4,115 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 5,474 Subtotal (R) 12,315 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 27,474 (h1) 70,630 Total 120,000 (14)(27) (R) = Retail (0) = Office (H)= Hotel C. Landscape Area (5) Twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. I shall be developed as landscape area. If twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 is not developed as landscape area, a specific site plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuing of a building permit. D. Statistical Analysis (5) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. (TextPage)24 Page 10 of 10 Assumed parking criteria: One (1) space per 200 square feet of net building area at 120 cars per acre. 1. Site 1 Allowable Building Area ............................... ............................... 120,000 sq. ft.(24)(27) (14) SiteArea ......................................................... ............................... 5.026 acres a. Building Height (14) Two story development ..........................1.17 acres Three story development ........................0.78 acres Four story development ..........................0.59 acres Five story development ...........................0.47 acres b. Parking (14) 460 cars ........................ ...........................3.83 acres C_ Landscaped Open Space (14) Two story development ..........................0.03 acres Three story development ........................0.87 acres Four story development ..........................0.61 acres Five story development ...........................0.73 acres E. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35) feet above mean existing grade as shown on Exhibit "B." (5) Group VII. PRIVATE CLUB (18) A. Building Site Site 1 .....................2.0 acres ................................... 2.0 acres (Text Page) 25 �Z� ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1697 RESOLUTION NO. 1697 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2006 - 081039) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -003 TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION OF STATISTICAL AREA L4, KOLL CENTER NEWPORT OFFICE SITE A BY 24,016 GROSS SQUARE FEET AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -001 TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES OF SITE A AND ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE RETAIL SITE #1, AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF RESTAURANT SITE #2 AND THE ENTIRE RESTAURANT SITE#5 (PA 2006 -096) WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Koll Company with respect to Office Sites A and B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Birch Street to the north and northeast and Jamboree Road to the southeast, requesting a General Plan Amendmend to increase the maximum gross floor area .permitted in Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) by 24,016 square feet and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Comrxwnity (PC -15) to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A. The aplications are requested to facilitate the construction of a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over a subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 7, 2006, 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared which, sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach and designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including commercial floor area limitations; and WHEREAS, the project site is designated Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element. The City has adopted Planned Community District Regulations (PC -15 Koll Center) that establish development standards and use regulations to implement the General Plan. The property is presently improved with a paved common parking area for the Office Site A; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 436,079 gross square feet for non hotel uses for Koll Center Newport Office Site A (Sub -Area 1 -1). This floor area limit includes the projected growth of 1,740 square. feet for Steadfast Investment Properties permitted by General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and 1,222 square feet for the Pacific Club remaining after the implementation of their current expansion authorized by GPA R1 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 19 97 -3(E). No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Element presently allocates a maximum of 1,062,648 gross square feet to Koll Center Newport Office Site B (Sub -Area 1 -2). This total includes a projected growth of 1,750 gross square feet for Master Development Corporation authorized by General Plan Amendment No. 2004-006. No additional growth within this block is anticipated as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, a recent review of all existing building permits within Koll Center Newport Office Site B, revealed that the overall building gross floor area of this area is approximately 1,060,146 square feet, which is 2,502 square feet less than the current maximum contained within the Land Use Element (1062,648 current maximum — 1,060,146 existing = 2,502). The total existing floor area of Office Area B was derived from a combination of building plans and permits and it is believed to be more accurate than the estimate included within the 1988 Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Koll Center Newport Planned Community presently authorizes 24,016 square feet of additional retail, office and restaurant floor area beyond that anticipated for Steadfast Investment Properties, Master Development Corporation and the Pacific Club. This un -built floor area was authorized prior to the original adoption of the 1998 Land Use Element. The 1988 Land Use Element established gross floor area limits at existing levels without accounting for the un -built floor area; and, WHEREAS, to eliminate the discrepancy between the Land Use Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, the Koll Company requests an increase in gross floor area authorized by the General Plan to accommodate the additional development contemplated by the Koll Center Planned Community; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan provides for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project would increase the development allocation in the Office Area A by 24,016 square feet; however, only a total of 21,311 square feet would be used for the construction of the new office building to be occupied by the Koll Company. The remaining un -built square footage of 2,705 would be reserved for future office development within Office Area A. Although the proposed amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community eliminates a potential small retail site (10,000 square feet) and two potential restaurant sites (totaling 14,000 square feet), the Planned Community allows unused floor area allocated for these uses to be converted to professional and business office use (Section Group V - Restaurants). The project is consistent with this policy as the change of uses does not significantly alter the character of the area and the resulting office development is consistent with the surrounding uses and is consistent with the Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan allows for the redevelopment of older or underutilized properties to preserve the value of property by allowing for some modest growth, while maintaining acceptable levels of traffic service. The project consists of an Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 19 increase of 24,016 square feet of proposed for office development. The proposed development is anticipated to generate less than 300 daily trips and therefore, does not required the preparation of a traffic analysis pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and, therefore it is consistent with Policy B; and, WHEREAS, the City's General Plan indicates that the City shall maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities to ensure that the quality character of residential neighborhoods are maintained and that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The City implements this policy through the Koll Center Planned Community Text. The project is designed to meet all applicable development standards contained within. The proposed building height, size; and, architectural design of the project will be physically compatible with the existing and surrounding professional office and commercial developments; and, WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. This project has been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy A -18 and a voter approval is not required as the project represent an increase of 42.7 — A.M. and 41`.3 P.M. peak hour trips, 24,016 gross square feet of non - residential floor area and zero residential units. These increases, when added with 80% of the increases attributable to four previously approved amendments (GP2001 -004, GP2004 -004, GP2004 -006 and GP2005 -007), result in a total of 66.1 — A.M. peak hour trips and 72.5 — P.M. peak hour trips and a total increase in 28,080 square feet do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Policy No. 4.3 of the 2006 Land Use Element sets criteria for the transfer of development rights from a property to one or more other properties. The project would not be in conflict with this policy as the proposed transfer of development rights would occur within the same statistical area. The reduction of allowed development within the donor site would serve to reduce traffic trips (general office uses generate fewer trips than restaurant or retail uses) and therefore, would not result in any impacts to the local circulation system. The proposed development to be located on the receiver site has been designed with an architectural style is compatible with existing development in the business complex; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Policy No. 5.3.6 of the 2006 Land Use Element requires that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. Parking for the new office building would be provided in a combination of surface and below -grade lots immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. The parking areas will be convenient and accessible to the tenants and customers. Views of the parking lot would be minimized through the placement of parking underground and through the placement of the structure nearest to the public sidewalk that would serve to shield the existing. parking lot to the east of the building. Landscaping of the lot is also proposed; and, �3 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 19 WHEREAS, the amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow the conversion of retail site #1, an undeveloped portion of restaurant site #2 and the entire restaurant site #5 from Office Site B, a total of 24,016 square feet, to professional and business office use is consistent with the provisions stated in Group V and VI of the Planned Community Development Standards that allows retail and restaurant acreage not utilized for that purpose to be developed as office use; and WHEREAS, the proposed office development meets all the development standards for building setbacks and on -site parking; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between August 4 and September 5, 2005. Comments were received from Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, City of Irvine and California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and, WHEREAS, on the basis of the entice environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section No. 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2006 - including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached therewith. The document and all material which institute the record upon which this decision was based on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section No. 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 affecting the 1988 Land Use Element as amended per Exhibit "A" Section No. 3. The Planning Commission hereby also recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 per Exhibit "B" Section No. 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -001 per the revised Koll Center Newport �b Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 19 Planned Community District regulations depicted in Exhibit "C" subject to the standard code requirements listed in Exhibit "D ". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2006. 5:33 M Jeffrey Cole, Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: Eaton, Hawkins. Cole and Toerae ABSENT: Henn and Peotter ABSTAIN: McDaniel 3� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 19 Exhibit "A" The following changes should be made to the Land Use Element and all other provisions of the Land Use Element shall remain unchanged: Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) 1 -1. KCN Office Site A. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 436,079 460,095 sq. ft. plus 471 hotel rooms. [GPA97- 3(E)][GP 2006 -003]. 1 -2 KCN Office Site B. This site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allowed 1,86Q;8961,060,146 square feet)[GP 2006 -003]. Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 19 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 0110111987 Projection Growth 0110111987 Projection Growth 1 -1. KCN OS A 0 0 0 "* 780,223 810;185 834,201 29;962 53,978 1 -2. KCN OS B 0 0 0 4,960,898 "" 1,060,146 4;962;648 1,060,146 47M 0 1 -3. KCN OS C 0 0 0 734,641 734,641 0 1-4. KCN OS D 0 0 0 250,176 250,176 0 1 -5. KCN OS E 0 0 0 27,150 32,500 5,350 1-6. KCN OS F 0 0 0 31,816 34,500 2,684 1 -7. KCN OS G 0 0 0 81,372 81,372 0 1 -8. KCN OS 1 0 0 0 377,520 442,775 65,255 1 -9. KCN RS 1 0 0 0 52,086 120,000 67,914 1- Court 10. House 0 0 0 69,256 90,000 20,744 2 -1. NP BLK A 0 0 0 349,000 380,362 31,362 2 -2. NPBLK B 0 0 0 10,150 11,950 1,800 2 -3. NP BLK C 0 0 0 211,487 457,880 246,393 2-4. NP BLK D 0 0 0 274,300 288,264 13,964 2 -5. NP BLK E 0 0 0 834,762 860,884 26,122 2 -6. NP BLK F 0 0 0 225,864 228,214 2,350 NP BLK G& 2 -7. H 0 0 0 342,641 344,231 1,590 2 -8. NP BLK 1 0 0 0 99,538 378,713 279,175 2 -9. NP BLK J 0 0 0 '* 203,528 228,530 25,002 Campus 3 Drive 0 0 0 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL 0 0 0 6,901,6 i 6,900,858 8,121,066 7,942 1,220,208 Revised Population 0 0 0 09107/2006 * *"Existing Existing square footage as of "Existing as of 05124/2005 as of 01122/2002 'Existing as of 0612212006 09/07/2006 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 19 Exhibit `B" The following changes to the maximum gross floor area within the 2006 Land Use Element should be made provided the voters of Newport Beach affirmatively vote to enact the 2006 Land Use Element on November 7, 2006. All other provisions of the 2006 Land Use Element would remain unchanged: Table LU2 Anomaly Locations Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limits Development Limit Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -H2 4387-9 471 Hotel 460,095 Rooms (Not included in total square . footage 2 L4 MU -H2 1,062,648 1,060,146 34 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 19 Exhibit "C" The following changes will be made to Group I (Professional and Business Offices), Group V (Restaurants) and Group VI (Retail and Service Center) of Section I of Part It (COMMERCIAL) of the Koll Center Planned Community Text and all other provisions of the PC Text shall remain unchanged. 3� PART II Section I. Group I (30 },`opase� " enC1z�E COMMERCIAL forew�I�diot I�xepared,6y �n�t�4ih�t�n'�f21��d Site Area and BuildinpArea PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) N Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G C. Building Sites (4) Total Acreage 30.939 acres 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) Allowable Building Area 342,131 square feet (1_ (2 ) (1(16 ga t (16,4 674,800 square feet (10)(15) 240,149 square feet (8)(13) 32,500 square feet (4) 24,300 square feet (4) 45,000 square feet (8) Statistical Analysis (4) Office Acreage 30.939 acres 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) gg- GMDT"MW The following stastics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for sites C, D, E, F and G. 15 3� *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(1 6) b. One (t) space per 300 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (11) Site A Allowable Building Area ..... 342,131 s feet (46)(29) n tiv29) n Site Area ..... 19.399 acres *(3)(4)(16) a. Buildine Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking Land Coverage 3.92 acre 61 acre r96....�e� 4-5-7-aefes 1.31 acre 1.12 ..,.re 0.38 =aefes n owes MS-acrees 0.71 acres 0.65 aeres 1 sr R` a)' Land Coverage fy fl 49 ..ores (11)(16)(29) � w��1 b 1'�P i a}x'�t' C. Landscaped Qpen Space (4) (11) (16)Land Coverage Now w Two story development 5� 9yes Three story development 7-30 acres Four story development 7.names Five story development 8.334 mere Six story development 8.60 aeres Seven story development 8,79 aefes Eight story development 8.93 acres Nine story development 9.04 aefes Ten story development 94 3-aeres Eleven story development °?�0 -aeres Twelve story development 9.26 aefes 2. Site B Allowable Building Area Site Area ........43.703 acres (4)(11) 16 rJ� a. Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking ��} c. Landscaped Open SQace (11 Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Site C (10) Land Coverage (1 -1) (13) (16) "Al Allowable Building Area ........674,800 square feet (15) (17)* Site Area .......... 18.806 acres (4) a. Building Height Land Coverage (15) Two story development ........7.75 acres Three story development ........5.16 acres Four story development ........3.87 acres Five story development ........3.10 acres Six story development ........2.58 acres Seven story development ........2.21 acres Eight story development ........1.94 acres Nine story development ........1.72 acres Ten story development ........1.55 acres Eleven story development ........1.41 acres Twelve story development ........1.29 acres 17 3� E. Building Heieht Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation authority for Orange County Airport. Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS A. Building Sites (4) (5) (11) Site 3: 1.765 acres ................ ..........................1.765 acres Service station site 3 shall be located within Office Site F and shall not exceed 1.765 acres in size. Any portion or all of Site 3 not utilized for service station use shall revert to either professional and business office use or restaurant use. (4) Group V. RESTAURANTS (1) (4) A. Building Sites Maximum acreages for Site 2 shall not exceed 1.25 (18) acres. Maximum acreage for Site 3: 1.765 acres. Maximum acreages for Sites 4 and 5 shall not exceed 3.0 acres. Maximum acreage for Sites 6 and 7 shall not exceed 2.2 acres. (8) (The following acreages are for information only.) Site 1 Deleted see Group VII. .................. (18) Site2 .......................... ...........................1.25 acres Site 3 .....................'...... ..........................1.765 acres Site 4 P cn aere Site 5 :�'�: :x . 3 .' ... ............................ " � aeres Site 6 .......................... ...........................1.50 acres (8) Site 7 ..................................................... 00.�70¢acres (8) vrc�- -a6Ge5 ......................... e 5th t� auN Site 1 Deleted see Group VIl Private Club (18) Site 3 located within Office Site "F ". (4) Any portion or all of the restaurant, bar, theater/nightclub acreage for Sites 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. Any portion or all of the restaurant acreage for Site 3 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to either professional and business office use or service station use. (4) (8) (18) WA Group VT. The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. B. Building Area (4) Site 2 ...................... 5- o0 r5y- ft . ............ 0. 4 1 aeres A10 Site 3 ................... Site 11 10,000 sq. ft . ............ 7,000 ft 0.22 acres eres ..................... sq. . ........ Site 5 7,000 A. 0.16 acres cars ............... ..................... Site 6 (8) ............... sq. 7,000 sq. ft . ............ Site 7 (8) ...............3.000 sq . fr .............0.07 acre q9, 000 qR ft 0 99 ' --vt VJ! r, RgkHt ifl" C. Parking Criteria-. 300 occupants/ 10,000 sq. ft. I space/3 occupants and 120 cars per acre. Site 2 ..........................30 Site 3 ........................100 Site4 ears . .............. cars . .............. 0.42 aeFes 0.84 acres A10 ..........................70 oars ............... Site 5 0.58 acres 0.58 acres ................. Site 6 (8) ....................70 ___;Ep Parq . ......... cars ............... Site 7 (8) ....................30 cars ............... 0.25 acres NOUN 142mm-MOMM D Landscaped Open Space (4) Site 2 ............................ 0.7-2 acres ........................ ......... Site 3 . ...........................0.70 acres Site 4 A �4 ----- . ............................ . . I - __ Site5 ........................- 0.''-7 6 ass Site 6 (8) ......................0.76 acres Site 7 (8) ......................0.38 acres 4 08 acres ................................. A !2 E. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER A. Building Site (4) (5) 23 q6 Site I .. ..........................5.026 acres Site 2 ...................... .' 400 Acres _ �W W z 6.526 acres ............................... 6.526 aeres jX X06 e 4 Site 2 shall be located within Office Site `B. any portion or all of the retail and service Site 2 acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (4) (16) B. Allowable Building Area (5) *Retail Site No. 1 ..................102,110 sq. ft. (14)(27) Retail Site Ne ` Ig 000 - *Retail Site No. I LS. Ft.) Parcel Existing Total Parcell,R/S 588 (H) (H) 70,630 Parcel 3,R/S 506 (R) (R) 0 (0) (0) 22,000 Parcel 4, R/S 506 (R) 4,115 (0) 0 (0) 0 (R) 21,896 (0) 5,474 (R) 21,896 (0) 27,474 (H) 70,630 Total 120,000 (14)(27) (R) = Retail (0) = Office (H)= Hotel C. Landscape Area (5) Twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 shall be developed as landscape area. If twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 is not developed as landscape area, a specific site plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuing of a building permit. D. Statistical Analysis (5) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. 24 `t Assumed parking criteria: One (1) space per 200 square feet of net building area at 120 cars per acre. 1. Site 1 Allowable Building Area ....................... ........................120,000 sq. ft.(24)(27) (14) Site Area ................ ............................... ..........................5.026 acres a. Building Height (14) Two story development . ...........................1.17 acres Three story development ..........................0.78 acres Four story development ...........................0.59 acres Five story development . ...........................0.47 acres b. Parking (14) 460 cars ......................... ...........................3.83 acres C. Landscaped Open Space (14) Two story development . ...........................0.03 acres Three story development ..........................0.87 acres Four story development ...........................0.61 acres Five story development . ...........................0.73 acres E. Building Heigh Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (3 5) feet above mean existing grade as shown on Exhibit "B." (5) Group VJJ. PRJVATE CLUB (18) A. Building Site Site 1 ....................2.0 acres...... ............................... 2.0 acres 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 19 Exhibit "D" STANDARD CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies; and, standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans dated July 27, 2006 (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 5. The parking level shall have 8 feet 2 inches clear ceiling height. 6. The elevator shall not open to the stair enclosure. 7. The stairs shall have one -hour enclosure. 8. A preliminary code review is recommended. 9. The parking lot layout and the subterranean parking area shall comply with the City Standard Plans STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B; and, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. The ramp slope to the subterranean parking shall comply with City Standard Plan STD - 160-L-C. 11. Drive aisle leading into the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 12. The final on -site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. The mechanical equipment shall not impact the required parking stalls or drive aisle dimensions. 14. No above ground permanent improvements shall be built within the limits of the existing utilities and pedestrian easements adjacent to the property frontage, along the MacArthur Boulevard. 4,5 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 19 15. The applicant shall submit a detail drainage plan to show how the storm runoff that travels down the driveway ramp will be discharged in a timely manner so as to prevent the underground garage from being flooded from raining. 16. All improvements shall be constructed per the Public Works Department standards. Additional public works improvements may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Department. 17. An ADA compliant curb access ramp shall be constructed at each of the MacArthur Boulevard curb returns, at the entrance to the shared service driveway. 18. All above ground utilities shall be located outside the sight distance planes per City Standard Plan STD - 110 -L. 19. A construction traffic control plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit. Said plan shall be wet sealed, signed and dated by a California Registered Traffic Engineer. 20. Elevator shall be gumey accommodating in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition. Interior cab dimensions shall be a minimum of 54 inch by 80 inch. 21. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 22. The sprinkler system shall be monitored. 23. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible. materials and contrast with their background and shall be either internally or externally illuminated by a photo cell to visible at night. The numbers shall be no less than six inches in height with a one -inch stroke. 24. The parking garage gate shall be strobe and knox key switch. 25. The building shall be provided with a knox box. 26. A Fire Department connection shall be located within 150 feet if a fire hydrant. 27. The building plans shall specify the occupancy classification. 28. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and any adjacent off -site planting areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. The landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation aq Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 19 system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 29. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs; and, cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 30. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets; and, shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department. 32. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 33. A six -foot high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. 34. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 0 ATTACHMENT D EXCERPT MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 7 & 21, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS a� Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 condition changes are to be incorporated in the rest of the conditions wined in the draft resolution. / Com ission inquiry, Mr. Barnard noted he accep/the lion: odified �mmissioner otter brought up his concern of Comd w e to bring this atter up for review and discussiowith ember of condition hat repeat Code. missioner Eaton section that was >n was made by Commissi Traffic Study No. 2006 -002 subject to findings and cc d to by the applicant. identifying in tV draft resolution the which was amboree and Eastbluff. to approve Use Permit No. 2 �d Negative Declaration (PA2 modified during the hearing Eaton not9dthis was a well thourkt out project. mmissioner HawAs noted the benefits of this projbt are significant airperson,p6le noted the findings can be made for the plication; does r rease'ttje intensity of the use and is consistent with the CLIWent and propos neral Ian; the. traffic study looked at existing conditions; MND was done 'or pMnce with CEQA; this project will result in a better pro Act than wt None McDaniel The Koll Company (Pf 4450 MacArthur Blvd. ns, n PA2006 -095 :neral Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to transfe -buift retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B ti Continued to Tice Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for th 09/2112006 nstruction of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one level bterranean parking structure. irman Cole acknowledged that this item is being heard past 10:30 p.m;, h requires a consensus of the Commission. s. Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: . The applicant proposes to construct a two -story office building to as their new corporate headquarters. . The proposed construction site is in Office Site A. . The area proposed for development is in a common parking area for O Site A, which is owned by the applicant and located at the southi corner of MacArthur Boulevard and at the entry driveway west of Fairmont Hotel. Page 23 of 33 q1 file: //F: \Users\PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\09072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 24 of 33 • There is unbuilt floor area identified by the Koll Center Planned Community that the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements do not recognize. • Prior to the adoption of 1988 Land Use Element, Office Site A had a total of 340,000 square feet of office space, a 30,000 square foot private club, and a 471 room hotel. • Office Site B permitted a total of 965,216 square feet of office space, 10,000 square feet of retail and 19,000 square feet of restauran development. • Office Site A presently has utilized the maximum floor area of the PC text. • Office Site B has a remaining unused balance of 24,016 square feet for office, retail and restaurant development. This unused square footage within the PC text; however, has not recognized by the 1988 Land Use Element due to the fact that there was no projected growth allowed for Office Site B. • The estimated growth table in the 1988 Land Use Element shows the existing building area in 1988 equals the maximum allowed and zero growth in floor area. • Since the 1988 Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor area the PC text allowed in Office Site B, an amendment to the Land Use Element is being sought to increase the floor area in Office Site B by the unbuilt amount identified in the PC text and then transferring it to Office Site A to facilitate the development of the new office building. • Staff is requesting that the gross floor, area for Office Site B is adjusted to reflect the existing numbers tracked by our Building Permits. The difference between the maximum allowable floor area indicate in the 198 Land Use Element for Office Site B and the existing overall gross floor area is 2502 gross square feet. • The proposed projects require an amendment to the Planned Community text to allow for the transfer of development intensity of the unused retail, restaurant and office uses from Office Site B to Site A. • This request is consistent with the provisions allowed in the PC text. No net increase in the square footage will result from this amendment. • Only 21,311 square feet will be used for the construction of the proposed office building and the remaining will be reserved for future office development in that particular site. • Koll Center Newport Planned Community allows the 24,016 square feet of additional development that the 1988 and the 2006 Land Use Elements do not. This entitlement pre-dated the 1988 Land Use Element and staff believes there was no intent to eliminate it. • The proposed General Plan Amendment will recognize this un -buil entitlement and make the Land Use Element consistent with the Koll Center Newport Planned community. 5 1e : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006W9072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 25 of 33 • The resolution recommends approval of the proposed amendment and it is suggested the amendment be made to both Land Use Elements; however, a potential amendment to the 2006 Land Use Element would only be accomplished after an affirmative vote in November and the Council shall take a separate action to amend the 2006 Land Use Element. • The Commission could act on the application tonight and not have this return. Staff has prepared. this application to have two separation considerations with the Council, one for the 1988 Land Use Element and the other for the 2006 Land Use Element after the election if it is necessary. s. Temple noted that Section 1 on page 4 of the draft resolution addresses the ;tual amendment to the 1988 Land Use Element. Section 2 makes a separate ,commendation for approval of the General Plan Amendment per Exhibit B. Khibit B is the information necessary to amend the not yet adopted or approved i the voters 2006 Land Use Element. It is segmented, and while we believe the ommission can make a recommendation to the City Council related to nending either or both the 1988 plan as well as the 2006 plan, that the City ouncil can not consider nor adopt an amendment to the 2006 Land Use l ement until it is actually approved by the electorate in November. s. Clauson affirmed that the draft resolution reflects these issues. hairperson Cole questioned the unused square footage within the PC text not cognized by the 1988 Land Use Element. The chart talks about an additional otage. 'Why didn't they recognize the footage at that time? s. Temple noted that a mistake had been made, there was no overt or mscience intent to reduce the entitlements within the Planned Community. In eas such as Koll Center Newport where there is unique subdivision rangements we established square footage limits as opposed to floor area itios in an attempt to make them consistent. Due to the structure of the fanned Community text sometimes it is difficult to figure out what the total was id in this case the square footage was missed. s. Clauson noted during the analysis they looked back at the record to make ire it was more than just the memory of staff and the intent of what we had tended to do and make sure that there wasn't anything indicating something )ecific in the record that it was intended to reduce. It is not clear in the record the time it was adopted. There are statements in the original adoption nguage resolution adopting the 1988 Land Use Element that says there was an tent to make reductions in land use approvals, but it doesn't say this property as intended to be reduced. Her recommendation to both staff and the )plicant that we need to do a General Plan Amendment to make it very clear for e record. This is a very conservative valid way to make sure that they both atch. s: Temple added the best course of action is to deal with this through a eneral Plan Amendment. ommissioner Hawkins asked how the Commission can make commendation but the Council can not make a similar action. Did the P eate vested rights to the property owner? s. Clauson answered that this is an attempt to assist the applicant in a situation here they are caught in limbo. The General Plan was actually adopted by th file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 26 of 33 y Council and just the 423 vote, which deals with the required approval of the nd Use allocation. That is what needs to be amended as staff did not gel :se numbers into the new General Plan because of the timing. This is a valid d procedural way to assist the applicant so that they don't have to come back the Planning Commission after the vote to get another recommendation when analysis is made here. The actual amendment to the General Plan can not done until after the election. >. Clauson answered they did not have vested rights, they had a PC text that thorized a certain amount of square footage. When the General Plan was opted, it could very well have been a specific intent to reduce the number of uare footage in that and the PC text would later have been amended to reduce at number. >. Temple added that the presence of 'entitlements' in our zoning documents, an many people say they are vested entitlements. What that is, is an ailability to utilize intensity. There are other factors in zoning that could cause y individual property not to be able to exercise their full 'entitlement' or their ning limit. An example would be in Corona Del Mar you may have floor area :io of..5 but the nature of your use and its parking requirement may not allow u to get all of it. So, you don't have an absolute right to construct every ssible square foot unless you can comply with all other standards. In this PC (t, compliance with the standards are easy. The zoning entitlement is not sted until whatever approval or permit is achieved as required by the zoning. )mmissioner Eaton noted there is no reference to the mitigation measures, ouldnt it also say approved subject to the mitigation measures. Also, the nditions do not match up with the mitigation measures. Should they be ded? Clauson noted this is a resolution recommending a General Plan nendment, which is a legislative act. It is not a conditioned approval. It was led that Exhibit D was the list of Standard Code Requirements. >. Temple answered the standard code requirements are in the code, and they ve to comply. The mitigation measures will be dealt with through the ligation monitoring. The City Council resolution will certify it. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that on this resolution we take no action on the vironmental document. >. Clauson noted that the Commission needs to have a recommendation and option by the Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Planning )mmission wants to adopt this resolution and forward on the recommendation, motion should require including a Whereas and specific recommendation as approval of the environmental document and adoption of mitigation :asures. Council will do that in their adopting resolution. )mmissioner Toerge noted it does not make sense receiving a resolution by sail 2 -3 hours before hearing and not having a chance to read it. Certainly the blic hasn't an opportunity to read it either. We are setting a bad precedent re. I am uncomfortable with this and I believe that staff is too. I have read the iff report and have no issue with the project, but I don't think we are ready to prove this as I haven't had the opportunity to review this resolution. ommissioner Peotter moved to continue this because he feels the same way. 5� file : //F:1UserslPLMSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006109072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Henn noted he is not going to vote on something that he an Cole suggested hearing from the applicant. Carol McDermott, representing the applicant, noted: . There has been no public request for information. . There has been no comments on the Negative Declaration. . Nobody but our team is here in the audience. . It was the Koll Company's understanding since 1972 when. they began implementation of the Planned Community Regulations that the Gen Plan allowed the using and the zoning covered the square footages. . When the 1988 General Plan was approved, Koll Company was developing anything. There was a little square footage left, but the was not monitored. . We have participated, with staff on verification of square footac reviewing building permits and very detailed analysis to ensure that we agreed on what those square footages were. . It became clear then that the zoning did not match the General Plan, but was an inadvertent issue. . Since Greenlight I the square footages in the General Plan have increased importance. . It is important that it be clarified and stated for the record in a very fashion. . A couple of requests have gone on before us as zone changes and absorbed the burden of cleaning these up. . Landscaping - referring to exhibits she noted the location of the ac building and pointed out the reconfiguring of hardscape and landscape. . There will be a total of 16,840 square feet of landscaping and open provided within this office site. . The building itself will replace some minor landscaping and parking. . There.will be no parking lost with the reconfiguration. . There is no net increase in square footage with this change. . The flexibility was always granted in the planned community regulations be able to move the square footage around because they could not pred in 1.972 what would be happening in 2006. file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta112006109072006.htm Page 27 of 33 -r 51 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 28 of 33 • The way we read the resolution under the last Whereas, what it says is, the environmental record shows there will be less than significant impact; the mitigation measures identified are feasible, they reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, and they are applied to the project and incorporated as conditions of approval. • This is what covers the incorporation measures appropriately as referenced in the document so that we know we have to comply with that. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that the resolution for the Church project lists a ding regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Such a finding missing in this resolution. It should be included. scussion followed on possible wording. s. McDermott noted that with all things considered, asked that this not be ntinued but come up with language to add to the resolution that would address Commission concerns. iairperson Cole asked about the trips being generated by this building. s. McDermott answered they are at 299 iairperson Cole noted: • Those trips are primarily peak hour trips for office use. • The development transfer rights are coming predominately what was called retail /restaurant uses, which would be for non -peak trips. • Was this looked at this context? • These peak hour trips are different. s. Temple answered: • There is no relationship between the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and Charter Section 423. • The TPO does deal with peak hour trips. • The original use designation for retail and restaurant are different in term of the peak hour characteristics as opposed to office. • The initial threshold for requiring for the TPO analysis 300 is daily trips. • If you don't cross 300 trips, we don't go further. • Retail and restaurant have extremely high p.m. peak hour trips, probably far greater than office. • What they don't have typically is the a.m. trips, which office would have more of. 5a rile : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 29 of 33 . Edmonston agreed: blic comment was opened. blic comment was closed. immissioner Henn noted he feels an obligation to perform his duties, so he will t be voting on this item tonight as he has not had the opportunity to review the >olution. He has read the staff report. mmissioner Eaton noted he would act on this tonight if the resolution was re- irded. c. Clauson noted the main reason this resolution came out so late is because fir office got involved with it late. She told staff that they needed to bring this the Council after the adoption of the new General Plan or the effective date, it they would have to now amend the new General Plan to reflect these anges because they did not transfer over. Due to that, staff had to compose resolution for the Planning Commission so the applicant did not have to me to the Planning Commission to make these same determinations after the vember elections. This resolution attempts to incorporate the findings that are cessary for the changes that will be necessary for the 2006 in order for the inning Commission make the recommendation to the-City Council to amend th of them. That is the information that is in here. The two issues would be to quire and to find, make the findings and have staff add to the resolution that iguage that was necessary to make the findings that you find that the Negative iclaration is adequate and you recommend the City Council approve it. The ier issue is standards. The last item being approved is the changes to the P ;t. There is no issue with having these attached. Your question is whether the ligation measures should also be included when this is a PC text amendment. ice the adopting resolution for the Negative Declaration is done by the City iuncil those mitigation measures will be adopted and they will have to be plemented as part of the project. If you would like to have the mitigation iasures be included in the standard operating conditions, then you can give it direction. mmissioner Eaton answered that this came up in two prior projects and the ligation measures were included. o. Clauson noted her confusion was she thought that these conditions were ing attached to the General Plan Amendment, they are not. They are being ached to the PC text amendment, so I think the mitigation measures could be the Planning Commission added to that. e added that given the hour and that the public comment period is not closed, other option would be to continue this item for review and approval of the >olution. You don't have to have another public hearing. Unless there is a ange that comes up, you don't have to re-open the public hearing at the next feting, you could just act on the resolution. Otherwise, there could be direction approve this resolution with the finding and staff can put those appropriate sings in and forward it to the City Council. Whatever you feel most mfortable with. mmissioner Hawkins noted that a finding similar to Section 1 of Our Lady seen of Angels resolution is needed as a new Section 4 so long as it is tailored this project. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\09072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 )wing a brief discussion the consensus of the Commission was to item to the next meeting. 3tion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to st without having to open the public hearing on the application itself. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and Henn oes: None hsent: McDaniel ECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) J the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan bse the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwel to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would incre ig units. Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: . This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from Belcourt Master Association. This amendment would reduce the numbei of dwelling units from 48 to to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit fut subdivisions. nissioner .Peotter asked what difference does it make? Their CCR's subdivisions. Temple stated that the existing area has a number of lots which are :lent size to meet the planned community sub - division standards that wou i those lots to be split. The City Council in initiating this at the request of ti eowners association, I can only presume, that the association wishes the weight of the City along with the Association CCR's. Clauson noted that originally there was a certain amount of lots authorized subdivision that was part of the original subdivision plan which the CCF based upon. It was an issue of having the City amend their cod opriately to make sure that those properties were not further subdivided base the number of lots available for development in the subdivision. Oi erty would get to subdivide and the rest would not. The reason there is not 48 is another property consolidated. Cole verified that property would lose the opportunity to in the divide. Clauson noted the number proposed reflects the number of dwelling L lots that currently exist. The City Council wants to make sure that all erty owners do not further subdivide their property. They want to keep livision in the condition that it is in now. this. Peotter, following a brief discussion, noted he was not in sup comment was opened. PA2006 -173 Continued to 09/21/2006 Page 30 of 33 5q file: //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006109072006.htm 09/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 6 i 55 : rle : //F: \Users\PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 09/27/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - ommissioner Henn was excused, Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:37, at others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager osalinh Ung, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 15, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 7, 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hawkins noted that he had agreed one of his suggested changes Approved to these minutes referring to statements by an applicant was not included. UBJECT: The Koll Company (PA2006-095) ITEM NO. 2 4450 MacArthur Blvd. PA2006 -095 General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to transfer un -built retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Recommended Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for the for construction of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one level Approval subterranean parking structure. Adopt Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 006 -008, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 and Use Permit No. 2006 -095 to the City Council. ITEM NO. 3 UBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) Page 1 of 6 i 55 : rle : //F: \Users\PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 09/27/2006 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS FROM SEPTEMBER 7 & 21; 2006 MEETINGS 6 b 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 September 7, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@c4.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Koll Center Newport 4450 MacArthur Blvd. General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -001 (PA2006 -095) APPLICANT: The Koll Company REQUEST The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two-story office building over a subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the applicant proposes an amendment of the General Plan to increase the total gross floor area of general office in Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) by 24,016 gross square feet; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport-Planned Community (PC -15) to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of General Plan Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 draft resolution. Amendment No. 2006 -003 and Planned to the City Council by adopting the attached 0 DISCUSSION Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 3 The basis upon which this project rests is the fact that there is unbuilt floor area identified by the Koll Center Planned Community that the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements do not recognize. Office Building Construction The applicant proposes to construct a two -story, 21,311 gross square foot office building to function as their new corporate headquarters. The proposed 40 foot high building is designed over a 17 -space subterranean parking garage. Once completed, the building would ultimately be situated on its own footprint lot of 22,200 square feet. The applicant would be required to obtain an approval of a parcel map or a lot line adjustment application for the subdivision. The landscaping and remaining surface parking would be located within the parking pool parcel for Office Site A. The building features a modem, contemporary architectural design which consists of glass and stone fascia and stucco wall elements (Exhibit 5). Background The proposed construction site is centrally located in Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Office Site A is bounded by Von Karman Avenue to the east and south, MacArthur Boulevard to the west, and Birch Street to the north and has a total area of approximately 19 acres. The area proposed to be developed is approximately 1.49 acres in size and is a portion of a 17.17 -acre parcel that currently improved as a paved, common parking area for Office Area A, which is owned by the applicant. This area is specifically located . at the .southeast comer of MacArthur Boulevard and the entry driveway west of the Fairmont Hotel. Office Area B is located immediately adjacent to Office Area A, on the east sidd of Von Karman Avenue and is bounded by Birch Street to the northeast, Jamboree Road to the southeast, MacArthur Boulevard to the west and Von Karman Avenue to the northwest and is approximately 44 acres in size. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community was originally adopted in 1972. The intent of this Planned Community District was to provide a comprehensive zoning for the former Collins Radio property to facilitate the development of an officefindustrial park. The Planned Community was to consist of a hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, service stations, restaurants, bars and 59 Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 4 theater /nightclubs, offices, industrial sites and a courthouse. The Koll Center has a total of nine development sites: Office Sites A through F, Industrial Site 1, Retail and Service Site 1 and the Court House. Each of the sites have specific allowable net floor area. The PC also has five (5) restaurant sites and a majority of them are located within Office Sites A and B. It should be noted that Restaurant Sites 1 through 5 are "floaters ", meaning that they do not have a specific location assigned within either office site. Since the PC Text adoption, there have been numerous amendments, and two of the amendments in the mid 1980's allowed the transfer of restaurant sites from Office Area A to B (Exhibit No. 4). Prior to the adoption of the 1988 Land Use Element, Office Site A had a total of 340,002 square feet of office square and a 30,000 square foot private clubs'. Office Site B permitted 965,216 square feet of office, 10,000 square feet of retail, and 19,000 square feet for restaurant development. The following chart shows the current maximum net floor area authorized by PC Text for Office Site A, existing floor area derived from a combination of building plans and permits and remaining square footage for each category: 'Reserved for Steadfast The following chart shows the current maximum net floor area authorized by PC Text for Office Site B, existing floor area derived from a combination of building plans and permits and remaining square footage for each category: Maximum Allowed I Existing Remaining 1 Office 1342,131 1340,506 "1,625 145,000 142,029 12,971 'Reserved for Steadfast The following chart shows the current maximum net floor area authorized by PC Text for Office Site B, existing floor area derived from a combination of building plans and permits and remaining square footage for each category: As demonstrated above, Office Site A has utilized the maximum allowable floor area of the PC Text with exception that the remaining floor area of 1,625 square feet recently permitted for Steadfast Investment Properties for their office expansion (2006). Office Site B has a remaining unused balance of 24,016 square feet for office, retail and restaurant development. This unused square footage within the PC Text, however, was The General Plan also authorizes a 471 room hotel within Office Site A. I� Maximum Allowed Existing Remaining` Office 965,216 960,735 4,481 Retail Site 2 10,000 0 10,000 Restaurant Site 2 5,000 2,397 2,603 Restaurant Site 4 7,000 7,068 -68 Restaurant Site 5 7,000 0 7,000 Total: 24,016 As demonstrated above, Office Site A has utilized the maximum allowable floor area of the PC Text with exception that the remaining floor area of 1,625 square feet recently permitted for Steadfast Investment Properties for their office expansion (2006). Office Site B has a remaining unused balance of 24,016 square feet for office, retail and restaurant development. This unused square footage within the PC Text, however, was The General Plan also authorizes a 471 room hotel within Office Site A. I� Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 5 not recognized by the 1988 Land Use Element due to the fact that there was no projected growth allowed for Office Area B. The estimated growth table within the 1988 Land Use Element shows that the existing building area in 1988 equals the maximum allowed and zero growth in floor area. The 1988 Land Use Element should have been consistent with the PC Text. A recent review of all existing building permits for Statistical Area L4, including Koll Center Newport Office Site B, revealed that the overall building gross floor area of this Sub -Area is approximately 1,060,146 square feet, which includes the 1,750 gross square feet permitted for the Master Development Corporation in 2005. Presently, Office Site B has a general plan projection of 1,062,648 gross square feet also including a projected growth of 1,750 square feet for Master Development Corporation. The difference between the maximum allowable floor area indicated in the 1988 Land Use Element for Office Site B and the existing overall building gross floor area of this site is 2,502 gross square feet. As with Office Site A, the 1988 Land Use Element also had existing floor area equal to the maximum allowed with zero project growth in floor area. Since the 1988 Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor area that the PC Text allowed in Office Area B, an amendment to the Land Use Element is being sought to increase the floor area in Office Site B by the unbuilt amount identified in the PC Text and then transferring it to Office Site A to facilitate the development of the new Koll Company Headquarters. ANALYSIS Due to the fact that the recently adopted General Plan update is not effective until such time as the voters approve it in November 2006, staff has evaluated the project in the context of the 1988 Land Use Element and the 2006 Land Use Element. 1988 Land Use Element The 1988 Land Use Element designates both office sites as Administrative, Professional and Financial. The proposed office development is consistent with this designation. Koll Center Newport Office Site A (Sub -Area 1 -1) is presently allocated a maximum of 436,079 gross square feet for non hotel uses, which includes the projected growth of 1,740 square feet for Steadfast Investment Properties (GP2005 -007) and 1,222 square feet for the Pacific Club (A890). u( i Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 6 Koll Center Newport Office Site B (Sub -Area 1 -2) is presently allocated a maximum of 1,062,648 gross square feet, which includes a projected growth of 1,750 square feet for the Master Development Corporation (GP2004 -006). With the adoption of 1988 Land Use Element, the City acknowledged that every care was taken in the preparation of the floor area estimates, given the technology and source information, and that there was a possibility for errors. As shown previously with the identification of unbuilt floor area authorized by the Koll Center PC Text, the unused square footage allowed by the PC Text in the Office Area B was not included in the 1988 update. The change suggested by the applicant will result in the following: Office Site B Current Limit: 1,062,648 GPA Proposed Limit: 1,060,1461' GPA *This total accounts for Master Development Corporation Office Site A Current Limit: Proposed Limit: 436,079 GPA 460,095 ** GPA ** This total accounts for Pacific Club, Steadfast and present application for the Koll Company. Applicable General Policies The objective of the Land Use Element is to provide an orderly balance of residential and commercial uses with an emphasis of maintaining a high quality environment for people living, working and visiting the City. Amendments can be approved upon finding that they are consistent with the surrounding land uses and the policies of the Land Use Element. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that are applicable to the proposed project. A. The city shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation area, public facilities, churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community. The proposed project would increase the development allocation in the Office Area A by 24,016 square feet. However, only a total of 21,311 square feet would be used for the i' ,i Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 7 construction of the new office building to be occupied by the Koll Company. The remaining un -built square footage of 2,705 would be reserved for future office development within Office Area A. The proposed project, therefore, is consistent with this policy in the fact that the proposed project does not change the diversity of land use and the continuation of office development is consistent with those intended for both office sites by the General Plan. Furthermore, the PC Text allows unused floor area allocated for restaurant, bar, theater /nightclub to be converted to professional and business office use (Section Group V - Restaurants). B. To ensure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To ensure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip generation characteristics of land uses. Although the project consists .of an increase in the development allocation for Office Site A of 24,016 square feet of which 21,311 will be used for the development of proposed office building, the increased area was planned as evidenced by its inclusion in the Koll Center PC Text prior to 1988. The proposed development is anticipated to generate less than 300 daily trips and therefore, does not required the preparation of a traffic analysis pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The City implements this policy through the Koll Center Planned Community Text. The project is designed to meet all applicable development standards contained within. The proposed building height, size, and architectural design of the project will be physically compatible with the existing and surrounding professional office and commercial developments. Staff believes that, based on the analysis of the Land Use Element policies, the proposed project can be found consistent with the General Plan and the increase in development allocation can be approved. 0 Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 8 2006 Land Use Element The land use designation for the subject property is MU -H2 (Mixed -Use Horizontal). This designation is intended to provide for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi - family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The underlying uses for Office Sites A and B are office, hotel, support retail, residential village: housing and mixed -use (commercial /residential). The project, as proposed, would be consistent with this land use designation. The maximum floor area of Area 1 .(Office Site A) is 436,079 gross square feet and for Area 2 (Office Site B) is 1,062,648 gross square feet, identical to the current limits. within the 1988 Land Use Element. These numbers would also need to be modified to reflect the adjustment and the requested transfer as described in the previously analysis. Land Use Policies 4.3 and 5.3.6 are applicable to the proposed project. 4.3 Transfer of Development Rights — Permit the transfer of development rightsz, . from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of extraordinary open space, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; .(2) preservation of a historic building, property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; (4) consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and /or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion. "- c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in the General Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. The project would not be in conflict with this policy as the proposed transfer of development rights would occur within the Airport Statistical Area. The reduction. of allowed development within the donor site would serve to reduce traffic trips (general office uses generate fewer trips than restaurant or retail uses) and therefore, would not result in any impacts to the local circulation system. The proposed development to be located on the receiver site has been designed with an architectural style that appears to be compatible with existing development in the business complex. Koli Center Newport September 7; 2006 Page 9 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location — Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. As discussed more fully in the Parking Section of the staff report, parking for the new office building would be provided in a combination of surface and below -grade lots immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. The parking areas will be convenient and accessible to the tenants and customers. Views of the parking lot would be minimized through the placement of parking underground and through the placement of the structure nearest to the public sidewalk that would serve to shield the existing parking lot to the east of the building. Landscaping of the lot is also proposed. Charter Section 423 Analysis Statistical Area L4 has a current General Plan limit of 8,180,453 square feet. The project will add 24,016 gross square feet of non - residential intensity in Koll"Center Newport Office Site A. However, this increase should be viewed as the correction of the gross floor area to properly reflect what was authorized by the Koll Center Newport Planned Community prior to the adoption of the 1988 Land Use Element. Based upon staffs belief that the limits established in the 1988 Land Use Element were not intended to eliminate this entitlement, it is staffs opinion that the additional 24,016 square feet is not new entitlement that should be subject to the Section 423. If the increase is determined to be subject to Section 423, the following analysis is presented to determine whether or not a vote would be required. The increase is 24,016 square feet of non - residential intensity, and 0 residential units. Based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A -18, the proposed project is forecast to generate an additional 42.7 AM peak hour trips and 41.3 PM-peak hour trips. The project would be considered a minor amendment as it would not require a vote by itself based upon the thresholds established for a vote by Section 423. Although the proposed project does not exceed the 100 peak trip threshold, Section 423 of the Charter requires that all General Plan Amendments be tracked as prior amendments for ten years to determine if minor amendments in a single Statistical Area cumulatively exceed the thresholds. Eighty- percent of the increases attributable to prior amendments are added to the .increases of the proposed project to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. There have been four (4) prior amendments approved for Statistical Area L4, and the following chart shows the area and peak hour trip analysis.. V15 Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 10 As indicated in the preceding chart, the resulting total of the proposed amendment and prior - amendments would not exceed the 100 peak hour trip or 40,000 square foot thresholds and a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. If it is determined that the proposed amendment is a correction and not subject to Charter Section 423; staff will track the amendment with zero increases. Should it be determined that the amendment is subject to Section 423, staff will tract the 80% of the increases noted in the table above. Planned Community Text Amendment The proposed project requires an amendment to the Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of development intensity of 24,016 square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office uses from Office Site B to Office Site A. No net increase in square footage will result from this Amendment. The applicant plans not to utilize the entire 24,016 gross square feet; only 21,311, square-feet would be used for the proposed office building. The proposed office development meets all the development standards specified in the Koll Center Planned Community development standards for building setbacks and on -site parking. The remaining square footage of 2,705 will be reserved for future office development. The applicant is proposing to amend. Group I (Professional and Business Offices), Group V (Restaurants) and Group VI (Retail and Service Center) of Section 1 of Part 11 (COMMERCIAL) of the Koll Center Planned Community Text. Under Group I, Office Site A would gain 24,016 square feet (from 342,131 to 366,147), Office Site B would change from 965,216 to 967, 803 square feet [965,216 — 4,481(unused office area) + 7,068 (Koto Restaurant is being converted to office building which is allowed per the PC Text, included for tracking purposes)]. Group V would reflect the deletion of Restaurant Site Nos. 4 and 5 from Office Site B. Group VI would reflect the deletion of Retail Site No. 2 from Office Site B. is Area A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips Trips Prior Amendment GP 2001 -004 1,272 s.f. 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) 80 %) Prior Amendment GP 2004 -004 0 17.0(80%) 24.8(80%) PdorAmendment 1,400 s.f. 1.6(80%) 1.6(80%) GP 2004 -006 80% PriorAmendment 1,392 s.f. 2.4(80%) 2.4(801/6) GP2005 -007 80% Proposed Amendment 24,016 42,7(100%) 41.3(100%) 100 %) Total 28,080 66.1 72.5 As indicated in the preceding chart, the resulting total of the proposed amendment and prior - amendments would not exceed the 100 peak hour trip or 40,000 square foot thresholds and a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. If it is determined that the proposed amendment is a correction and not subject to Charter Section 423; staff will track the amendment with zero increases. Should it be determined that the amendment is subject to Section 423, staff will tract the 80% of the increases noted in the table above. Planned Community Text Amendment The proposed project requires an amendment to the Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of development intensity of 24,016 square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office uses from Office Site B to Office Site A. No net increase in square footage will result from this Amendment. The applicant plans not to utilize the entire 24,016 gross square feet; only 21,311, square-feet would be used for the proposed office building. The proposed office development meets all the development standards specified in the Koll Center Planned Community development standards for building setbacks and on -site parking. The remaining square footage of 2,705 will be reserved for future office development. The applicant is proposing to amend. Group I (Professional and Business Offices), Group V (Restaurants) and Group VI (Retail and Service Center) of Section 1 of Part 11 (COMMERCIAL) of the Koll Center Planned Community Text. Under Group I, Office Site A would gain 24,016 square feet (from 342,131 to 366,147), Office Site B would change from 965,216 to 967, 803 square feet [965,216 — 4,481(unused office area) + 7,068 (Koto Restaurant is being converted to office building which is allowed per the PC Text, included for tracking purposes)]. Group V would reflect the deletion of Restaurant Site Nos. 4 and 5 from Office Site B. Group VI would reflect the deletion of Retail Site No. 2 from Office Site B. is Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 11 Parking Parking for the proposed office building will be provided by a 17 -space garage below the building and within the common parking pool on the surrounding Koll Center common parcel. The proposed building will be utilizing the parking immediately available on the easterly and southerly sides of the building and underneath the building. The existing and proposed office use parking pool for Office Site A is as follows: Existing Proposed Net Office Area 342,131 362,631 Parking Spaces Provided 1,314 1,335 Parking Spaces Required 1,224 1,293 s Parking Space Surplus 90 42 Although the proposed building will remove surface parking, the project will increase the total supply, with the 17 -space garage under the building and restriping of the common parking lot creating a surplus of parking. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by EDAW, Inc. for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 3. The MND identifies seven (7) issue areas with 32 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportationliaaffic, Utilities and Service. Systems. . .1. . The MND was circulated for public review between August 10 and September 5, 2006. Staff has not received any comments on the MND as of the date of staff, report preparation. Staff will prepare responses to comment for consideration, if comments are received, and present them to the Planning Commission at the September 7th hearing for consideration. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. kon Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 12 Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. PUBLIC COMMENTS On August 30, 2006, staff received a letter from Pres- Lakeside L.P., owners of a 1.28 acre parcel (Koto Restaurant site) located within Office Area B of Koll Center Newport requesting the Commission take no action of the Koll application at the September 7th hearing. The purpose of the request is to allow the owner of this site to have further discussions with the Koll Company pertaining to the parking and other development matters for their property. In response to this request, the Koll Company responds with a letter stating their reasons for the Planning .Commission not to grant the request (Exhibit 6). SUMMARY The Koll Center Newport Planned Community allows 24,016 square feet of additional development that the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements do not. This entitlement pre- dated the 1988 Land Use Element and staff believes that there was no intent to eliminate it. The proposed General Plan Amendment will recognize this unbuilt entitlement and make the Land Use Elements consistent with the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment does not conflict with the policies identified in the 1988 and 2006 Land Use Elements; does not exceed any of the thresholds for a vote established by Charter Section 423, and the transfer of unused office, retail and restaurant square footage within the statistical area can be supported. Additionally, staff believes that the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment request for the transfer of unused square footage can also be supported, as the -- proposed office development meets all the development standards specifiedinihe "Koll Center Planned Community development standards and will not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments as the new construction occurs within a sizable parcel owned by the applicant. The proposed building height, size, and architectural design of the project will be physically compatible with the existing and surrounding professional office and commercial developments. There will be no impact to the overall pool parking for the entire Office Site A. The draft resolution recommending approval of the project has three components. First, it suggests that the 1988 Land Use Element be amended as described in the report. The amendment will become effective upon adoption by the Council and it would remain effective if the 2006 Land Use Element is not adopted by the voters. Second, it recommends that the subject amendment affect the 2006 Land Use Element only upon its effectiveness since it can not be amended at this time as it will appear on the November 2006 ballot. This is the only way to avoid having this project re -heard after Koll Center Newport September 7, 2006 Page 13 the effectiveness of the 2006 General Plan Update. Third, the resolution recommends adoption of the suggested changes to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community by ordinance. Prepared by: Qva� Ro alinh M. Ung, s ociate Planner Submitted by: Gregg Rdmire7j,Acting Plannin irector Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006- _ (to be provided under a separate cover) 2. Applicant's Letter of Request 3. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration' 4. Prior PC Text Amendment (1972 -2005) for Koll Center's Office Areas A &B 5. Project Plans 6. Public Comments CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 September 21, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @city.newport - beach.ca.us ® FILE COPY SUBJECT: Koll Center Newport 4450 MacArthur Blvd. General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -001 (PA2006 -095) APPLICANT: The Koll Company Attached is the draft resolution for the Planning Commission to consider. It includes the following changes that reflect comments made by the Commission at the prior meeting: 1. Addition • of a finding statement for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which contains mitigation measures is a part of the environmental document. 2. Deletion of the mitigation measures from Exhibit "D ". Prepared by" Submitted by: f� salinh M. Ung, ociate Planner Patricia L. emple, tanning Director Exhibit: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -_ .1D ATTACHMENT F INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I yi WPO lit 4: I I P?*k' -FOR ERRATA and RESPONSE TO COMMENTS for the proposed KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS PROJECT Prepared for: City qfNewpW Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92663 Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644-3208 Prepared by: EDA W, Inc. 8954 Rio San Diego Dr., Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92108 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager (619) 291-1347 September 2006 ERRATA FINAL MND FOR THE KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS PROJECT Upon completion of the Public Review period and receipt of comments for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (HIND), ertors and areas requiring clarification or modification in the MND text were identified. The text has been changed in instances where information presented in the Draft MND required the clarification of the following: application requests and environmental analysis, or where information presented was unclear or additional information was deemed warranted within the Draft MND. These changes are provided below in strik"ut/underline format. The changes have also been reviewed and none of them affect the impact conclusions of the MND. Minor typographical errors (i.e., punctuation, capitalization, etc.) identified within the Draft MND are not shown below. In addition, the following is provided solely to clarify the IS /MND discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment for a net increase of 24,016 gross square feet within Office She A. It does not represent new information that was not included in the IS/MVD. As a result, the impact analyses and mitigation measures of the IS/MND remain the same; this clarification does not result in impacts beyond those identified within the IS/MND. An amendment to the Land Use Element is being sought to: 1) increase the floor area in Office Site B by the unbuilt floor area identified in the PC Text; and 2) transfer the unbuilt floor area to Office Site A to facilitate the development of the new Koll Company Headquarters, since the existing Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor area that the PC Text allowed within Office Site B of the Koll Center Planned Community. The Use Permit application is no longer applicable as it is only required when thee are no other legislative requests as part of an application. However, for the proposed project, the application includes amendments to both the General Plan and Planned Community. Both of these amendments are considered legislative actions that require findings and public participation. For these reasons, the Use Permit is not required for the proposed project. All comments received during the review period from August 4 through September 5, 2006 for the Draft Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document were noted and incorporated into the document as appropriate. All comments on the draft MND and the responses to these comments are provided in the Responses to Comments section. Section 1.1 Introduction: page 1 -1: paragraph 1 This Initial Study evaluates and identifies the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project ( "proposed project"), in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site encompasses approximately 64,897 square feet (1.49 acres) within the Airport Area of the City in Koll Center Newport Planned Community, Office Site A, approximately one -half mile south/southeast of John Wayne Airport. The proposed project includes the development of a two -story (40 feet tall or maximum 88.5 feet above mean sea level) office building totaling 21,311 gross square feet (GSF), 17 subterranean parking spaces, and 94 surface parking spaces on an existing paved parking lot. Discretionary actions required for the project are discussed in Section 2.4 of this Initial Study and briefly listed below: Section 1.1 Introduction: page 1 -1: paragraph 2 As discussed above, a Use Permit is needed when there are no other legislative requests as part of an application. However, since the proposed project includes the General Plan and Planned Community amendments, which are considered legislative actions that require findings and public participation, the Use Permit is not required for the proposed project. The following language has been deleted from the Draft IS /MND. - A U n�nit (UP 200; 008) to allow the t., ns f . o f development ffenn O ffi e Site B to 11fF:..e Site A ..... .. v Section 1.3 Summary of Findings: page 1 -2: paragraph 2 Based on the findings of the environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study, the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project has the potential for creating significant adverse impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Mitigation measures have been identified to prevent or reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. These measures are listed below. Section 1.3 Summary of Findings: page 1 -3: paraeraph-4 Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily ^- washed down at the eFA of the ...wk day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept of washed - within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Section 2.1.2 Proiect Area: page 2 -2: paragraph 4 The Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) is divided into three Planned Communities: 1) Koll Center Newport; 2) Newport Place; and 3) Campus Drive. The proposed project is located in the approximately 179 -acre Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community, which is divided into multiple sub -areas. The project is located in the 30.9 -acre sub -area known as KCN Office Site A, which is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Birch Street to the north and northeast, and Von Karman Avenue to the east and south. The project site is located on the approximately 64,897 square foot (1.49 acres) in the central portion of O1fce Site A, abutting MacArthur Boulevard and the entry drive to Office Site A from MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Office Site B is located immediately south of Office Site A and bounded by Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard. and Jamboree Road. Section 2.1.2 Proiect Area: page 2 -3: paragraph 1 The proposed project site is currently improved with paved surface parking, ornamental landscaping and trees, and hardscape area surrounding the existing 9 -story office building (Figure 2 -2). The proposed two-story office building would replace the existing surface parking spaces and ornamental landscaping and trees in the northern portion of the project site while additional surface parking spaces would replace the existing ornamental landscaping and trees and hardscape area in the southern portion of the project site near the existing 9 -story office building. The proposed project site has a relatively flat terrain due to past grading and site development activities associated with the existing use of the site. On -site elevations range from approximately 47.5 to 48.5 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Proiect; page 2 -3: paragraph 3 The proposed project includes the development of a two-story (40 -feet tall or maximum 88.5 feet amsl), 21,311 gross square foot (GSF) office building above one subterranean parking level consisting of 18 spaces (Figure 2 -3) on the approximately 64,897 square foot (1.49 acres) site. The remaining 54,197 square feet (1.24 acres) of the site includes 98 parking spaces and ornamental landscaping and trees. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment (GP2006 -003) to allow an additional 24,016 GSF of general office within Office Site A for the Koll Center Newport of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L -4); however, the proposed project would only utilize 21,311 square feet of this area. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PD 2006 -0001) to allow the transfer of 24,016 net square feet (NSF) of unused retail (10,000 NSF), restaurant (9,535 NSF), and office (4,481 NSF) uses from Office Site B to Office Site A. A Use Permit inn 2006 008) is also required te allew the tfaRsfef of deN,elepment intensity fFeFn Offise Site B *R Offige Site A vAhin !he Koll Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Proiect: page 2 -8: paragraph 1 The proposed project would provide approximately 16,844 square feet of area for ornamental landscaping and entry plaza, or 26 percent of the 1.49 -acre project area tFees. The proposed landscaping would integrate the project with the mature landscaping of Koll Center Newport by maintaining and complimenting the existing Eucalyptus and Liquidambar .tree vocabulary and ground cover /shrub foundation planting. Complimentary accent specimen landscaping will provide visual focus at the building's main plaza and entry. The existing 30 foot landscape setback on MacAruthur Boulevard as well as the existing perimeter landscaping along the entry drive will not be altered by the proposed Proiect. Section 3.1 Aesthetics: page 3 -2: paragraph 6 The proposed project would change the existing use of the site from paved surface parking spaces and ornamental landscape and hardscape areas to a two-story (40 -feet tall or maximum 88.5 feet amsl) office building with one level of subterranean parking surrounded by surface parking areas and ornamental landscaping and trees. Section 3.3 Air Ouality: pave 3 -8: paragraph 9 Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept eF washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: page 3 -22: paragraph 1 The regulations include established measures for proper storage, use, and disposal, and a risk management and prevention plan for accidents. Truck oil change, equipment maintenance, and other activities that may release hazardous materials during construction would be conducted in accordance with existing regulations, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to prevent soil and water contamination and accidents. Compliance with all applicable regulations would prevent spills and accident conditions that could release hazardous materials into the environment. Further, traffic safety signs and controls would be provided to create safe driving conditions and prevent vehicle accidents. Thus, potential impacts caused by hazardous materials accidents are expected to be less than significant. Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: page 3 -22: paragraph 4 No Impact. According to EPA, the project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List) — the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed project site is also not listed on the U.S. EPA Envirofacts Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a risk to the public or the environment. As discussed above, the nearest hazardous material users are Conexant Systems, Inc. and Newport Fab LLC at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road, respectively, approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the proposed project site. No impacts on the public or the environment caused by these hazardous material users would occur wink because of the proposed project. Section 3.8 Hvdrology and Water Quality: page 3 -24: paragraph 5 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Newport Beach is located within Region 8 (the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]). The City of Newport Beach is a co- permittee with Orange County in the NPDES Program. Accordingly, the Project Applicant is weeld be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local regulations to protect water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project as described in further detail below. Section 3.8 Hvdrolof v and Water Quality: page 3 -27: paragraph 2 Less than Significant Impact. As discussed throughout this section, operation of the proposed office building would not substantially alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the proposed project site; thus, the amount of runoff water generated on -site and entering existing and planned stormwater drainage facilities would not be substantially increased by operation of the proposed project. Street sweeping of public streets is provided to remove and prevent debris from entering the storm drain system. The City requires catch basin stenciling to discourage waste disposal from entering into the storm drain system. Continued implementation of these city -wide programs would further reduce potential stormwater pollution from development. Furthermore, mandatory compliance, with WQMP requirements regarding the implementation of on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment and other BMPs for urban stormwater pollutant prevention would ensure that substantial additional sources of polluted runoff are not generated on -site. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: nape 3 -32: paragraph 1 The proposed project is located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (KCN PC). The City has adopted Planned Community District Regulations (PC -154 Koll Center) that establish development standards and use regulations to implement the General Plan. As shown in Figure 3 -2, Planned Community Map, this planned community area is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Blvd. Areas within the Planned Community text are broken down still further into what are referred to as office site areas (KCN Office Sites A -G) as well as two industrial areas, a courthouse, and a retail service site. The proposed project is located within KCN Office Site A of the KCN PC. This area includes Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) uses. Office Site B is located immediately south of Office Site A and bounded by Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, and Jamboree Road. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: page 3 -34: paragraph 2 Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve a general plan amendment; and an amendment to the Planned Community text. °° v°°" °° a Uge n°.. :« Each of these areas is discussed in further detail below. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: Page 3 -34: paragraph 3 The current General Plan land use designation on the proposed project site is Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF). The proposed office development is consistent with the APF designation and nNo change in land use designation is proposed by the project. The General Plan Amendment is required to amend the estimated growth for Statistical Area L4 to allow for an additional 24,016 square feet of development within this area. The additional square footage would be transferred from one portion of the Airport Area to another (from KCN Office Site B to KCN Office Site A). The transfer would add to increase the existing total within KCN Office Site A to 834,201 and reduce the square footage within KCN Office Site B to 1,060,146. Since the 1988 Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor area that the PC Text allowed in Office Area B. an amendment to the Land Use Element is being sought to increase the floor area in Office Site B by the unbuilt amount identified in the PC Text and then transferring it to Office Site A to facilitate the development of the new Koll Company Headquarters. would be ...... ed within this a ea Area; � Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: page 3 -35: paragraph 1 The proposed project's increase of square footage within KCN Office Site A of the Airport Area would not result in a conflict with the General Plan. The increase of square footage, once accounted for, would result frem in a transfer of available square footage ffeni one ova within the Airport Area from KCN Office Site B to KCN Office Site A. to another and would not Fepresent an inerease of square feetage . ever ", is v lowed in the Ge ne ral Plan. As such, the net result of the project would only slightly alter the distribution of allowed square footage but would not result in new square footage that could result in higher population, housing, or work force projections that could lead to increased traffic trips, decreased air quality or a larger need for public services. Additionally, the proposed project would conform to the two land use policies discussed above and would not conflict with or serve to restrict the other land use policies found in the General Plan. A less than significant impact to the General Plan would result with implementation of the proposed project. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: page 3 -35: paragraph 2 and 3 As discussed above, a Use Permit is not required for the proposed project. As such, the text has been modified to remove this discussion. rr..,, Penn ed`40M the City o fTh.., ot4 Beach e- Section 7!1 L4 090 T-FRA,f.'.: 4Tle..el.......ent NteRSit ...f the Cit�,'s Zoning Code. Per this seetien efthe Zoning Code, tindings must be FAade in ordeF to appFeve the benefit to the aestheties of the aFeaj FeSMUS -OR _#P_4�1_-Fes that aFe eompatible and do Hot Result in abrupt y.... �.. ...... � -..� .. .. p.... ......y Nom. ..�.. ., ...r..._.... ....1 ., •. r r result As discussed thfeughout this deetifnerA and within this seetion, the proposed prejeet would eanfenn to the use of the aNuilable land; would inelude appFopriate w-ohiteeti ;E) as to retain the with publie N,ievis as none exist on oF ad�arent te the s te; and would Hot the level e.re :mien 9}5tefn (Fe P-- the T-waispeft .ten /[`:-,...1...inn d:....uggi n helew) . Section 3.11 Noise: page 3 -39: paragraph 1 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short- term construction- related noise increases. Additionally, long -term increased noise levels could result from the introduction of office uses and associated vehicle traffic along the adjacent roadways. Short- and long -term noise level increases are discussed in further detail in the sections that follow. Section 3.11 Noise: page 3 -41: paragraph 3 During construction, noise impacts would occur from grading, equipment operations, and other construction activities. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Typical operating cycles may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at a lower power. Construction noise would occur on a short-term and temporary basis, when development is under construction. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1, construction activities would be confined to the designated daytime hours, 7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, and would comply with the noise regulations of the City of Newport Beach. Thus, noise from the construction activities on the site would be confined to the daytime hours, when noise sensitivity is less. Inclusion of this mitigation measure would be reduced noise impacts to less than significant levels. Section 3.11 Noise: page 3 -42: paragraph 2 The project is approximately' /-mile southeast of the Airport property boundary line. Within this zone, the height of project is restricted to 200 feet above mean sea level or less to ensure the safety of air traffic and ground structures. Because the project is proposed to be 40 88 feet in height above mean sea level, it will not conflict with the planning guidelines of I i mdated by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The proposed project lies within the 60 dBA in CNEL, but outside of the 65 dBA in CNEL, contours generated from airport traffic. With standard building design guidelines, the proposed project will keep interior noise levels generated from air traffic at a level that is less than significant. Furthermore, as the project will not affect aircraft or airport operations, there will be no increase in the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with these sources. Section 3.12 Population and Housing: page 3 -43: paragraph 3 Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes a two-story office development and will serve as a corporate headquarters employing approximately 50 persons. These Eemployees are currently working elsewhere in Newport Beach; therefore, no immediate local or regional growth in population or employment will occur. No major infrastructure is needed to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the population growth resulting from the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant impact. Section 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems: page 1-53 paragraph 2 Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the Fesidential unit development. Letter of Comment Response to Comment AIPPOPT LAND USE COMMiSSION ---------- FOR OP. AN G¢ -Y Mr,411M Aq.9 3', 21 I The language contained on page 3-41 Section 3.11 E, Noise has been revised as shown below. "The project is approximately V4-mile southeast of the Airport property boundary line. Within this zone, the height of project is restricted to 200 feet all)eivv-n-;-cnn qea fewl or less to ensure the safety of air traffic and ground structures. Because the project is proposed to be -V' .8.8 vW . ... .... �xteN A.V. I .I VW feet ' -4 it!Mabovc mean it will not conflict with 1111�. M ........ . - ------ pdar,1�4 .... dd ncs_ d qg_imi ii of esi�--Fe�,�aF" 4.,y the Airport W,whr V.LV%.o4NM Environs Land Use (AELUP). The proposed project lies within the 60 dBA in CNEL, but outside of the 65 dBA in CNEL, contours generated from airport traffic. With standard building design guidelines, the proposed project will keep 'interior noise levels 40,*em Ar*ht P %v. "qfla, ,ai, generated from air traffic at a level that is less than significant. 7 Furthermore, as: the project will not affect aircraft or airport operations, there will be no increase in the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with these sources," Additionally, the project applicant has filed Form 74450-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 26, 2006, In response to this filing, FAA has responded with its determination which found *;i* JR� -F0 ,1P, A4wN F. -1c rh�A 1. ti,, spud that the proposed project would have no hazard to air navigation, MTUt m4 /WA Letter of Comment Response to Comment 2. It is agreed that completion of the FAA 7460 process must be completed prior to the General Plan Amendment decision. However, �NA4XG the timing of the required approvals was not clearly determined at the hY �i +cLr SY (1 OlvC ✓£X %Jr(G41 . ^1 S.J'a ). :iSAjxC'CcY PT.f btl14`iiilkui. time of the preparation of the draft IS/MND. As such, the latest date 2 ""' " " " "' "`"�" " ""'"``"'` °' °� "" that could be app lied (issuance of building permits) was used in t.10. M4 Nw),:=c n5.a.b Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1. However, during the public review period, kW,flrncuMiev€&csaxc. RM (fntx tb bat6f gi'v,nit F4HR6T.P U n ix `:c 7?myssuo: the applicant received a determination from the FAA that the project wi« °�€rio<wwK.•t�+xa >.�erM ai. r A ft NM. ik s« z.e eab,�t;£�; kx'J 'V r..t causes no hazard to air navigation (August 29, 2006). On that same date, a request was made to the Airport Land Use Commission to -. athcsbr�F .xnrvk�,q- ewafxysW^d�stmtl F; Are .4i.k�C. Shc miGS�'i'�mrmmE rkanid t. x rw ,o,er :ai.ie E determine consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The rtlaA�,•, tcay> r; ec.,. t. ar;,;, ��,..,> hu,<,t,at•"sI:FUe„~a.,.4rt�sr.tr date requested for this review is September 21, 2006. This date falls m.;.tr�rrr + <• �%�»�_ ��' *r.,M+M«�;,raE:s�.,r < +. ��t.'. a:,4 „kw£;wu- "u.,.,,sy, between the Planning Commission hearing date of September 7, 2006 3 ?rL1 t and the City Council anticipated hearing date of September 26, 2006. u ,; r r.� ra, . . , ";a:6" :� While the mitigation measure states that the filing of Form 7460 -1 a;:,�nmu:x'Ewt to r.t,�.b ( s.J,.9 =. -,`K, rr; „,.:,,es cai. •;.>rt;,a�.,r maes,.n must occur prior to the issuance of a building permit, this language still allows for the process to take place as discussed in the comment na smo.t 1 YSht� #,gYmpjbyfMtp Mk 4i4 nwrt, ''••eM.m JU,M. letter, with the ALUC making its determination prior to the 4 "°.'`°.`£x` °"e” ""''i''' °"'e` ..s.`:. amendment of the General Plan. Rp...m ,RAV1C \'YRC.M j..JftE'mgSiifry xYQ,°Y'E£LL 9a:.Z'(e:k:['ntth{."SF 'KS'}it�J lkC .iUCJ Ci fhe Af.Ui's9ii{Nwera C,o E.xa Agm:J•Y rxpamt pteunisg t'caurixu:n ued Ca. Ceemsii hmli"^` ALAI{ ""`•L�"' r Jm ft `' °V ,o °t *'” "' ' �^ ^s'r�r = "" 3. No heliports would be included with the proposed project. IfE R[0Y4'Nt N i�t �J,i`n: 4R))C #'.f 194.(�ma %C $j,tl MO?.E'E 'a'1 txfYC3C SYI:i54lK eih<[ YiX YR RiY. 4. Please refer to response to comment #2, above. (S�4Jis ? - #i ".S «via emaiiat �u ° "'+4" na..y^n tih'son4 ttn.Y kf.NPm+U;k4iiLw ittiawta,. mm6d+3 Oc rutxre hQvrd 1+{t,ne p:r}eu.. %tte� R; "t .fACiW94t'. ®it i[[I' Letter of Comment I Resuonse to Comment SUBJECT: Raviewata t1 /aaH'»Oetlaraifanto�ifeKCdlcmry GorpvraM >'rakktt Dear tAft. : The Cay d W4* roa mowed and eaAMMd am intimation Preseraad rayua6V ae abom rok"aard Rujact and tas the kt V&q cwmemo: It should be clarified that although 24,016 square feet is to be transferred, the proposed project would only develop 21,311 square feet Based on the established criteria utilized by the City of Newport Beach, the proposed project would generate 299 average daily trips (ADT). As discussed in Section 15.40.020 of the City's Municipal Code, one of the objectives of the TPO is to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or peak hour trips. Within Section 15.40.030, there is a discussion of exempted projects. Item number one under this heading is `any project that generates no more than three hundred (300) average daily trips.' The City of Newport Beach has established an average daily trip (ADT) total of 300 or more as substantial requiring the preparation of a traffic impact analysis. Projects with fewer than 300 ADT are exempt from preparing a traffic impact analysis. Because the proposed project results in less than 300 ADT, no traffic impact analysis is required. 6. AM and PM peak hour trips were not included within the environmental analysis prepared for the project. This was primarily due to the fact that the City of Newport Beach's TPO did not require a traffic impact analysis. However, based on the comment letter received, an analysis of anticipated AM and PM peak hour trips is provided below. The rates utilized are taken from the City of Newport Beach Transportation Analysis Model, ANTICIPATED PROJECT - GENERATED TRAFFIC Trip Generation Rates Land Use Sim Unit AM Peak Hoar pm peak Hear. DAOy In Out_ Total lu Out Total. Gefferal TSF 1.69 0.21 1.90 0.32 1.55 1.87 14.03 Office Proposed Unit AMPeaknaur 'Oat � PIN[ y Land Use ' Total. . in Oat, Total General 21311 TSF E64 40 7 33 40 299 Office Total 40 7 33 40 299 Source: Ne ort Rcath'I1aos rMtiou Aoas Model 7. Although a similar project located within the City of Irvine would regture a traffic impact analysis, City of Newport Beach requirements indicate that none is required. However, based on the information provided in the table above and assuming an even distribution of trips to the surrounding roadways, the total number of trips would not be substantial enough to add two percent or more of traffic to any streets or intersections within the City of Irvine. Letter of Comment Response to Comment ua Posa�atl, � t, x� Page 2 Preaaa P tra abwm deacrww Wkst,* to maim me WomOf ow 8. Please refer to Response to Comments #5 and #7, above. 2WADrUmstar. Tno adaYjahasi dnsu»ffife AA4 acaPM Pew 8 C dxxaaamaEaa �attnaraaawaryaets,+xrfx """""' 9. Koll Center Newport Office Site B is bounded by the following a viyws of nvacw b aceu. roadways (Refer to Figures and 2-2): Birch Street, Von Karmarm 3. a*woeffftm dWt oaf execaywta t t see Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road. Please also see and 9 eauxa Mr4ayWMbehmsfeaedfrtmWar4wro acmmmodab& Pre aftonW as foetage at ma eat MCN waet SAa Ai the Errata for the proposed project. Rasa t a show are IocatKn of KCN OMce Sae 8 on Fgrat 2 -+. j�a. Cfanrvwhe VarwiarePmpossd iacwWnWn Wit ft W 10. The proposed project is consistent with the land uses currently 10 I ' °'.eM inC4ofNOWPMSe* ^acteea`wa''meu'e designated within the City ofNe Newport existing General Plan S t1 wp g Ldwozpnr_�n�s mvos d WW oats mV W tht =PMVa a ft curs rea�va Fiat r. fPaaie<trrtr+ty W faacess, and does not rely on the approval of the City's General Plan Update currently in progress. Please also see the Errata for the proposed rnmvc tcrnt mms m- reyimmw�rtrtPmp�ad FgacL project. However; as discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, TIM the land uses proposed by the project would be compatible with land aoae+seoma vbywn orb ayarrJmLg- atarar Comm (�strla- rassacym0ef uses proposed by the General Plan Update. t CURMS. AICP C: Srwm Larx= AwWWACAyMWWW - - Doug IA turd. Dwwei t Cbnwviiy ffe+»� M nW) Wrty "M. DMON GI Ptbk wom fE-maa) fift � Garret, DapaW 6mWoI PWft vaoft dE+r ) - rlRehsaHM* $ Me DevWqWRM 5artma(Emaa) Kerwin Cat. - 'ZWMiWVTra,wwWdM Arrayat [E.rrxifi Dawd R. taw, 58abr Ptw M man`) 5t a 9T Mwft, Se6WTMrApothbw AraWJt4oak) Letter of Comment Response to Comment CCRPA critWn,iaCulp�ratResoww AElianc�ax Ac®m 13,2DQ6 Rv.6,c:'f �.Y H23�1 #ffi RoWd Uag A�OellamW P§nmigg CiT1' � ° : �- •:: , � afNeapan Bead. AN i i 3OWMPOKBOd"d Neon BerIS G 92ss3 nas lam. thwp' Th ewk. acn�o r�Bymxviea�6oNariwerlmem�Adopt+ rs me 11. In compliance with the requirement of Senate Bill IS to contact, %% .h.mm�pewewuoc�lwatreaouran provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to amendment of a general plan, the City of Newport Beach mailed a r9tkaeiame+oePforc,aucsxn , ax �� tribal consultation request describing the proposed general plan Ill 0- P%jW- iWdFC4 G ".. rim *.. dmrntmemui6atftcayb "W"'elrwN6SRIR amendment to the Native American Heritage Commission on August bOnkve�ca+am pawaraag dx3siww�lopoxiAOOactka tO aitmamaenainheq pries is ne 'F3osa 30,2006. ice). af4eimewl m�roctt¢uirain+ix ey�N m and l ra[Benaei plma(deifom h[ code $Qi+SBf. �� ®�ian. rangwfaa naamnra� 12. Comment noted. ss,�rs. perdu. bfim PLP. P I I [l I I I I I I [1 1 i 1 I] O� c� FINAL INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS PROJECT Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 Prepared by. EDAW, Inc. 8954 Rio San Diego Dr., Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92108 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager (619) 291 -1347 September 7, 2006 I TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS.... ».. ».. ...».».».».» ... » »...... ».......... ». ». ». ».. 3 -1 3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. .......:....................... 3 -2 32 Agriculture Resources .......................................................................... ............................... 34 3.3 Section 3.4 Page 3 -11 1 INTRODUCTION .......... ........... »....... « .. ». »........ ».... ». »......» .. ».» ». »..... ».. »....» 1 -1 ' 1.1 1.2 Introduction ......................................................................................... .._............................ 1 -1 Purpose of the Initial Study and MND ................................................. ............................... 1 -1 3 -16 1.3 Summary of Findings ...... ............................... ' 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........ ». ...... ». »..» . »... ».... ...... »... » ». . »....... »..... ». » »..2 -1 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................ ............................... 2.1 .................. Project Location and Environmental Setting ................ .. ............................._. ... 2 -1 Land Use and 1% nring ...................................................................... ........._..................... 2.2 Description ofthe Proposed Project .................................................... ..._........................... 2 -3 3 -36 2.3 Objectives of the Project .......................................................................... ............................2 -8 -37 2.4 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................... ............................... 2-8 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS.... ».. ».. ...».».».».» ... » »...... ».......... ». ». ». ».. 3 -1 3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. .......:....................... 3 -2 32 Agriculture Resources .......................................................................... ............................... 34 3.3 Air Quality ................... 3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................... ......._....................... 3 -11 35 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. ...........................3 -14 3.6 Geology and Soils ................ ............................................................................................. 3 -16 3.7 Hazards and hazardous Materials ...................................................... ............................... 3 -20 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................ ............................... 3 -24 39 Land Use and 1% nring ...................................................................... ........._..................... 3 -29 3.10 Mineral Resour ces ................ ............................................................................................. 3 -36 3.11 Noise ......................................................................... ............................... ...........................3 -37 3.12 Population and Housing ...................................................................... ............................... 311 3.13 Public Services .................................................................................... ............................... 313 3.14 Recreation ............................................................... ............................... ............................345 3.15 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................. ......_........................ 3-46 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................. ......_........................ 349 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE . .................... » »...... ».» .. ».......... ». ».. ». „.. 4-1 4.1 Findings .................................................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. ............................... 4-1 LISTOF PREPARERS/REFERENCES .................................. ............ ..................... 5-1 5.1 Preparers of the Initial Study /N ND .......................................................... ._..........................5 -1 52 References .................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.3 Persons Contacted ...................................................................................... ............................5 -2 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ........ ................. 6.1 Koft Company Corporate Headquarters Page; ln/tial Study and MND E] I I 11 I I I I [1 11 Table of Contents (continued) APPENDICES: A — ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM B — AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT LISP OF TABLES Table Page 3 -1 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Threhsolds ....................................................................... 3 -6 3 -2 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ............... ....... ... ... ...................................... ....... ............. 3 -7 3 -3 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions ..................................................... ............................... 3 -10 313 Project Setback Requirements ......................................................................... ...........................3 -35 3 -5 City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................... ............................... 3 -38 3-6 Population Growth ............................................................ ............................... ........................... 3131 3 -7 Regional Projections .......................................................... ............................... ...........................3132 3 -8 Current and Projected Water Supplies ......................................................... ............................... 3 -51 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map .............................................. ............................... ............................ 213 2 -2 Existing Site Plan .......................................................................................... ............................... 2 -5 2 -3 Proposed Site Pl an...................... ............................................................... ............................... 2-6 213 Elevations ........................................................................................................ ............................2 -7 3 -1 Koll Center Newport Land Use Policy Map ................................................... ...........................3 -31 3 -3 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Map (Zoning) ............................. ...........................3 -32 I Kod Company Corporate Headquarters Page 0 InNal S&* and MND r, II u SECTION 1: MROMCfIM 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study evaluates and identifies the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project ("proposed project), in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site encompasses approximately 64,897 square feet (1.49 acres) within the Airport Area of the City in Koll Centex Newport Planned Corranunity, Office Site A, approximately one -half mile ' south/soudwast of John Wayne Airport. The proposed project includes the development of a two-story (40 feet tall) office building totaling 21,311 gross square Peet (GSF), 17 subterranean parking spaces, and 94 surface parking spaces on an existing paved parking lot Discretionary actions required for the project are discussed in Section 2.4 of this initial Study and briefly listed below. • A General Plan Amendment (GP2006 -003) to allow an additional 24,016 GSF of general office within Office Site A for the Koll Centex Newport Planned Community in the Estimated Growth for the Airport Area (Statistical Area L-4); • An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Commumity (PD 2006 -001) to allow the transfer of 24,016 net square feet (NSF) of unused retail (10,000 NSF), restaurant (9,535 NSF), and office (4,481 NSF) uses from Office Site B to Office Site A; • A Use Permit (UP 2006-008) to allow the transfer of development intensity from Office Site B to Office Site A. The proposed commercial/office development is considered a project under the California Environmental I Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Newport Beach is serving as the Lead Agency for are proposed Roll Company Corporate Headquarters project. Section 21067 of CEQA defines a Lead Agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving aproject which may have a significant effect on the environment The City of Newport Beach is responsible for approving the proposed Project; thus, the City will serve as the Lead Agency, and has the authority to oversee and complete the environmental review process for the proposed Project 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review process far the proposed Project, the City of Newport Beach has 1 authorized the preparation of this Initial Study. The Initial Study provides a basis for understanding whether there are environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and, if environmental impacts are lilcely to occur, whether such inrpacts could be significant. The purposes of this Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, are as follows: • To provide the City of Newport Beach with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental hnpact Report (FIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project; • To enable the City of Newport Beach to modify the proposed Project, by reducing or eliminating any adverse impacts before an F.IR is prepared, thereby enabling the proposed Project to qualify far a negative declaration; ' • To assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; identifying effects determined not to be significant and explaining reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -1 InIM Study and MMD I I• To identify whether a program EK tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for the analysis of the project's environmental effects; • To facilitate the environmental review of the project early in its design; • To provide documentation for findings in a Negative Declaration that the project would not have a 1 significant effect on the environment; • To eliminate unnecessary environmental impact reports; and • To determine whether a previously prepared EIR can be used for the project. ' Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach could then determine the subsequent environmental review needed for the proposed Project, which may take the form of a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration (MIMM) or an EIR- Adoption of the MND ends the environmental review process for the ' proposed Project by identifying measures or incorporating changes to the proposed Project that would reduce or prevent the proposed Project's potential adverse impact and thereby, eliminating the need for an EIR 13 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the findings of the environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study, the proposed Koll ' Company Corporate Headquarters Project has the potential for creating significant adverse impacts to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Mitigation measures have been identified to prevent or reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. These measures are listed below. 1 Air Quality The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that construction - realted air impacts would remain at less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure 33-1: Use pre-coated building materials. Mitigation Measure 33 -2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency. Mitigation Measure 33 -3: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grans of ROG per liter. 1 Mitigation Measure 334: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to. maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires Ithat fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does I Koll CwVwy Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -2 lndW Srudy and WD t� u lnhvduc9ton not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered mitil grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized C. All material transported offnte shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthunoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 33-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. Mitigation Measure 3.34: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: All diesel- powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained Mitigation Measure 3.3 -10: All diesel powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off 1 when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gss- powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible. L Mitigation Measure 3.3 -12: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagpetson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. ' Mitigation Measure 3.3 -13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. 1 Mitigation Measure 33 -14: The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible precoatedlnatural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high trawfer efficiency, such as the high volume- KoR Company Corporate Hwdquwtm Page 1 -3 Inmd Study and EIAD J Ilntrodixibn ' low pressure WVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as part brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. ' Mifgation Measure 3.3 -15: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -16: The developer shall require the use of particulate filers on diesel construction equipment if use of such. filters is demonstrated to be cost-competitive for use on this proposed Project. Cultaral Resources Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 35-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written 1 evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance , and shall establish cooperation with the applicant; procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning ' Department The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building, the Project Applicant shall file Font 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Upon receiving the FAA determination, the project shall be submitted to.the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency. The project may be subject to additional conditions as required by the FAA and/or the ALUC in order to be found in compliance with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City, the Project Applicant shall ' develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the . KoU Company CoTorateHeadquarters Pagel -4 Initial Study and MND I ' lntroducdon Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water nmoff. Such best management 1 practices (BMPs) include use of sandbags; gravel bags, check dams, silt fences, soil binders, erosion control blankets; fiber rolls, riprap pads, and practices that prevent debris and pollutants (loose soils, hazardous materials, oil, grease and solvents, other construction materials) from entering the storm drain system. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the RWQCB. 1 Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and design elements to ensure that stormwater runoff is minimized to the maximum extent possible and that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hour, of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 pm. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. Transportation and Traftk Mitggation Measure 3.151: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle- turning radii. Udlides and Service Systems While adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed Project site, the implementation of ' water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: Mitigation Measure 3.16 -1: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -2: Water leaving the user's property due to over- irrigation of landscape, should be minimal. If an incident such as this is reported, a customer service representative will visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shutoff the water. Koll Company Corporate Headq=1ers Page 1 -5 lnatal Study and MND Mitigation Measure 3.16-3: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 am., the following morning). Mitigation Measure 3.16 -4: All leaks are investigated and repaired. Mitigation Measure 3.16.5: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16-6: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFI) in the residential units. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed Project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City of Newport Beach would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, as outlined above. 1 Koff Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1-6 Initial Study and AND I SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' 2.1.1 Regional Setting Orange County The County of Orange is located in the western section of the Southern California region, and consists of 34 incorporated cities and 29 unincorporated areas on over 798.3 square miles. Orange County is located south of Los Angeles County, east of Riverside County and north of San Diego County. Orange County also includes portions of the Cleveland National Forest, and Chino Hills State Park. From 1970 to 1980, Orange County's resident population grew fiom 1,421,233 persons to 1,932,700 persons (or by 35 percent). From 1980 to 1990, the County's population grew to 2,410,600 residents or by 24 percent. From 1990 to 2000, population grew by approximately 16 percent, with the County having an estimated 2000 population of 2,846,300 people. Thus, an over twofold increasein.population occurred in the County from 1970 to 2000. Currently, the County has an estimated 2006 population of 3,072,300 residents (an increase of 8 percent since 2000). Housing growth has also been significant in the County, with a housing stock of 875,105 units in 1990 growing to 966,086 housing units by 2000 .(or by 10 percent). Currently, the County has an estimated 1,009,342 housing units (an increase of 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2004). As of January 2004, the County had a housing vacancy rate of 3.57 percent and an average household size of 3.07 persons per household. (Sty of Newport Beach The proposed project site is located in the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach covers an approximately 50.5 square -mile area and is located in the western portion of Orange County along the Pacific Ocean. To the east, the City of Newport Beach is bounded by the Cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa. The City of Huntington Beach borders the City to the west, and the City of Laguna Beach and Crystal Cove State Park/Laguna Coast Wilderness Park border the City to the east. The Pacific Ocean borders the City along the entire western edge. Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) extends along the entire western border of the City in a east -west direction. The Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55), located just north of the City, is the main freeway access to the area and traverses in an north -south direction Additionally, State Route 73 Freeway (SR -73), in a north-south orientation, acts as the eastern border between Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. The City of Newport Beach had a 2000 population of 70,032 persons, an incremental increase of 1 approximately 4.7 percent from the 1990 population of 66,700. The City currently has an estimated 2006 resident population of approximately 83,400 persons, an increase of 19 percent from the 2000 population. Coupled with the recent population growth of the City is the increase in its housing stock. From 1990 to ' 2000, the number of housing units in Newport Beach rose from 30,860 units to 37,288 units by 2000, a 17.2 percent increase. The most recent (2004) housing stock is estimated at 41,851 dwelling units, and the vacancy rate is approximately I L I percent. The average household size is 2.09 persons per household. II Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -1 InNal Study and MND I {j L I I I I 1 LJ The City has an estimated labor farce of 48,980 persons as of November 2004, of which 48,090 persons are employed. These persons are expected to be holding jobs within the Newport Beach area. The City of Newport Beach is developed with a mix of land uses, although the majority of the land is developed with residential and recreational land uses. Approximately 114.4 acres of the City is designated for industrial uses, 1,154.6 acres for commercial uses, 446.6 acres for government, educational, and institutional uses, 4, 516.4 acres for recreational and environmental open space uses and 5,436.0 acres for residential uses. Vacant land and water account for the remaining 1,335.4 acres of land uses within the City. 2.1.2 Project Area The proposed project site is located on an approximately 64,897 square foot (1.49 acres) site within the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach. The project is located approxunately one -half mile south/southeast of John Wayne Airport, approximately thee- quarters of a mile north/northeast of State Route 73 (SR -73), approximately ogre -half mile northwest of Jamboree Road, and approximately one mile south/southwest of Interstate 405 (1-405) (Figure 2-1). The proposed project would be located at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard The Airport Area (Statistical Area 1A) is divided into three Planned Communities: 1) Koll Center Newport; 2) Newport Place; and 3) Campus Drive. The proposed project is located in the approximately 179 -acre Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community, which is divided into multiple subareas. The project is located in the 30.9 -acre sub-area known as RCN Office Site A, which is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west' Birch Sheet to the north and northeast, and Von Karmen Avenue to the east and south. The project site is located on the approximately 64,897 square foot (1.49 acres) in the central portion of Office Site A, abutting MacArthur Boulevard and the entry drive to Office Site A from MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street and Von Karmen Avenue. The proposed project site has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial (APF) in the existing Newport Beach General Plan The proposed General Plan Update (GPU) to be approved by the City designates the project site as Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2), which provides for horizontal mixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, vertical mixed use buildings, industry, hotels, neighborhood commercial areas and a maximum of 2,200 high density residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and industrial uses. According to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, the zoning designation for the proposed project site is Planned Community 15 — Koll Center. The use regulations, development standards, parking requirements, and other regulations outlined in the Planned Commrmity Development Standards for Koll Center Newport control the type of development allowed on the proposed project site. The proposed project site is currently surrounded by a variety of land uses, primarily including Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF), as well as Retail and Service Commercial (RSC), General Industry ([ND), and Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GE1F). The ' proposed General Plan Update designates the land uses surrounding the proposed project site MU -112. Nearby uses include the existing 10 -story Fairmont Hotel directly to the northeast and east, the approximately 7 -10 story Radisson Hotel buildings across MacArthur Boulevard to the northwest, paved surface parting lots ' to the north and south, and an existing Trine -story office building and associated two -story parking structure to the southeast. South of the proposed project site at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club with dining and athletic facilities. I Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -2 In1hW Study and MND I U ' Projeof Description ' The proposed project site is currently improved with paved surface parking, ornamental landscaping and trees, and hardscape area surrounding the existing 9 -story office building (Figure 2-2). The proposed two -stray office building would replace the existing surface parking spaces and ornamental landscaping and trees in the northern potion of the project site while additional surface parking spaces would replace the existing ornamental landscaping and trees and hardscape area in the southern portion of the project site near the existing 9-story office building. The proposed project site has a relatively flat terrain due to past grading and site development activities associated with the existing use of the site. On -site elevations range from ' approximately 47.5 to 485 feet. Vehicle and pedestrian access is provided by the entry drive that provides access from MacArthur Boulevard to the internal circulation system of Office Site A. A driveway connects the northeast portion of the project site with the internal circulation system of Office Site A. Regional access to the proposed project site is provided by Interstate 405 (1-405) via MacArthur Boulevard or the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) via Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), which is the main transportation corridor in Newport Beach, is approximately 125 miles northwest of the proposed project site. ' 21 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project includes the development of a two-story (40 -feet tall), 21,311 gross square foot (GSF) 1 office building above one subterranean parking level consisting of 18 spaces (Figure 2-3) on the approximately 64,897 square foot (1.49 acres) site. The remaining 54,197 square foot (1.24 acres) of the site includes 98 parking spaces and ornamental landscaping and trees. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment (GP2006.003) to allow an additional 24,016 GSF of general office within Office Site A for the Koll Center Newport of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L-4); however, the proposed project would only utilize 21,311 square feet of this area. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PD 2006. 0001) to allow the transfer of 24,016 net square feet (NSF) of unused retail (10,000 NSF), restaurant (9,535 NSF), and office (4,481 NSF) uses from Office Site B to Office Site A. A Use Permit (UP 2006-008) is also required to allow the transfer of development intensity from Office Site B to Office Site A within the Koll Center Newport Plaimed Community. Office The proposed two -story office building totals 21,311 GSF over one subterranean level of parking. The footprint of the office building totals 10,700 GSF. The small scale structure features a modem, contemporary architecture designed to be compatible with the large scale office and hotel structures that surround the project site to the northwest, northeast, and south. The architectural design consists of glass and stone or stone -like fascia and wall elements. The U- shaped masking articulation contrasts the structure's horizontal emphasis with the two-story, glass colonnade at the building entry (Figure 2-4). ' PW*ing The proposed project includes 10,300 NSF of subterranean parking below the office building and re- design of the existing common area parking spaces. The project site would provide 17 subterranean parking spaces and 94 surface parking spaces. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2-3 lnIfiW Study and MND F I Feet 0 50o 1,000 2,000 The Koll Company H Koll Center Newport Location and Figure 2 -1 I s N Figure 2-2 ® Existing Site Plan The Koll Company Headquarters Scptmbcr. 2006 1 Koll Center Newport -r-I 90z-(.g 'Vwd 4 0 P7 W4� 5:117, IN E maw OR& 10 ro l 011 11 i Pr*dD8W*ft The proposed project would provide approximately 16,W square feet of area for ornamental landscaping and trees. The proposed landscaping would integrate the project with the mature landscaping of Koll Center Newport by maintaining and complimenting the existing Eucalyptus and Liquidambar tree vocabulary and ground cover/shrub foundation planting. Complimentary accent specimen landscaping will provide visual * focus at the building's main p1m and entry. i 2.3 OBJECT M OF THE PROJECT jThe proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project seeks to accomplish the following objectives with the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project: • To encourage development of the proposed project site with office uses that are attractive and are of high quality working environments for employees; • To provide office uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood and community; and • To accommodate employment in proximity to residential, supporting services and other aspects of a mixed -use community that is pedestrian - oriented and enhances livability. 2A DISCRETIONARYACTIONS A discretionary action is a decision taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgement in deciding whether to approve a project. For this proposed project, the government agencies with discretionary approval authority are the City of Newport Beach and the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Airport Land Use Commission. To accomplish development of the proposed project discussed above, the following actions would be made by the City of Newport Beach: ■ General Plan Amendment Na 2006 -003 — KCN Office Site A has achieved the maximum development capacity allowed per the existing General Plan. Consequently, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to allow an additional 24,016 GSF of development capacity within KCN Office Site A. This addition would allow for the proposed 21,311 GSF office building. ■ gall Center Newport Planned Community Amendment 2006 -001 — The project proposes to transfer unused square footage from the adjacent KCN Office Site B to KCN Office Site A to accommodate the proposed project. An amendment to the KCN PC is required and would include the following: • An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to allow the transfer of 24,016 net square feet (NSF) of unused retail (10,000 NSF), restaurant (9,535 NSF), and office (4,481 NSF) uses from Office Site B to Office Site A; ■ Use Permit 2006.008- To allow the transfer of development intensity from Office Site B to Office Site A. To accomplish development of the proposed project discussed above, the following actions would be made by the JWA Airport Land Use Commission: ■ Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Consistency Determination — Based on the project's proximity to the John Wayne Airport, a determination must be made the Airport Land Use Commission Ko0 Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2-8 IMOal StL* and MND I Pled DesaWW I (ALUC) to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with AELUP. Actions that must be taken by the ALUC include the following: • Per Public Utilities Code 21676(b), prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan within the planning boundary established by the ALUC, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. This project is within the airport planning area for JWA and requires a General Plan Amendment. I• Additionally, the proposed project penetrates the Notification Surface for JWA at the 100:1 slope and therefore requires filing of FAA Form 7460 -1. Per the JWA AELW the project's penetration of the 100:1 imaginary surface for notice to the FAA as defined in FAR Part 77.13 requires that the project must also be submitted to the ALUC. To accomplish development of the proposed project discussed above, the following actions would be made by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: ■ Santa Ana Regional Water Qaaltly Centro! Board (RWQCB) — The City of Newport Beach is a co- pemritee with the County of Orange for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be_ required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations to protect water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project. In order to comply with these requirements the proposed project would require the following: I • Development and submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. I I I I r] KoU Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -9 inMal Study and MND SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist found in Appendix A of this document. The Environmental Checklist is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of the CEQA I I F I H I I Guidelines provides a list of checklist questions that correspond directly to the legal standards for preparing Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs). The environmental issues evaluated in this Initial Study include the following: ■ Aesthetics ■ Agriculture Resources • Air Quality ■ Biological Resources • Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resomms • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/ Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided. The Environmental Checklist questions are then stated and an answer is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: ■ No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. ■ Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. ■ Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds, although mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project's physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Measures that may reduce this impact are identified. ■ Potentially Signifieant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report 1 (EIR). iThe references and sources used in the analysis are provided after the response to each question. I H Koll Many Corporate Headquarters Page 3-1 Initial Study and MND EnvAonmental 3.1 AESTHETICS The proposed project site is located in an existing urban area surrounded by a mix of office, retail service and commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The proposed project site is an approximately 1.49 -acre (64,897 square feet) area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, paved surface parking areas to the north and south, the 10 -story Fairmont Hotel to the northeast, and a nine -story office building and parking structure to the southeast. The site is currently improved with common area surface parking spaces serving the existing nine -story office building, ornamental landscaping and trees, and the hardscape area abutting the existing nine -story office building. The site was subject to grading during previous development of the site and is relatively flat. On -site elevations range from 47.5 to 48.5 feet above mean sea level (amsl). MacArthur Boulevard is developed as a six -lane divided roadway with contiguous sidewalks and landscaped parkways. The landscaped parkways provided beyond the sidewalks are planted with ornamental vegetation primarily including grass and trees. There are no overhead power lines crossing over the site or adjacent to the site along the roadways. Views of the site from MacArthur Boulevard are slightly obstructed by tall trees lining the western and northern edge of the site; however, partial views of the existing parking area are visible. Von Karman Avenue is an existing four -lane road that generally runs north -to -south to the east of the proposed project site. The project site is not visible from Von Karman Avenue due to the height and bulk of the existing structures located to the northeast, east, and southeast. Views from the site include the existing nine -story office building and associated parking structure to the southeast, the 10 -story Fairmont Hotel to the northeast, the approximately seven - and 10 -story Radisson Hotel buildings across MacArthur Boulevard to the northwest, paved surface parking areas to the north and south and the low -rise commercial strictures across MacArthur Boulevard to the west. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Aerial Photograph) A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach features scenic vistas of the following visual resources: the Pacific Ocean and coastline; the City's bay and harbor areas; plant and animal habitat areas; unique topographical resources like bluffs, mountains, hillsides, and canyons; and undeveloped land. These scenic vistas are available from the public view, points, coastal view roads, and view parks identified in the proposed General Plan Update, as well as from private property. No scenic vistas or visual resources are located on or within the vicinity of the proposed project site. The ' project is located in the northern portion of the City in the Airport Ares, which is characterized by relatively level terrain and existing urban development. Potential long- distance views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the north of the project site are obstructed by existing structures. According to the City of Newport Beach, a `bluff ' is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 percent) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. The proposed project is relatively flat with on -site elevations increasing by only one -foot from low point to high point. The terrain of the surrounding area is generally comparable to the level 1 terrain of the proposed project site. There are no existing bluff areas on or adjacent to the proposed project site. Views from the proposed project site would be of the surrounding land uses and structures, which are not considered scenic resources. The proposed project would not cause impacts to any scenic vista The proposed project would change the existing use of the site from paved surface parking spaces and ornamental landscape and hardscape areas to a two -story (40 -feet tall) office building with one level of subterranean parking surrounded by surface parking areas and ornamental landscaping and trees. The proposed office building would feature modern, contemporary architecture comprised of glass and stone or stone -hlce fascia and wall elements to compliment the existing structures in the area. The proposed landscaping would be Koll CmVa" Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -2 Initial Study and MM I ' En*onmanfat Analysts ' comprised of tree and groundcover /shrub species that compliment the egg landscaping of the existing site and sunmmding area The proposed structure and trees may block existing views of MacArthur• Boulevard and the buildings surrounding the project site from adjacent land uses; however, none of the buildings surrounding ' neither the site nor MacArthur Boulevard are considered scenic resources. Thus, the proposed project would result in less than significant mipacts to existing views from land uses adjacent to the proposed project site. ( Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, Project Plans, and Site Survey) ' B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropphtgs, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact, There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach, and one highway — State Route 1 (SR -1) — is identified as eligible for state scenic highway designation. However, ' SR -1 is located over four miles from the proposed project site; none of the roadways surrounding the proposed project site are officially designated — or identified as eligible — for state scenic highway designation. Furthermore, no rock outcroppings or historic buildings are found along or near the proposed project site ' Existing on -site trees may need to be removed as part of the proposed project during grading, excavation, and construction activities. However, these trees are part of the site's ornamental landscaping and are not considered a scenic resource. Furthermore, the project proposes additional trees that would compliment the existing Eucalyptus and Ligmdambar tree vocabulary of the proposed site and adjacent areas. Therefore, the ' proposed project would not.impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Site Survey, Project ' Plans, and California State Scenic Highway Mapping System) C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and ' its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would alter the visual quality of the proposed project ' site. A two -story (40 feet tall) office building with a building footprint of approximately 10,700 gross square feet (GSF) would cover the existing paved surface parking spaces. As discussed in Section 3.1.A, the proposed architecture would compliment the architecture of existing surrounding structures. The ornamental trees and groundcover /shrub species provided on the proposed project site would not be substantially different as a result of the proposed project, and would he consistent with the existing mature tree and groundcover /shrub species currently used for landscaping on the proposed site and in the surrounding area. Thus, the visual character of the site and the quality of the site and its 'surroundings ' would not be substantially degraded by the proposed project. On a short -term basis, during the approximately 12 -month construction period, the proposed project site would be subject to construction activities. Views of disturbed areas with construction materials and equipment, grading, and excavated soil ' would be visible to passers -by. This change in the visual environment is short-term and is not considered significant. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. A less than significant impact would occur. ' (Sources: Site Survey, Aerial Photographs, and Project Plans) D. Would the project create a new source of substantial tight or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light and glare on the project site include security lighting for the existing surface parking spaces and headlights from vehicles traveling along MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project would include interior and exterior lighting associated with the office t Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -3 Imud Stady and MND i Environmental Anobels building and security lighting of the proposed surface parking spaces. Lighting on the proposed project site would be detectable from adjacent areas. However, the proposed project site is located in an existing urban area and would not exceed the levels of lighting emitted by surrounding land uses. Furthermore, all lighting ' elements would be consistent with the requirements of Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires a lighting plan depicting the type of lighting fixture to be used including the fixture configuration and lens. In addition, the proposed building materials would not create the potential for substantial glare resulting from reflection of the sum. Although glass would be used for windows and some doors, the glass would not be mirrored (i.e., clear or tinted glass would be used). Sunlight reflected from architectural elements of the ' proposed project would not be strong or direct enough light to reduce the ability to see or identify objects nor would it produce ocular discomfort; thus, it would not be considered substantial glare. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact of light or glare that would affect day or nighttime views. ' ( Sources: Site Sw vey and Project Plans) ' 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (PIMP) develops statistical data for analyzing impacts on California's agricultural resources, for use by decision makers in assessing the present status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California's agricultural land resources. According to the California Department of Conservation FMMP, there are no agricultural land ' resources within the City of Newport Beach and the proposed project area is designated as Urban and Built - up Land. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Site Survey) A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ' Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? ' No Impact. According to the City's existing General Plan and proposed General Plan Update, the proposed project site is designated as Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF) and Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -112), respectively. Neither designation permits agricultural uses. Furthermore, the proposed project site has been used as a paved surface parking lot for over two decades. In addition, no Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs witbin or near the proposed project area. Since the proposed project site is not used for agriculture and is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the proposed project would not result in converting farmlands to a non-agricultural use. The adjacent areas are not designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or in the Newport Beach General Plan. Thus, no impact on important farmlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. ( Sowces: Newport Beach General Plan, Proposed General Plan Update, California Department of ' Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and Site Survey) B. Would the project .conflict with existing zoning for agricataral use, or a Williamson Act ' contract? ' Kotr Company Corporal¢ Headgrmrt= Page 3-4 Initid Study and MND I i I Erwhonirrentat No Impact. According to the City's existing General Plan and proposed General Plan update, the proposed project site is designated as Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF) and Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -112), respectively. Neither designation permits agricultural uses. The existing zoning designation for the site is Planned Community 15 — Koll Center Newport, which does not allow agricultural uses. According to the existing and proposed General Plan documents, there is no designated farmland within the area surrounding the proposed project site. Light farming uses and crop production are allowed within the City's R -A (Residential — Agricultural) zone. However, the R A zone is not located on or near the proposed project site. Arras adjacent to the project site are primarily designated as APF, but also as Retail and Service Commercial, General Industry, and Government, Educational, and histitutional Facilities on the City's existing General Land Use Plan map; the proposed General Plan Update designates these areas as Mixed Use Horizontal 2. Furthermore, the'area surrounding the site is zoned as Planned Cwnnnmity 15 — Roll Center Newport, which does not allow agricultural uses. In addition, there are no lands under a Williamson Act contract on or near the site. With the absence of agricultural areas on or near the site, no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or contracts under the Williamson Act could occur. No conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur as a result of the proposed project, no impacts associated with this issue would occur. (Sources: General Land Use Plan of the existing and proposed Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Newport Beads Zoning Map, and Site Survey) ' C. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nen- agricultural use? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.21, the site is not being used for any agricultural purposes and is not designated as agricultural land. Since there is no farmland or agricultural uses on the proposed project site, or within the vicinity of the proposed project site, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. (Sources: General Land Use Plan of the existing and proposed Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and Site Survey) 3.3 AIR QUALITY A limited Air Quality Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by EDAW Inc in July 2006 to identify existing air quality conditions on and around the site, as well as analyze the proposed project's potential impacts on air quality. The analysis consisted of documenting project related hips, construction equipment and operation emissions using the URBEMIS modeling programs. The findings of the model are summarized below, and the complete data is provided in Appendix B it the end of this document. The climate of Orange County, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi - permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions in Newport Beach are characterized by a Mediterranean climate with average temperatures of 61 degrees annually, infrequent rainfall, and moderate daytime on -shore breezes. Nighttime breezes generally slow and reverse to become offshore breezes. The ' average annual rainfall is approximately 12 inches. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -5 Initial Study and AND Environmental Ana"Is The proposed project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Annual average temperatures in the SCAB are 62 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The SCAQMD is the agency responsible for protecting the public health and welfare through the administration of federal and state air quality laws and policies. Included in the SCAQMD's tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the preparation and implementation of the Basin's Air Quality Management ' Plan (AQMP), and the promulgation of Rules and Regulations. State and Federal agencies have set ambient air quality standards for various pollutants. Both California ' Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established to protect the public health and welfare. The SCAQMD has prepared the CEQA Air Quality Handbook to provide guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts related to .proposed projects that may generate air emissions of criteria pollutants and provides significance thresholds. These thresholds, as shown in Table 3 -1, are based, in part, on Section 182(e) of the Federal Clean Air Act. TABLE 3 -1. SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS HER i t M #ail Th;,it6u1 i,! Is ih — .roki Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100 lb &/day 55 Ibs /da VOC 75 lbs/day 55 Ibs /da PMto 1501bs/da 1501bs /da sox 150 lbs/day 1501bs/da CO 5501bs/day 550 lbs/da Lead 31bs/da 31bs/da %';'8I111iIYltbr y �%[1QC+dltl�il�i` _ TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk > 10 in 1 million (including carcinogens Hazard Index ? 1.0 (project increment) and non - carcinogens) Hazard Index ? 3.0 (facility -wide) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 ' � > ,tor' _ NOZ SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes in excess of the following attainment standards: 1 -hour average 0.25 ppm (State) annual average 0.053 ppm (Federal) PMro 10.4 µg/m3 (recommended for construction) 24 -hour average 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) annual geometric average 1.0 µg/m3 annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 Sulfate 24 -hour average 25 µg/m3 CO SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes in excess of the following attainment standards: I -hour average 20 ppm (State) 8 -how average 9.0 ppm (State/Federal) Source: SCAQMD 2006 Ibs /day = pounds per day; ppm= parts per million; 991m3 = microgram per cubic meter ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -6 Initial Study and MND ' Environmental Analysis ' Specific air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants are discussed in the following emissions analysis. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis) ' A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ' Less than Significant Impact. Consistency with an AQMP is typically determined by two standards. The fast standard is whether the project would exceed assumptions contained in the AQMP. The second standard is whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of violation of existing air quality violations, contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or interim 1 reductions as specified in the AQMP. The AQMP assumes specific emissions from the operation of certain land uses, e.g., residential, retail, office, institutional, and industrial. As the proposed project would not alter the existing land use designation, it is assumed the proposed project would not exceed the land use assumptions contained in the AQMP. Emissions for construction and operation (long-term post - construction activities) of the proposed project were quantified using URBEMIS2002, a computer program used to estimate vehicle trips, emissions, and ' fuel use resulting from land use development projects (CARD 2005). URBEhM computes emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, CO, SO2, and PMmp. On a project of this type, S02 emissions would be negligible and are not included in the analysis below. URBEMLS does not calculate PM2.5 emissions. Appendix B includes construction equipment assumptions and air quality calculations. 'Construction Emissions 1 Excavation and grading activities would generate fugitive dust including PMto. Operation of diesel- engine construction equipment on -site, hauling of demolition spoils and exported and imported soils and materials to and from the site, and construction crew traffic would generate emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, and PMmo. I Estimated construction - related mass emissions for each component of the expansion are shown in Table 3- 2. TABLE 3 -2. ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS As shown in Table 3 -2, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term relative to the long -term operation of the project (i.e., limited only to the period when construction activity takes place). As such, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would represent a less than significant impact on air quality in the Basin. However, in order to ensure that the proposed project's impacts remain less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -7 Initial Study and MAD +-`$q" .- Demolition 4.0 31.3 32.1 3.8 Grading 5.4 52.7 40.7 3.4 Building Construction 43.4 46.0 62.5 4.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 43.4 52.7 62.5 4.5 SCA MD Thresholds 7S 100 SSO ISO Exceeds SCA MD Thresholds? No No No No Source: URBEMIS va. 8.7 (RIMPO 2005) Emissions are not additiw; the two elements of construcam would not occur cona,rrara . As shown in Table 3 -2, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term relative to the long -term operation of the project (i.e., limited only to the period when construction activity takes place). As such, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would represent a less than significant impact on air quality in the Basin. However, in order to ensure that the proposed project's impacts remain less than significant, the following mitigation measures are recommended. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -7 Initial Study and MAD Envhonmerda! Analysis Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that potentially significant impacts to air quality remain below a level of significance: Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Use pre- coated building materials. Mitigation Measure 33-2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency. Mitigation Measure 3-1-3: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Mitigation Measure 134: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. Mitigation Measure 33-5: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short -term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. C. All material transported offsite shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 33-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigatiou Measure 33-7: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. Mitigation Measure 3.34: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public ' streets, the sheets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible track-out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) rmrrutes of deposition. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-8 Initial Study and AND I Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: All diesel powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. 1 Mitigation Measure 3.3 -10: All diesel- powered vehicles and gasoline- powered equipment shall be tweed off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas- powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible. Mitigation Measure 33-12: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour-traffic. To inummuze obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing ' roadways, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure 33-14: The construction contractor shall utilize as nuich as possible pre- , coauxYnatural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Mitigation Measure 33.15: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources 1 (L PG/CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site. Mitigation Measure 33-16: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this proposed Project. 1 Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would ensure emissions from construction activities remain less than significant. Operational Emissions Long -term air quality impacts are those associated with the change in long -term use of the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project:. 1) area source emissions and 2) mobile source emissions. Area source emissions result from natural gas use for heating and lighting, exhaust emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, and ROG emissions from periodic ' repainting of facilities. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips, including employees, visitors, deliveries, and maintenance activities. Area source emissions were calculated based on land -use characteristics. Vehicle trip volumes were taken from the City's Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model ' (NBTAM). Estimated operational - related mass emissions for both components of the proposed expansion are shown in Table 3 -3. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-9 Initial Study and MND I I I Environmental TABLE 3 -3. ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Area Source Emissions 0.4 0.2 0.8 <0.01 Mobile Source (vehicular) Emissions 2.5 3.1 32.9 3.3 Total 2.9 3.3 33.7 3.3 SC.403M Thresholds 55 55 550 150 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No Source: URBEMIS ver. 8.7 (RIMPO 20051 As shown in Table 3 -3, mass emissions from vehicle trips and operation and maintenance of the proposed project would be less than SCAQMD thresholds for operation. Thus, operational - related emissions would represent a less than significant impact on air quality. As the proposed project would not exceed the assumptions contained in the SCAQMD's AQMP, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP, and while the project would create new air emissions, neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project would exceed the applicable thresholds set by the SCAQMD, thus the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the implementation of the AQMP. (Source: Air Quality Analysis) B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD's mass emission thresholds of significance, which are designed to prevent projects from obstructing the Basin's compliance with Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Additionally, the estimated emissions for the proposed project are well below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation and the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on air quality. (Source: Air Quality Analysis) C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Section 3.3A, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable thresholds or result in violations of the state or federal ambient air quality standards. The proposed project would also be consistent with the SCAQMD's AQMP, which is a long -range air quality planning document. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on cumulative regional and local air quality. (Source: Air Quality Analysis) 1 Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -10 Initial Study and MND I 1 Environmental D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Land uses in the project area are predominantly commercial in nature, and include office uses, retail uses, and hotels. The nearest potentially sensitive air quality receptors in the project area are patrons of the Fairmont Hotel. During construction, exposure to pollutants in the air (especially PMro) in the adjoining properties and a parking lot for the Fairmont Hotel may be slightly greater than at other locations further from the project site. However, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would reduce the exposure to a less than significant level. Additionally, as shown in Table 3-3, onsite operational PMro emissions from area sources would be negligible. Therefore, the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less than significant because of the short-term mature of construction and the low level of on -site emissions. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis, Project Plans, and Site Survey) ' E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would create a new office building in a location with similar commercial and office land uses. No odor - producing industrial activities would occur under the proposed project. Operation of trucks and construction equipment may cause air emissions that generate odors typically associated with fuel combustion. Roofing and paving operations may also produce odors. However, these odors dissipate rapidly in the atmosphere and would exist only temporarily. There would be no increase in objectionable odors following construction and during operation of the proposed project. ' Therefore, the odors potentially created due to the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on local air quality. (Sources: Air Quality Analysis, Project Plans, and Site Survey) 1 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The County of Orange has prepared a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for the Central - Coastal region of the County. As indicated in the NCCP, most of the preserved area is located within the unincorporated jurisdiction of the County, with significant portions within the Cities of Irvine, Laguna ' Beach, Laguna Niguel, and San Juan Capistrano with smaller portions located in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. The NCCP is designed to connect various geographic components of the plan area into a contiguous system to allow animals to move throughout the area via a continuous system of reserve habitat and linkages. The proposed project site is not located within the boundary area of the NCCP. The City of Newport Beach contains a variety of natural resources including natural lands and wildlife areas that contain several types of flora and fauna habitat. These areas have been identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. ESA's are defined as "those passive open space areas possessing unique environmental value, which may warrant some form of protection or preservation." Specifically, the Recreation and Open Space Element ' indicates that these areas may support species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution or otherwise sensitive. Additionally, these areas may include, but are not limited to: riparian areas, freshwater marshes, saltwater marshes, intertidal areas, other wetlands, and unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities. The vast majority of natural resources within the City are located in the Upper Newport Bay area, coastal bluffs, and within the beaches and harbors areas of the City. Eleven listed wildlife species and three listed plant species occur or may potentially occur within the City of Newport Beach. No ESA areas ' are identified on the proposed project site, or within the Airport Area of the City, within which the project would be located. Kall Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -11 Initial Study and MND I 1 EnvitmnmentalAna"s The proposed project site is currently developed with paved surface parking spaces, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape areas. The landscaped areas consist of ornamental trees and groundcover /shn►b species. Areas surrounding the site are highly developed with urban uses. Vegetation associated with these uses consists of similar ornamental tree and groundcover /shrub species. Fauna associated with the proposed project site would be consistent with urban environments. Species that may be anticipated in and around the site would likely consist of a variety of common bird, insect, and reptile species. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Aerial Photographs, and Site Survey, Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP) A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and IGame or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project area is located within a highly urbanized area of Newport Beach. The ' proposed project site and surrounding area is heavily disturbed and does not support rare, candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The proposed project site is currently improved with a paved surface parking lot, ornamental trees and groundcover /shrubs, and'hardscape areas. Sensitive plant species that are i known to be present within the City, such as Diegan Coastal sage scrub,. do not occur on the site or within the surrounding area due to prior urban development and disturbance of the area. Because of the highly disturbed nature of the area and the lack of sensitive biological resources, no adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Impacts — either direct or those ' . resulting from habitat modification — to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species would not occur as a result of the proposed project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan and Site Survey) B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive I natural community identified In local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently improved with a paved surface parking lot, ornamental trees and landscaping, and hardscape areas; the site does not support riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. All on -site vegetation, including trees, shrubs and grasses, were installed as ornamental landscaping during the previous development of the site. There are no water channels or evidence of water flows on or near the proposed project site. The water resources map provided in the proposed General Plan Update does not identify any streams or rivers on or near the proposed project site.. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; impacts associated with this issue would not occur. ' (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update and Site Survey) C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently improved as a paved surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping and hardscape areas and does not support any wetland habitat as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No channels or evidence of flow occur in or around the proposed project site and no Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -12 ini &al Sandy and MND tEnWronmentat An permits from the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required. The nearest watercourses are San Diego Creek and Santa Ana Delhi Channel, both of which are located approximately 1.0 mile (to the south and east, respectively) from the site at their nearest points. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update and Site Survey) 1 D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The proposed project site is highly urbanized and disturbed. Vegetation on the site consists of non -native ornamental tree and groundcover /shrub species. Due to the presence of urban development, on all sides of the site, and its location in a highly urbanized setting, the proposed project site is not expected to be used as a wildlife corridor for any migratory species. The proposed project site is not designated as an 1 established wildlife corridor and is not used as a nursery site by wildlife species. Species on -site may include a variety of common bird, insect, and reptile species commonly found in urban settings, none of whose migration would be inhibited by development of the proposed project. The proposed project would 1 not interfere with the movement of any native resident, or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; no impacts would occur. (Sources.' Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, Site Survey, and Aerial Photograph) E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinanc' No Impact. Existing tree species present on the proposed project site include mature Eucalyptus and Liquidambar. The majority of the existing trees on4te would be preserved, while removed trees would be replaced with additional trees of the Eucalyptus and Liquidambar species. The City's policies affecting tree removal and re- location only apply to trees located in public areas under control of the City. All trees that ' may be affected by the proposed project are located on private property. Thus, none of the existing on -site trees are protected under a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No conflict with the City's tree preservation ordinance or policies would occur with proposed project implementation. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Project Plans, and Site Survey) F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 No Impact. The Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP (approved in July 1996) includes areas previously protected through traditional land use practices such as exactions, dedications, and purchases, as well as areas with at -risk habitat or species. The resulting preserve encompasses 37,380 acres containing 12 major habitats and 39 threatened or endangered plant and animal species. As discussed above in Section 3.4, the proposed site is not located within the NCCP and would, therefore, not conflict with the implementation of that plan. The proposed project would have no impact on local or regional habitat conservation plans. ' (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Sue Survey, and Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP) ' Koll Company Corporme Headquarters Page 3 -13 InWd Study and MND E%* Mmantal,tinaO&* 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The City's first inhabitants were the Shoshone Indians who lived along the Pacific coast for thousands of years. In the 18000s, land holdings of the Capistrano Mission were divided out as Spanish and Mexican land grants to war heroes and aristocratic families. American entrepreneurs by the names of Flint, Bixby, Irvine and McFadden later bought most of the land area known as Newport Beach's upper bay and lower bay. Later, in 1906, the City of Newport Beach was incorporated. By 1936, the present day contour of Newport Beach was established and community members dedicated the City's main harbor, named Newport Harbor. World War H brought about an influx of new military operations and personnel working and living in the area. The Santa Ana Freeway (1 -5), built in the 1950's, brought even more people to the City. By the 1970'x, rapid growth led to the building of shopping centers, hotels, high -scale restaurants, and many new homes. The City of Newport Beach has not been extensively studied or excavated. However, many archaeological 1 sites have been discovered throughout the City, more specifically, adjacent to the "Upper Bay" area. Because the City has not been widely surveyed, the majority of the ]mown or unknown archaeological sites have already been destroyed due to development in the area Known unique paleontological resources have been discovered along the bluffs on the east shore of the bay and the adjoining foothills and in the North Bluffs area. ' There are four sites within the City currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Four sites within the City area also listed as California Historical Landmarks, and four additional properties are listed in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) database. The City Register also includes seven properties of local historical or architectural significance, two of which are listed on the NRHP and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). None of the sites are located on or within the vicinity of the proposed project site. (Sources: Site Survey, National Register of Historic Places, California State Historical Landmarks, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Proposed General Plan Update, and the Cultural Resources Section of the Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report) A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined In §150645? No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified as having historical resources and no historic sites are identified on the adjacent areas surrounding the site. Thus, the proposed project would have no impacts on historical resources. (Sources: Site Survey and the Cultural Resources Section of the Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report) B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological ' resource pursuant to Section 150645? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project site is located in a highly urbanized area and currently improved with paved surface parking spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and other 1 hardscape areas. According to the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed site is not known to contain unique archaeological resources. In addition, the proposed project site has been subject to grading and other site development activities in the past and unique archaeological resources may have been damaged or Koll Company Camorate Headquarters Page 3 -14 Initial audy and MM Envimnmantsl analysts 1 destroyed as a result. However, the proposed project site has not been extensively studied or excavated to determine the presence of unique archaeological resources, or the lack thereof. Since the presence of unique archaeological resources on or below the project site cannot be conclusively confirmed or disproved, the ground4sturbing activities (i.e., grading and excavation) required for construction of the proposed two -story office building and subterranean parking level have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to unique archaeological resources if such resources are located on -site. However, the likelihood of encountering unique 1 archaeological resources is considered mammal given the highly urbanized nature of development that has previously occurred on, and adjacent to, the proposed project site. Nonetheless, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that potentially significant impacts to unique archaeological resources are reduced to a level less than significant: Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed General Plan Update, and the Cultural Resources Section of the Proposed INewport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report) C. Would the project directly or Indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a ' unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project site is located in a highly urbanized area and currently improved with paved surface parking spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and other hardseape areas. The proposed site is relatively flat and does not include any unique geologic features. According to the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed site is not known to contain unique paleontological resources. In addition, the proposed project site has been subject to grading activities in the past and unique paleontological resources and geologic features may have been damaged or destroyed as a result. However, the proposed project site has not been extensively studied or excavated to determine the presence of unique paleontological resources, or the lack thereof. Since the presence of unique paleontological resources on or below the project site cannot be conclusively confirmed or disproved, the ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading and excavation) required for construction of the proposed two -story office building and subterranean parking level have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to unique paleontological resources if such resources are located on -site. However, the likelihood of encountering unique paleontological resources is considered minimal given the highly urbanized nature of development that has previously occurred on, and adjacent to, the proposed project site. Nonetheless, impacts to unique paleontological resources are 1 considered potentially significant. Mitigation KaU Company Corporate Hwdquarters Page 345 Initial SA* and WD [I IEnvimnmental Analysis hnplementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to unique paleontological resources to a level less than significant: MIdgatfon Measure 3.5-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre- grading conference, shall establish. procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (SoW= Site Survey, Proposed General Plan Update and the Cultreral Resourow Section of the Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report) D. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ' No Impact. The proposed project site and adjacent areas are highly disturbed due to previous urban developments. There is no evidence of human remains or a previous cemetery on or adjacent to the proposed project site. Furthermore, human remains, if present, would likely have been encountered during grading and other site development activities associated with the current use of the site. Thus, the likelihood of ' encountering human remains on the proposed project site is extremely low. Development of the site as proposed by the project would have no impact on human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. ( Sources: Site Survey and Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan) 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Topography In general, Orange County is characterized by a variety of landforms including coastal shorelines, flatlands, hills, mountains, and canyons. The Pacific shorelines are chaiactenized by broad sandy beaches, coastal bluffs, uplifted marine terraces, and tidal marshes. The nearest major ridgelmes to the area occur in the Santa Ana Mountains, Lomas de Santiago, and the San Joaquin Hills. The entire County consists of a series of northwest - trending mountain ranges and valleys and similarly oriented earthquake faults. The proposed project is located in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach, approximately 0.5 miles south/southeast from John 1 Wayne Airport. The proposed project site has a relatively flat terrain due to previous grading and site development activities associated with the current use of the site; on -site elevations range from approximately 47.5 to 48.5 feet above mean sea level (amsl). I Sorts The City of Newport Beach is underlain by Holocene -age alluvial sediments present in active and recently active steam charnels throughout the City, in addition to beach, marshland, and intertidal deposits of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. Newport Mesa is underlain by primarily shallow marine sediments ranging in Kofi Company Capone Headgaarers Page 3 -16 Initlal Study and MND I 1 EhWionrnerrfal,4nalya1s ' age from early to late Pleistocene. Various portions of the City are affected by one or more of the following soil conditions: soil erosion, compressible soils, expansive soils, and subsidence. However, none of these conditions are known to significantly affect the proposed project site. ' sebinitaity ' Southern California is a seismically active area that includes several types of fault systems including strike - slip, oblique, thrust, and blind thrust faults. The region is subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees, depending on the proximity and earthquake magnitude potential of nearby active faults, and the local geologic and topographic conditions. Seismic hazards include primary hazards from surface rupturing of rock and soil materials along active fault traces, and secondary hazards resulting from strong ground shaking. An active earthquake fault is defined as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The City of Newport Beach is located in a seismically active region and has experienced several large earthquakes within the last 100 years There are no known active earthquake faults projecting towards or extending across the proposed project site. However, several regional faults are located in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Fault systems that could produce ground shaking within the City include: San Andreas Fault; Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone; Elsinore Fault; Palos Verdes Fault; Norwalk Fault; Raymond Fault Zone; San Jacinto Fault; and San Fernando Fault Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is the only active fni t within or in the immediate vicinity of Newport Beach. Although not located within the City, the San Andreas Fault has an active seismic history and the potential to affect land uses within the City of Newport Beach as well as most cities in California. The Newport - Inglewood Fault extends for approximately 46.5 miles from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to just offshore from the City of Newport Beach. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is capable of producing a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake. Capable of producing a maximum credible earthquake of Magnitude 8.0 or greater, the San Andreas Fault is recognized as the longest and most active earthquake fault in California. The San Andreas Fault is 625 miles long and runs from Cape Mendocino in Northern California to an area near the Mexican border. The proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update identifies potential seismic and soil hazard areas with liquefaction and landslide potential within the City. The proposed project site is not considered to have liquefaction or landslide potential. Within Newport Beach, areas of slope instability include areas in the San Joaquin hills and in the bluff areas located throughout the City. The proposed project site is relatively flat and not located within a bluff area. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrmrgle, Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, Southern California Earthquake Data Center and Site Survey) A. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effect, Including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rapture of a (mown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Algnist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults projecting towards or extending across the proposed project site. Additionally, the site is not located in a designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The active and potentially active fault systems that may create significant earthquake hazards to the site include the Newport- Inglewood and San Andreas Fault zones. The Newport - Inglewood Fault is located approximately five miles southwest of the site and the San Andreas Fault occurs at a distance of more than 50 miles inland from, the proposed project site. Since no Koff Company Corporate Hea4wnera Page 3-17 Imud Study and MND i ' Environmental AnalyMs ' earthquake faults cross through or extend onto the site, development on the site would not be exposed to fault ground tvptme hazards. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with fault rupture. ' (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, project plans, and proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Safety' Element) ' B. Would the project be subject to strong seismic groundshaking? Less than Significant LnpacL These are no earthquake faults crossing through or extending onto the site. ' However, the proposed project site is located in a seismically active region, and would be subject to groundshaking associated with earthquakes on nearby faults. The proposed two-story (40 feet tall) office building and related infrastructure would be subject to groundshaking hazards, which could lead to damage of ' the structure, roads, utility lines, and other structural hazards that could cause property damage and personal injuries. Employees, construction workers, and visitors on the site would be exposed to groundshaking hazards during an earthquake event. Tlus hazard is no different than groundshaking hazards elsewhere in the City of ' Newport Beach or the region, but would present public safety hazards associated with structural damage, falling objects, pavement cracking, utility line damage and resulting fires, and other property damage and public safety concerns. Compliance with applicable standards in the Uniform Building Code, including those associated with the design and engineering of buildings to minimize the effects of seismic activity and pertinent building standards of the City of Newport Beach, would reduce groundshaking hazards to acceptable levels. The proposed structure would be constructed to withstand seismic forces, and only pavement cracking and utility line damage with minimal impact to life and property may occur at the proposed project site as a result of nearby earthquakes. Thus, the impact of strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (Sources: VSGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Greenbook and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) C. Would the project be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant. Liquefaction is characterized by saturated soils that behave like liquid during groundshaking and is associated with perched water conditions and loose soils. Areas with liquefaction potential may also experience seismic - related ground failure (i.e., seismically- induced settlement). The proposed project site is flat and is not located within an area with liquefaction or seismic - related ground failure potential according to the proposed General Plan Update Safety Element. Furthermore, the site is not located within a designated Earthquake Alquist -Priolo Fault Zone, and no surface faults cross through or extend toward the site. Thus, the proposed project would be subject to less than significant impacts caused by seismic - rclated ground failure, including liquefaction. (Sources: California Geological Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element) D. Would the project be subject to landslides? No Impact. The proposed project site has been subject to past grading and site development activities and consequently has a relatively flat terrain with on -site elevations ranging from 47.5 to 48.5 feet amsl. The areas surrounding the site are also relatively flat from past grading and site development activities. The proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update identifies areas with slope instability in the City, and the proposed project site it is not within an area known to have unstable slope conditions. Additionally, Koll Company Corporate Headquarters . Page 3 -18 Initial Sh* and MND IErwimamentat Anab&* 1 proposed grading and site development activities associated with the proposed project would maintain the existing level terrain on -site. Thus, no impact associated with landslides would occur as a result of the proposed project. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Safety Element) E. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing paved surface parking spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and other hardscape areas with a two -story office building above one level of subterranean parking surrounded by re- configured paved surface parking spaces and ornamental trees and landscaping; no on -site topsoil would be exposed during the long -term operation of the proposed project. Thus, substantial soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil would not occur over the long -term operation of the project. However, the potential exists for short-term impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil caused by the exposure of soil during construction, grading, and excavation activities. However, the potential for impacts would be confined to excavation areas and would cease upon completion of project construction (maximum 12 months in duration). Implementation of the erosion control methods required by the City's Excavation and Grading Code would ensure that these potential impacts remain less than significant. (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Safety Element and Newport Beach Municipal Code) F. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not known to be located on an unstable geologic unit, subsidence has not occurred along the proposed project site, and there is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site. Thus, the likelihood of impacts caused by an unstable geologic unit or soils is considered low, but possible. Conformance with, and implementation of, Newport Beach Building Code requirements for incorporation of a soil treatment program in the excavation and constructions plans, site - specific evaluation of soil conditions to identify and eliminate potentially unsuitable soil conditions, design of foundation support, and all other applicable policies would ensure that the proposed project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or soils. The proposed project is not expected to be exposed to or create on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse hazards; impacts are considered less than significant. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Building Code, and Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Safety Element) G. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not known to have significant expansion potential. However, even the slightest potential for the existence of expansive soils within the proposed project site raises the possibility that foundation stability for the project's proposed two -story office building and one level of subterranean parking, paved areas, and associated utilities could be compromised. Conformance with, and implementation of, Newport Beach Building Code requirements for a site- specific foundation investigation, site - specific evaluation of soil conditions to identify and eliminate potentially unsuitable soil conditions, foundation type and design criteria, and all other applicable policies would Koll Company Corporate Ifeadquarien Page 3 -19 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis ensure that the proposed project is not located on expansive soils. Thus, potential impacts to life or property associated with expansive soils are considered less then significant. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Building Code, and Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update Safety Element) H. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed development would be connected to the public sewer system through sewer lines in the surrounding streets. Use of existing sewer lines would prevent a need for septic tanks or other types of alternative wastewater disposal systems that could be limited by soil characteristics at the proposed project site. Since sewers would be available for sewage generated by the proposed project, septic tanks would not be affected by soils at the proposed project site. Thus, no impacts to soils which are unsuitable for on -site sewage disposal systems would occur as a result of the proposed project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element, Site Survey, and Project Plans) 3,7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A hazardous material is defined as any substance that may be hazardous to humans, animals, or plants, and any include pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, and even nuclear fuels or low -level radioactive wastes. The City of Newport Beach has a wide variety of industries and land uses, which generate, use, or handle hazardous materials. Most of these sites are associated with industrial and commercial uses located throughout the City. The proposed project site is currently developed with paved surface parking areas serving the surrounding buildings, ornamental trees and landscaping, and other hardscape areas. No hazardous materials are visible on -site. Additionally, the proposed project site is not listed in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Envirofacts Tomes Release Inventory (TRI). Land uses within the vicinity of the proposed project that are included on EPA's TRI include Conexant Systems, hrc. and Newport Fab LLC at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road, respectively, approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the proposed project site Other TRI sites located in the City but that are not located within the vicinity of the proposed project include: Hixson Metal Finishing at 829 Production Place approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the proposed project site; Ford Motor Company at 1000 Ford Road approximately 2S miles south of the proposed project site; and Hughes Aircraft Co. at 500 Superior Avenue approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south/southeast of John Wayne Airport and could be subject to hazards from aircraft operations. According to the proposed General Plan Update, the site is located within an area with a potential wildfire hazard of "Low/None" and is not located in a "potential flood hazard area". hazards associated with earthquakes and soillerosion etc. are discussed above in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. No other hazards are known to be present on -site or near the site. (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, EPA Envirofacis Database, and Site Survey) A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public, or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Nearby hazardous material handlers are not expected to pose hazards to on -site land uses. Operation of the Koll Company Corporate Headquaners Page 3 -20 Inalal SYady and AMD Envtrunrrrental Anatysk proposed project site with a two -story office building, one level of subterranean parking, paved surface parking areas, and ornamental trees and landscaping would not create a significant hazard to employees or visitors of the site. Hazardous material deliveries or transport to and from nearby hazardous materials handlers would likely utilize Jamboree Road and other surrounding roadways. There is adequate capacity in the existing and planned street system to handle vehicle traffic volumes and no roadway hazards would be created which may lead to conflicts associated with these hazardous material transports. Thus, no significant adverse impacts on the proposed project are expected from these nearby land uses. ' Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of hazardous materials such as oil, gas, tar, and cleaning solvents. These hazardous materials could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination if not properly stored or used. In addition, transport of these hazardous materials to and from the site during construction activities would add hazards to the surrounding roadways and freeways. Compliance with existing hazardous material regulations would prevent undue hazards. This impact is expected to be less than significant since hazardous material use and ' disposal would be made in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed office building and ornamental trees and landscaping on the site could involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, paint, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. This usage mould be limited and is not expected to create human health hazards or public safety hazards. Thus, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use, .or disposal of hazardous materials. (Source: Site Survey City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach General Plan, and Project Plans) B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Activities associated with the proposed project construction may involve some hazardous materials use, such as paints, thinners, cleaning solvents, oil, grease, etc. Transport of these hazardous materials to and from the site during construction activities would add hazards to the surrounding roadways and freeways. The public and environment could be subject to release of hazardous materials into the environment through accidents that could occur as hazardous materials are en route to or from the proposed project site. Such accidents could include vehicle or rail accidents or mistakes made during handling of materials. Hazardous materials uses would be subject to Federal, State, and local regulations regarding the use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce the risk of such accidents. The regulations include established measures for proper storage, use, and disposal, and a risk management and prevention plan for accidents. Truck oil change, equipment maintenance, and other activities that may release hazardous materials during construction would be conducted in accordance with existing regulations, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to prevent soil and water contamination and accidents. Compliance with all applicable regulations would prevent spills and accident conditions that could release hazardous materials into the environment. Rulher, traffic safety signs and controls would be provided to create safe driving conditions and prevent vehicle accidents. Thus, hazardous material accidents are expected to be less than significant. (Source: Site Survey and Project Plans) Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -21 InUW Study and AM Envitonmental ' C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or. handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ' No Impact. The proposed project would not routinely utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. Construction activities associated with development of proposed project would involve the short-term use of hazardous materials for construction. The closest existing school to the proposed project site is Eastbluff Elementary located at 2627 Vista Del Oro in Newport Beach. This school is located approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the project site. This school site is at a far enough distance from the site that potential emissions from vehicle and stationary equipment during construction activities would not reach school students and faculty. In any event, construction of the proposed project would comply with existing hazardous material regulations to prevent undue hazards to school users. Thus, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with the emission or handling or hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Sources: Newport-Mesa Unified School District Site Survey, and Project Plans) D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites ' compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would It create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. According to EPA, the project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List) — the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed project site is also not listed on the U.S. EPA ' Envaofacts Toxics Release Inventory (Mo. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a risk to the public or the environment. As discussed above, the nearest hazardous material users are Conexant Systems, Inc. and Newport Fab LLC at 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road, respectively, approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the proposed project site. No impacts on these hazardous material users would occur with the proposed project. (Sources: EPA Envirofacty Database and Site Survey) ' E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result In ' a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south/southeast of John Wayne Airport QWA) and within the adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. Specifically, the proposed project site is within the Height Restriction Zone for JWA, which sets various height limits for structures within a 20,000 foot radius of JWA in order to avoid adverse affects to the airport. The proposed project penetrates the 100 to 1 slope for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the near point of the nearest runway of JWA described in FAA Part 77.13 — Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Thus, construction of the proposed project could result in potential safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area if compliance with the above-mentioned height requirements does not occur. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would ensure that potentially significant safety hazard impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. ' Kos Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -22 Initial Study and AMD Mitigation- Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building, the Project Applicant shall file Form 7460.1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Upon receiving the FAA determination, the project shall be submitted to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency. The project may be subject to additional conditions as required by the FAA and/or the ALUC in order to be found in compliance with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. (Solaces: Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Site Survey) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area? No Impact There are no private airstrips located immediately adjacent to or near the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people in the area to air traffic hazards, during or after construction. (Sources: Project Plans, Thomas Guidefor Los Angeler and Orange Counties, and Site Survey) G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact The site is not used for emergency evacuation. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, two major roadways near the site, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, are designated as a major evacuation routes. However, long -term operation of the proposed two -story office building would not affect evacuation along these surrounding roadways. Potential traffic congestion during construction along MacArthur Boulevard may impede emergency response, although this impact would be short -term in duration (maximum anticipated construction duration is 12 months) and would not be significant. Access to all areas located adjacent to the site would be available at all times, so as not to preclude fire protection and emergency services. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; impacts are considered less than significant. (Sources: Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, Project Plans, and Site Survey) FL Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death Involving will land fires, including where wfidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The proposed project site is currently improved as paved surface parking spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and other hardscape areas. The proposed development of the site includes construction of a two -story office building above one level of subterranean parking, and paved surface parking and landscaping areas. The proposed landscaping would use ornamental tree and groundcover /shrub species, which would be regularly irrigated. According to the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, the proposed project site is located in an area with a potential wildfire hazard of "Low/None ". Construction of the proposed project would not create a greater brush fire hazard than currently exists on the project site. Therefore, no risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires is anticipated from the proposed project. (Sources: Site Survey, proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, and project plaits) Kohl Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -23 Initial &udy and MM I 1 Envhvnmantal Analysts 1 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The majority of the County of Orange as well as the entire City of Newport Beach are located in the Santa Ana River Basin. The Santa Ana River system provides the primary drainage functions for the Santa Ana River Basin and is managed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The basin includes the upper and lower Santa Ana River watersheds, the San Jacinto River watershed, and several other small drainage areas. More specifically, the proposed project is located within Reach 1 of the Lower Santa Ana River watershed. Reach 1 extends from what is referred to as the Tidal Basin on the coast to 17th Street in the City of Santa Ana. There are no major surface water resources in the vicinity of the proposed project. According to the Santa Ana River Basin Plan, groundwater resources in the vicinity of the proposed project include Irvine Forebay I and Il and the Irvine Pressure sub - basins. According to the proposed General Plan ' Update, the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin underlies the proposed project site. However, shallow groundwater levels (i.e. less than 50 feet from the ground surface), including seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels, are not known to occur on the proposed project site. According to the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed project area is Iocated outside of designated flood hazard zones. In addition, according to the proposed General Plan Update, the nearest Special Flood Hazard Areas Inundated by a 100 -year flood are located over one mile to the east and south of the proposed project area adjacent to Newport Upper Bay and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, the Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, and USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan) I A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Newport Beach is located within Region 8 (the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]). The City of Newport Beach is a co- permittee with Orange County in the NPDES Program. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local regulations to protect water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project as described in.firther detail below. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project may have the potential to impact water quality. Construction, excavation, and site development activities would expose surface soils which may result in soil erosion and subsequent deposition of particles in drainage areas. These include loose soils and organic matter, demolition wastes and construction materials, construction equipment fluids, and cleaning and maintenance solvents. Additionally, the temporary use of hazardous materials in the form of paint, adhesives, surface coatings and other finishing materials may result in the subsequent deposition of these pollutants in drainage areas and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies. These are potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts caused by violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements to a level less than significant: Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City, the Project Applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) Koll Company Corpomw Ha dqr w*n Page 3 -24 1nitlal Study and AND EnAvrimental Analysts to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water runoff. Such best management practices (BMPs) include use of sandbags, gravel bags, check dams, silt fences, soil binders, erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, riprap pads, and practices that prevent debris and pollutants (loose soils, hazardous materials, oil, grease and sol vents, other construction materials) from entering the storm drain system. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the RWQCB. The proposed project would replace the existing paved surface parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape areas with a two -story office building above one level of subterranean parking and similar amounts of surface parking and landscaping areas. Thus, the proposed project would be largely covered with impervious surfaces and would generate strnmwater runoff. .Tire presence of pollutants associated with the proposed use of the site in the volume of runoff generated by the site could result in potentially significant impacts to local receiving waters. Mitigation Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts caused by violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements to a level less than significant: Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and design elements to ensure that stormwater runoff is minimized to the maximum extent possible and that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and Project Plans) B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing hard uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed two-story office building would lead to an increase in demand for water over the existing use of the site as paved surface parking spaces. However, the 21,311 GSF office building would house only approximately 50 employees, which would not create a substantial increase in demand for water in excess of the existing and planned supplies for the site. In addition, the amount of landscaped area, and thus the amount of water needed for landscaping, would not change substantially as a result of the proposed project. Water service and demand is discussed in Section 3.16, Utilities. There are no existing groundwater wells on the site and no wells are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site is not known to include shallow groundwater levels; thus, excavation and grading activities are not expected to occur at depths that would affect groundwater resources. The ' proposed project would not affect groundwater aquifers. Koil Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -25 lruaat &udy and MM Environmental Analysis The proposed development would not reduce groundwater recharge in the proposed project area. The majority of the site is currently almost entirely developed with impermeable surfaces in the form of paved surface parking spaces, ornamental landscaping, and other hardscape areas. Construction of the proposed office building and ornamental landscaping areas would result in similar amounts of impermeable surface on the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the amount of impermeable surfaces on -site over that which currently exists. The proposed development is not expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge in the area. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed office building would not alter the course of a stream or river, as no streams or rivers exist on the proposed project site. The project site is relatively flat and primarily covered with impervious surfaces in the form of paved surface parking spaces and hardscape areas surrounding an existing office building. 'Me proposed project would not substantially alter the amount of impervious surfaces or the existing drainage pattern on -site. Runoff from the site would be directed into curbs and gutters around the project site and eventually into the existing storm drain system. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Furthermore, long -term impacts caused by surface runoff from the parking lot and other impervious areas would be controlled per WQMP requirements. NPDFS permit and SWPPP requirements would properly control short-term erosion and siltation impacts during the construction phase of the project. The requirements of the WQMP, NPDES permit, and SWPPP are further discussed in Section 3.8A- Impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes a two -story office building, surface parking areas, and ornamental trees and landscaping on a site that is currently improved with paced surface parking spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and hardscape areas; the existing amount of impermeable surface on the project site would not be substantially altered. Thus, the rate and amount of surface runoff generated on- site would not be substantially increased as a result of the proposed project. Changes in drainage patterns would be minimal, internal to the site, and would not affect the regional hydrology or the drainage flows in ' the surrounding area. The runoff from the site is not expected to create flood hazards. No changes to flows within rivers, streams, or channels are expected. In addition, the proposed General Plan Update shows that the site is not currently in an area which is subject to flooding or flood hazards. Thus, the existing drainage pattem would not be substantially altered and the existing rate and amount of surface runoff would not be substantially increased in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. No adverse impacts associated with flooding on- or off- site are expected. ' (Sources: Site Survey, Proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, and Project Plans) ' Koll Cwgl Corporme Headquarters Page 3 -26 Initial Study and AND Environmental ' E. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed throughout this section, operation of the proposed office building would not substantially alter the amount of impervious surfaces on the proposed project site; thus, ' the amount of runoff water generated on -site and entering existing and planted stormwater drainage facilities would not be substantially increased by operation of the proposed project. Street sweeping of public streets is provided to remove and prevent debris from entering the storm drain system. The City I requires catch basin stenciling to discourage waste disposal into the storm drain system. Continued implementation of these city-wide programs would further reduce potential stormwater pollution from development. Furthermore, mandatory compliance with WQMP requirements regarding the implementation of on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment and other BMPs for urban stormwater pollutant prevention would ensure that substantial additional sources of polluted runoff are not generated on -site. Construction activities associated with development on the site could lead to pollutants entering the storm drainage facilities serving the project site. These may include demolition and construction debris, construction equipment fuels, oil and grease, construction materials and solvents, loose soils, organic waste ' materials, etc. Conveyance of these materials into the storm drain system would lead to pollutants which could degrade stormwater quality. Mandatory compliance with the NPDES permit and SWPPP for construction activities would ensure that the proposed project site neither contributes additional runoff nor substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to existing and planned storm drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with this would be less than significant. I(Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Newport Beach General Plan) F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to adversely change the existing hydrology of the site or lead to significant adverse impacts on groundwater or surface water resources. As stated elsewhere in Section 3.8, the proposed project would comply with the NPDES General. Permit for Construction Activity and implement a SWPPP for construction activities. The proposed project would also comply with the WQMP requirements regarding the implementation of on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment and other BMPs for urban stormwater pollutant prevention. The proposed 1 project's potential to impact water quality is discussed throughout this section, and the proposed project is not expected to substantially degrade water quality. ' (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, and project Plans) G. Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of a Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. According to the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed project site is not within a 100 - year flood hazard area or in an area which is subject to flooding or flood hazards. Furthermore, the project proposes an office building and does not include housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of a Flood ' Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No adverse impacts associated with flooding are expected. I Koll Company Corporate Headquarten Page 3 -27 initial Shady and MND Environmental (Sources: Site Survey, FEAM, Project Plans and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) H Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or ' redirect flood flows? No Impact. The site is not located within the 100 -year or 500 year floodplain, as defined in FEMA's Flood ' Insurance Rate Map (FMW. Thus, the proposed project would not place structures within a 100 -year or 500 -year floodplain. The proposed project development would not affect flows within 100 year flood hazard areas. No impacts are expected. I(Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) L Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving floodhig, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee o r dam? No Impact. The proposed project area is not locked downstream of a dam or levee that may lead to inundation hazards. Therefore, employees and visitors of the proposed project site would not be at risk of significant loss, injury, or death involving flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or as a result of the proposed project. i(Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, and Project Plans) ' L Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is subject to low - probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis, storm surges, and seismically- induced inundation. However, the proposed project site would not locate property or persons in close enough proximity to the Pacific Ocean, or at a low enough elevation, to be impacted by such events. Furthermore, no existing or planned above -ground water tanks are located m the ' City. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with proposed project implementation. (Sources: Site Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element) ' K Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 E above, the proposed project has the potential for generating polluted stormwater. However, as discussed above, compliance with the NPDES General 1 Permit for Construction Activity, implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities, and compliance with NPDES requirements for on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the proposed project. L. Would the project result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading Idocks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the use, storage or handling of any hazardous ' materials or vehicle fueling or maintenance areas. No delivery areas would be necessary with the development of the proposed project. As such, no impact would result from the operation of the proposed project. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-28 Initial Study and WD i II II I I I 11 I I ErMtontnental Analysts As discussed above, construction activities could result in the potential for stormwater pollutants. However, compliance with construction related permits ( NPDES) and required prevention plans (SWPPP) would ensure that no significant impacts would result. M. Would the project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact. Compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Construction activities, preparation of a SWPPP as well as compliance with WQMP requirements for on -site stormwater pollution mitigation and treatment would ensure that stormwater discharge created by the proposed project would not affect the beneficial uses of any receiving bodies of water and that less than significant impacts would result from development of the proposed project. N. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 D above, the proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage patterns of the site (including velocity and volume of stormwater runoff). The site is currently relatively flat and will remain relatively level upon completion of the proposed project construction. Thus, the flow velocity of stormwater runoff would not change substantially as a result of the proposed project. The existing site is currently developed with paved surface parldng spaces, ornamental trees and landscaping, and hardscape areas; the site is primarily covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed project would similarly cover the majority of the site with impervious surfaces and, therefore, the volume of stormwater runoff generated on -site would not be substantially altered. Runoff from the site would continue to be conveyed along curbs and gutters, and directed into the existing storm drain in MacArthur Boulevard. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and would not affect the regional hydrology or the drainage flows in the surrounding area. No significant changes to flows or velocity are anticipated with proposed project development and, therefore, no significant impacts would result. O. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3.8 C above, the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly alter the drainage pattern of the site and would therefore, not create a significant increase in the erosion rates of the site or surrounding area Runoff from the site would be directed into curbs and gutters and into the storm drain system along MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING I Development within the City of Newport Beach varies and includes lower density single - family residential areas, as well as more intensely developed beachfront residential areas. Commercial areas within the City range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial and visitor commercial arras. The existing General Plan identifies groupings of small communities or "villages" within Newport Beach. Additionally, the Land Use Plan is divided into "Statistical Areas" (Statistical Division A through N) which L Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -29 Initial Study and AND I �I I 1 1 Em4mnmenW specify the permitted uses and building intensity for each division. Many of the newer developments within the City are based on a "planned community" concept. Existing General Plan As shown in FYgure 3-1, Land Use Policy Map, the proposed project site is located in the Airport Area (Statistical Area IA) of the Land Use Element and as a land use designation of Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) in the Newport Beach General Plan. The Airport Area includes a breakdown of various uses allowed within the area The proposed project site is identified as subheading 1 -1 KCNQfi'ce Site A. The existing General Plan indicates that a total 436,079 square feet of Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) uses are allowed within KCN OS A and 471 hotel rooms. Proposed General Plan The City is in the process of updating its General Plan. Within the proposed General Plan Update (GPU), the site is still identified as Statistical Area IA. The land use designation within the GPU for the proposed project site is Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2). This designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that includes regional commercial office, multi -himly residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel roams and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Zoning for the site would still be governed by the Planted Community text for the area (see below). Koll Center Newport Planned Community TIbe proposed project is located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (KCN PC). The City has adopted Planned Community District Regulations (PC -14 Koll Center) that establish development standards and use regulations to implement the General Plan. As shown in Vgure 3-2, Planned Commnnkty Map, this planned community area is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Blvd Areas within the Planned Community text are broken down still firrther into what are referred to as office site areas (KCN Office Site A -G) as well as two industrial areas, a courthouse, and a retail service site. The proposed project is located within KCN Office Site A of the KCN PC. This area includes Adtrdnistrative, Professional, Financial Commercial (APF) uses. The proposed project site is currently improved as a paved surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping and trees, and hardscape area surrounding the existing 9-story office building. Existing land uses near the site include Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF), as well as Retail and Service Commercial (RSC), General Industry (IND), and Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). Nearby uses include the existing 10 -story Fairmont Hotel directly to the northeast and east, the approximately 7 -10 story Radisson Hotel across MacArthur Boulevard to the northwest, paved surface parking lots to the north and south, and an existing nine -story office building and panting structure to the southeast. South of the proposed project site at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Von Korman Avenue/Newport Place Drive is the Pacific Club, a private members only club with dining and athletic facilities. The proposed project is located approximately 0.5 miles south/southwest of John Wayne Airport (JWA). In addition, the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA and subject to all applicable policies and requirements thereof. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Site Plans, Aerial Photograph, Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) forJWA, and Site Survey) Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -30 Initial Study and MND r sv c a Iort Place DI ML11 Planned Community 15 - Koll Center Newport Figure 3 -1 Land Use Policy Map The Koll Company Headquarters September 2006 Koff Center Newport RSC - Retail & Service Commercial 'rte 7 : ' APF - Administrative,Pmfessional, Q'a. at & Financial Commercial - Govemnent, Educational, & Institutional Facilities 1O IND - General Industry Figure 3 -1 Land Use Policy Map The Koll Company Headquarters September 2006 Koff Center Newport I I �* ®. i Planned Community 15 - Koll Center Newport � GSOr, " dh ore l' a 1< CL 0 0 m w c m /f .I�_ Newport Place Di r� The Koll Company Headquarters Koll Center Newport �q' 0 PC- 15 - Koll Center APF -Administrative, Professional, I & Financial Commercial Illl Planned Figure 3 -2 September 2" I I I I lJ' I I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I I Envfrwrmertfa! Anatya A. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project site would encompasses an area of approximately 64,897 square feet located along MacArthur Boulevard within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community currently developed as a surface parking lot with associated landscaping. The proposed project involves development of an approximately 21,311 square foot commercial stricture above one underground level of parking. No residential uses are located within or immediately surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project would not extend into or through any residential development. Additionally, the other surrounding land uses, including administrative, professional, financial commercial, and hotel uses would not be affected or divided by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community. (Sources: NeMvrt Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Site Survey) B. Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve a general plan amendment, an amendment to the Planned Community text as well as a Use Permit. Each of these areas are discussed in further detail below. Existing General Plan The current General Plan land use designation on the proposed project site is - Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF). No change in land use designation is proposed by the project. The General Plan Amendment is required to amend the estimated growth for Statistical Area L4 to allow for an additional 24,016 square feet of development within this area. The additional square footage would be transferred from one portion of the Airport Area to the other (KCN Office Site B to KCN Office Site A). The transfer would add to the existing total within KCN Office Site A to 834,201 and reduce the square footage within KCN Office Site B to 1,060,146. The additional square footage proposed by the project would not represent net new square footage within the Airport Area, rather, square footage would be moved within this area. The General Plan identifies policies that are intended to provide for an orderly balance of development within the City. Several of the policies apply to the proposed project. A discussion of the policy as well as the proposed project's conformance to that policy is discussed below. Policy D discusses the control and regulation of new development to insure that public views, natural resources, and the alteration of natural landforms are minimized. As discussed in the Aesthetics section of this document, the proposed project is not located within an area identified as having public views. The proposed site and surrounding area is devoid of natural resources, including biological resources. Lastly, the site has been previously developed as a surface parking lot, no unique natural liniforms exist on the proposed site. The proposed project would conform to the requirements of this policy. Policy F discusses standards for development including landscaping, siting and building design, parking, and other development standards to ensure that the commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is designed to be compatible with the existing uses surrounding the site and would utilize similar materials including glass and stone or stone -like fascia. Additionally, the project proposes a landscaping palette that would match the existing landscaping in and around the site. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -33 Initial Study and MD I ' EnWrow nentalAnalysis The proposed project's increase of square footage within the Airport Area would not result in a conflict with the General Plan The increase of square footage would result from a transfer of available square footage from one area of the Airport Area to another and would not represent an increase of square footage over what is allowed in the General Plan. As such, the net result of the project would only slightly after the distribution of allowed square footage but would not result in new square footage that could result in higher population, housing, or work force projections that could lead to increased traffic trips, decreased air quality ' or a larger need for public services. Additionally, the proposed project would conform to the two land use policies discussed above and would not conflict with or serve.to restrict the other land use policies found in the General Plan. A less than significant impact to the General Plan would result with implementation of the proposed project. Proposed General Plan i As discussed above, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan The land use designation within the GPU for the proposed project site is Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -112). This designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that includes regional commercial office, multi - family residential, vertical I mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The uses proposed by the project would be compatible with the land use designation of the GPU. 1 Similar to the existing General Plan, the GPU provides Goals and Policies that are intended to provide for an orderly balance of development within the City. Several of the goals and policies apply to the proposed project. A discussion of the policy as well as the proposed project's conformance to that policy are discussed below. Policy LU 43 discusses when the transfer of development rights would be acceptable. Generally, the policy seeks to ensure that the transfer of development rights is only between two areas within the same statistical area; that the reduction of development rights from the donor site benefits the City through the improvement of the area's scale and development character and/or reduction of vehicle trips and; the increment of growth to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development and 1 does not degrade local traffic conditions. As proposed, the project would not be in conflict with this policy. The proposed transfer of development rights would occur completely within the Airport Statistical area, the reduction of allowed development within the donor site would serve to reduce traffic trips (general office 1 uses generate less trips than do restaurant or retail uses (Refer to the Transportation/Circulation discussion below) and, the receiver site would utilize an architectural style compatible with existing development in the area to ensue compatibility and, as discussed in the Ttansportation/Circulation discussion, would not Iresult in any impacts to the local circulation system Goal 5.2 and Policy LU 5.2.1 discuss commercial areas within the City and the desire to ensure that these areas are well designed and planned and exhibit a high level of architecture and landscape quality including connection and transitions of buildings, architectural treatment, and on -site landscaping. As discussed above the proposed project would meet the intent of this goal and policy through it's architectural design and landscaping palette. Policy LU 53.6 address parking adequacy and the location of parking. The policy seeks to provide convenient parking while limiting the views of lots. As proposed, the project would adhere to this policy. ' Parking would be provided in a combination of surface and below -grade lots immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. Additionally, views of the parking lot would be minimized through the placement of parking underground and through the placement of the structure nearest the sidewalk that would serve to 1 shield views. In its existing state, the parking lot is visible from the street with only minimal landscaping disrupting the view. Koll Company Corporate Hwdvartm Page 3 -34 Inaud Sft* and MND Environmental Ana"s Koll Center Newport Planned Community As mentioned above, the proposed project is located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community ' (KCN PC). The Planned Community text serves as the zoning for the area which it covers. The text identifies the type and intensity of development permitted and also address parking, building size, landscaping, and traffic considerations among other things. The proposed project requires and amendment to the KCN PC text to allow for the transfer of development rights between two areas within the PC. The 1 amendment would be to transfer development rights of 24,016 square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office uses from KCN OS B to KCN OS A. This transfer would occur entirely within the KCN PC and would not result in square footages in excess of what is allowed within this area. The addition of 24,016 square feet of allowable development would be transferred from the allowed development within the KCN PC from KCN OS B to KCN OS A. The proposed Planned Community Amendment would result in a net gain of 24,016 sq. feet within KCN OS A with a net reduction of the same square footage within KCN OS B. However, the proposed project would not utilize the entire 24,016 square feet; only 21,311 square feet would be used by the proposed project. A less than significant impact to the zoning code is anticipated with development of the proposed project. ' Use Permit 1 In order to transfer the necessary square footages between KCN OS B and KCN OS A, a use permit would be required from the City of Newport Beach, per Section 20.63.080 Transfer of Development Intensity of the City's Zoning Code. Per this section of the Zoning Code, findings must be made in order to approve the Use Permit. Generally speaking, the required findings include: a more efficient use of land, result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area, results in structures that are compatible and do not result in abrupt changes in scale within the area, no impairment of public views result, and no significant traffic impacts result. As discussed throughout this document and within this section, the proposed project would conform to the required findings and would not result in significant impacts. Specifically the project would make efficient use of the available land; would include appropriate architecture, massing and scale so as to retain the aesthetics of the area and ensure compatibility with the existing development in the area; would not interfere with public views as none exist on or adjacent to the site and; would not result in traffic impacts on the local circulation system (refer to the Transportation /Circulation discussion below). Setback requirements for the proposed project area are governed by the Planned Community text for the area. When the PC text is silent on a subject, then deference is made to the City's Municipal Code. Section 20.15.030- Commercial Districts: Property Development Regulations is the appropriate section of the City's Code that is applicable to the proposed project site. The requirements for the site are outlined in Table 34, Project Setback Requirements, below. TABLE 3 -4 PROJECT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Administrative, Office, Financial 30 na na Commercial Koll Company Headquarters Office/Commercial 30 +48 Na Source: City of N ort Beach Municipal Code and Koll Company Head artery Site Plan Based on these requirements, the proposed project would meet the required setbacks for the site. As such, no impact would result. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -35 Initial Study and MND I lEnvironmental Analysis iFurthermore, the proposed project is within the boundaries of the AELUP for .TWA and is subject to all applicable policies and regulations thereof, and specifically, those addressing safety hazards through height restrictions and excessive noise through attenuation measures. The consistency of the proposed project with these policies are discussed in Section 3.7E and 3.11 E, respectively. Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed project would not conflict with the City's General Plan, Zoning Code (PC Text) or any other land use plan or policy governing the site While the proposed project would introduce new square footage to KCN OS A where it previously did not exist, the addition would result from a reduction of developable square footage within KCN OS B and would not result in new square footage within the KCN PC. As such, no significant impact to land use plans is anticipated with development of the proposed project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Newport Beach City Zoning Code) C. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural Icommunity conservation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources above, the County of Orange has prepared the Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP. However, the proposed project site is not included within the boundaries of this plan and would, therefore, not conflict with this plan. No impacts to a habitat conservation plan of natural community conservation plan would occur. (Sources: Site Sw w7 and Newport Beach General Plan, Central Coastal Orange CountyNCCP) 3.10 MINERAL. RESOURCES According to the Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport General Plan, oil deposits represent the only significant extractable mineral resources in the Newport Beach planning area Oil companies are currently operating oil extraction wells in the unincorporated "County Island ", located in the West Newport area. Since the State Shell- Cunningham Act of 1955 prohibits oil extraction on all State tide and submerged lands from the northerly City limits of Newport Beach to the Mexican Border, the County Island is the only location in the area where oil extraction activities are allowed. There are no mining activities within the City or on the proposed project site. No oil fields or oil wells are present in or near the proposed project area and the proposed project site and adjacent areas are not subject to oil, gas, or I mining operations. (Sources: Newport Beach Genera l Plan, MS Santa Ana Quadrangle and Sue Survey) A. Would the project result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? I No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in an area where ]mown mineral resources are present. Future development on the site would not affect regionally significant mineral resources since there are no ]mown resources on the site. The proposed project site is also not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a mineral resource area. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan and USGSLaguna Beach Quadrangle) B. Would the project 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? Koll Company Coryorate Headquarters Page 3 -36 Initial Study and MND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Environmental Analysts No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. There are no locally important mineral resources on the site, therefore there would not be a loss of availability of minend resources in the area. Approximately 4,500 cubic yards of dirt would be hauled from the site. The sand, gravel, and other construction materials that would be needed for construction of the proposed project are not expected to represent a significant amount of local resources, when compared to available resources and the cumulative demand for these resources by construction activities in the region. Thus, the demand for sand and gravel resources, as needed for construction, would be considered less than significant. (Sources: USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, SYte Survey and Newport Beach General Plan) 3.11 NOISE The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan states that the main source of noise within the City is from transportation, which includes noise from traffic on freeways and roadways, water vehicles in the bay area, and aircraft flights from John Wayne Airport in the City of Santa Ana and the Los Alamitos Army Airfield in the City of Los Alamitos. Other non - transportation noise sources within the City consist of stationary sources such as bar/restaurant noise, recreational facilities and residential and other common sources in urban environments. The proposed project site is located adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard. Nearby uses include John Wayne Airport, commercial/office developments, and a hotel. Noise sources in the proposed project area generally consist of air traffic noise from John Wayne Airport, vehicular traffic noise along MacArthur Boulevard, landscape maintenance, exterior mechanical equipment, and on -site vehicular traffic. The Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan specifically addresses noise sensitive land uses such as schools, churches, libraries and residential land uses. According to the noise standards given in the General Plan, exterior noise levels near sensitive land uses and residential areas should be 65 CNEL or less and interior noise levels 45 CNEL or less (see Table 3-5, City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, below). Otherwise, noise control treasures need to be incorporated into the design and construction of these uses. However, no noise sensitive land rises exist within the project area. As shown in Table 3-5, office uses must meet an interior noise level of 50 CNEL. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance, Section 1018.040 of the City's Municipal Code, which limits construction or demolition work to be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 am. and 6.00 p.m. Construction activities are not permitted on Sundays and holidays within the City. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Noise Ordinance and Newport Beach General Plan) I Koll Company Corporwe Headquarters Page 3 -37 tnaial &udy and MND I I I I I I Environmental TABLE 3 -5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS WOE Ii t Catelaorles Uses Interior Exterior Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family 45J 55 4 65 Mobile Home -- 65 Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 65 Industrial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 Institutional Office Building, Research and Development, 50 — Professional Offices, City Office Building Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium, 45 -- Meeting Hall Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 — Sports Club 55 - -- Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, 65 — Utilities Movie Theaters 45 — Institutional Hospital, Schools' Classroom 45 65 Church, Library 45 Open S ace Parks — 65 Internet u 1. Indoor environment excluding: Bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2. Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single family, multi- family private patio or balcony which is served by a mans of exit from inside, mobile how park, hospital patio, park's picnic area, school's playground, hotel and motel recreation area. 3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other mans of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, section 1205 of UBC 4. Noise level requirements with open windows, if they are used to met natural ventilation requirement. 5. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL. 6. Except those areas around the airport within the 65 CNEL contour. source: City of Newport Beach A. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with M1tlgation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short- term construction-related noise increases. Additionally, long -term increased noise levels could result from the introduction of office uses and associated vehicle traffic along the adjacent roadways. Construction Noise I During construction, temporary noise impacts would occur from grading, equipment operations, and other construction activities. Temporary construction noise impacts would vary in noise level according to the type of construction equipment and its activity level. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Typical operating cycles may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at a lower power. Construction noise would occur on a short-term and temporary basis during the construction phase. iJ In compliance with the City's noise ordinance, the proposed project would follow the mitigation measure discussed below to reduce potential construction noise impacts. Thus, noise from the construction activities on the site would be confined to the daytime hours, when noise sensitivity is less. Koff Company Corporate Headquaners Page 3 -38 Initial Study and MND I IEnvhonmardal Anab%* tMitigation The following measure is recommended to reduce construction noise impacts: ' Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 am. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 p.m. ' Traic Noise The proposed project would lead to a slight increase in vehicle traffic noise sources at the subject site and along surrounding roadways. The increase in vehicles to sod from the site is not eked to lead to a significant. increase in the noise levels in the proposed project area. ' A change in the noise environment that differs by less than 3.0 dB between the existing and post- project exposure may not be distinguished by many people. Exceeding a 3.O-dB threshold from automobile traffic typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes on any individual roadway link. Few projects in already ' developed areas cause traffic volumes to double. As previously stated, MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial Roadway. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Element, Major Arterial Roadways have a capacity to carry approximately 45,000 to 67,000 average daily t trips (ADT). Assuming the existing number of ADT on MacArthur Boulevard is approximately one half its designated capacity (23,000 trips), the proposed project would have to generate 23,000 trips to double ADT on the roadway, which in loin would cause a noise increase in excess of 3.0 -dB. Based on the City's ' Traffic Generation rate for commercial/office land uses (14.03 ADT 11000 square feet), the proposed project would add approximately 299 daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the trips generated by the proposed project would not be sufficient to increase traffic noise levels by more than 3.0 -dB. Thus, the proposed project's traffic related noise impacts are considered less than significant. ' Stationary Norse The proposed project includes the development of 21,311 square feet of office space. Although there is no standard for exterior noise on an office building, associated office activities would not generate noise levels that would exceed 65 dBA in CNEL. There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of proposed project ' site, and no significant adverse noise impacts would occur with the proposed project. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code and Project Plans) ' B. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ' Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Temporary noise sources would be generated as a result of the construction activities for the office development. Temporary construction activities would create noises from construction equipment and vibration from excavation and grading activities. Temporary construction noise ' impacts would vary in noise level according to the type of construction equipment and its activity level. Short- term construction noise impacts tend to occur in separate phases, with large, earth moving equipment generating greater noise and finish construction activities and equipment generating less noise. Noise levels ' from construction equipment range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. As discussed above, construction activities would have to comply with the construction time limits (7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday) set by the City's Noise Ordinance. In order to further ensure that potential noise impacts are below a level of significance, the following mitigation measures are recommended. ' Koff Cbmpany Corporate Headquarters Page 3-39 InMd Study and M M I iEnOonmental Analysts Mitigation ' Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. ' Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce potential noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors to less than significant levels. (Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, Newport Beach Municipal Code) C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent Increase In ambient noise level's in the ' project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Increased long -term noise levels would result from the proposed development and resulting traffic volumes along the adjacent roadways. During construction, noise impacts would occur from grading, equipment operations, and other construction t activities. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Typical operating, cycles may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at a lower power. Construction noise would occur on a short-term and temporary basis, when development is under construction. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1, construction activities would be confined to the designated daytime hours, 7 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, and would comply with the noise regulations of the City of Newport Beach. Thus, noise from the construction activities on the site would be confined to the daytime hours, when noise sensitivity is less. Inclusion of this mitigation measure would be reduced to less than significant levels. ' Buildout of the proposed project site would add approximately 50 eruployees who would perceive noise at the site. Future traffic volume increases along adjacent roadways would result in higher noise levels at the proposed project site and in the adjacent area. However, the proposed project is not expected to generate 1 1 1 significant noise increases ( +3.0 dB) from increased traffic volumes. No sensitive receptors exist near the proposed project site and no land uses would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City's standards. ( Sources: Sire Survey; Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) D. Would the project result In a substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Leas than Significant Impact. The proposed office development would lead to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Sources of noise introduced by the proposed project are limited to vehicles along the surrounding roadways. Stationary noise generated by on -site office activities would be intermittent and are not expected to exceed the noise thresholds established by the City of Newport Beach Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity. "compmry Corporate HM4vart rs Page 3-40 Inaial Study and AND 1 Environmental Noise impacts associated with constriction activities at the proposed project site could result in adverse impacts to adjacent land uses, as discussed above. Compliance with existing noise regulations of the City of Newport Beach and the mitigation measures outlined above would ensure that construction noise impacts would not be significant. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach Municipal Code, and Site Survey) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or worldug in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project. is located within the Airport influence Area for the John Wayne Airport in the City of Santa Ana. The project is approximately' /a-mile southeast of the Airport property boundary line. Within this zone, the height of project is restricted to 200 feet or less to ensure the safety of air traffic and ground structures. Because the project is proposed to be 40 feet in height, it will not conflict with design regulations mandated by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The proposed project lies within the 60 dBA in CNEL, but outside of the 65 dBA in CNEL, contours generated from airport traffic. With standard building design guidelines, the proposed project will keep interior noise levels generated from air traffic at a level that is less than significant. Furthermore, as the project will not affect aircraft or airport operations, there will be no increase in the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with these sources. Sources: Site Survey, Airport Land Use Commission, and Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact There are no private airports, which generate aircraft noise, located within the vicinity of the proposed project site. The nearest private airport is the Los Alamitos Army Airfield in the City of Los Alamitos (approximately 15 miles to the northwest). The noise contours of the Los Alamitos Army Airfield do not extend into the City or the proposed project site. The proposed project would not lead to or increase the exposure of people in the area to noise levels associated with aircraft and airport operations (Sources: Site Survey and Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties) 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING The City of Newport Beach had a January 2006 population of approximately 83,400 residents. The City's population growth can be attributed to a trend of multi- family residential development„ which has added housing stock and residents to the City. The California Department of Finance population estimates for the County of Orange and the City ofNewport Beach are provided in Table 3-6, Population Growth. TABLE 3-6 POPULATION GROWTH Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-41 Initial Study and MND Environmental Analysis Housing Coupled with the population growth of the City is the increase in its housing stock From 1990 to 2000, the City's housing stock increased from 30,860 units to a total of 37,288 units, a 171 percent increase from 1990. The City's 2004 housing stock is estimated at 41,851 units, and the vacancy rate is approximately 11.1 percent. Projections SCAG has developed regional projections for growth by city in the region. These projections are provided in Table 3-7, Regional Projections. As shown, the City of Newport Beach is expected to have 92,365 residents, 41,345 housing units, and 77,698 jobs by the year 2020. TABLE 3 -7 REGIONAL PROTECTIONS 1" 2005 t 82,800 B 37,015 r. 72,684 3,047,100 978,423 1,580,855 2010 89,527 39,443 1 75,386 3,291,628 1,034,027 1,749,985 2015 91,147 40 ,195 6 76,588 3,369,745 1,046,473 1,801,602 2020 92,365 41,34 77,698 3,433,609 1,063,976 1,848,135 Source: SCAQ (Sources: U. S. Census, SCAG, Californ ia Department of Finance Estimates and Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element) A. Would the project 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 than Significant Impact. The project proposes a two -story office development and will serve as a corporate headquarters employing approximately 50 persons. Employees are currently working in Newport Beach, therefore no immediate local or regional growth in population or employment will occur. No major infrastructure is needed to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the population growth resulting from the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant impact. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, California Department of Finance and Site Survey) ' B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ' No Impact The proposed project would not result in the displacement of any existing housing. The proposed two -story office development, subterranean parking areas, and surface parking and landscaping ' will replace an existing on -site surface parking area. No housing units or other building structures presently occur on the site. Therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur with proposed project implementation. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Survey) C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ' replacement housing elsewhere? Koll Company Corporate Headquarters - Page 3-42 Initial Study and MND r., �I i EnNronmerdsl Analysts No Impact, The proposed project would not result in the displacement of people. Existing on -site development includes a surface parking area and no developed structures. No households are currently present on the site, and no persons would be displaced by the proposed project. ' (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Survey) 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Fire protection services in the City of Newport Beach are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The nearest fire station to the proposed poject area is Fire Station 7, located at 2301 Zenith Avenue, or approximately 1.2 miles south of the proposed project location. Newport Beach currently has eight fire stations staffed with 110 firefighters and paramedics, with three paramedic ambulances, eight fire engines and 2 ladder trucks. Response time in the City average approximately five minutes or less. The Newport Beach Police Department provides Law enforcement services for the City of Newport Beach. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Santa Barbara Drive and Jamboree Road, approximately 3.3 miles south of the proposed project site. The Newport Beach Police Department currently has 280 full -time employees, of which 150 are full -time police officers; however this number fluctuates regularly (148 officers are budgeted). The City has adopted a ' service standard of two sworn police officers per thousand residents. Emergency response times in the City. average approximately five minutes from the time the call is placed. The proposed project area is located within the service boundaries of the Newport Mesa Unified School District The District covers 58.83 square miles and includes the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa as well as other unincorporated areas. The Newport-Mesa Unified School District currently serves 22,477 students and has twenty-two elementary schools, two intermediate schools, four high schools (one of these high schools includes middle school grades), one alternative education center, and one adult education center within the City ofNewport Beach. ' Library service is provided by the Newport Beach Public Library system. The Newport Beach Public Library system consists of four libraries in the City of Newport Beach which include the Central Library, the Balboa Branch, the Mariners Branch and the Corona del Mar Branch. The Central Library is nearest to 1 the proposed project and is located at 1000 Avocado Avenue, approximately 4.5 miles south of the proposed project site. (Sources: Newport -Mesa Unified School District Newport Beach Fire Department, Newport Beach Police Department Mte Survey, Thomas Guide for Las Angeles and Orange Counties, and Newport Beach General Plan). A. would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of fire protection? Less than Significant Impact The 2 -story office development on the proposed project site would result in increases in the on -site employment population and the introduction of new structures in the area, generating a demand for fire protection services. However, the increase in population would not be substantial (approximately 50 employees) and would not require the expansion of fire protection services. The site is located in an area that is currently served.by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department and the ' Koll Company CorpmWe Hwdgemrtm Page 3-43 Inakd Study and AMD Ent4ronmental Analysis addition of a 2-story office building would not cause service levels or response times to decrease to unacceptable levels. The proposed project's impacts to fire service would be less than significant. Building and site plan review of the proposed project plans would he conducted by the NBFD in order to review the proposed project's compliance with fire safety and emergency access standards. The Fire Department would also identify additional development features, which could reduce demand for fire services, prevent the creation of fire hazards, and facilitate emergency response to the proposed project site. These would include provision of adequate fire access, fire lanes, fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, adequate fire flows at nearby fire hydrants, and construction of structures to withstand Eras, etc. Compliance with building standards relating to fire prevention, emergency access, fire safety, and emergency response standards would prevent any adverse impacts on fire protection services from the proposed developments on the site. (Sources: Site Survey and Project Plmis) B.. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of pollee protection? Less than Significant Impact. The 2-story office development on the proposed project site would result in increases in the on -site population, structures, and vehicle trips in the area, generating a demand for law enforcement and police protection services. The projected increase of 299 daily vehicle trips would reach in greater potential for vehicular accidents and the resulting demand for police services. Future employees and users would create a demand for police services, associated with the incidence of property crimes and personal crimes on the site. The need for police protection would be dependent on complex variables such as presence of crime elements, attraction of development to criminals, security measures, perceived public safety, service demand in other areas of the City, and other factors. The Newport Beach Police Department currently has a ratio of 2 sworn personnel per thousand population. The 50 persons expected with the office building on the site would create a demand for 0.1 police personnel in the City. Therefore the proposed project would not require an increase m police officers to serve the area. Because the proposed project location is on a site currently developed and fully served by police protection services, the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on police protection services. (Sources: Newport Beach Police Department, City ofNewport Beach, Site Survey and Project Plans) C. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of school services? No Impact. The proposed project does not provide permanent housing and would therefore not require an increase in the provision of school services. No new school would be required if the project were approved, because no increase in population or school -age children would occur. No impact to school services is expected with proposed project implementation. (Sources: Project Plans, Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach General Plan) ' KoU Company CaTorwe Hw4wrW7 Page 3-44 InUWl &&* and MND I ' Environmental D. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental ' impacts, to order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response tines or other performance. objectives to terms of parks? No Impact. The proposed project does not provide permanent housing and would therefore not require an increase in the provision of parks and recreation services. No new park or community facilities would be required if the project were approved, because no increase in population would occur. Because the proposed users of the building are currently employed elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach, there would be no net increase to the employment population of the City and therefore no significant adverse impacts on existing and fistu a parks and recreational f tailities are expected in compliance with City regulations for park provision and payment of park development fees. ' (Sources: Project Plans, Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach General Plan) E. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of other public facilities? Leas than Significant Impact. Development on the proposed project site would result in increases in the on- site population creating a demand for medical and emergency services. Hoag Memorial Hospital is located approximately 4.3 miles west of the proposed project site and could serve the emergency medical needs of the Proposed development on -site. Additionally, there are other medical services and hospitals in the area to serve the medical needs of the on -site population. Since medical services are generally provided based on demand, no adverse impacts on medical services are expected. iThe proposed office development would not result in an increase in a demand for library services. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach Public Library, Newport Beach General Plan, and Site Suvey) ' 3.14 RECREATION The City of Newport Beach provides recreational services through beach and harbor facilities, city parks, ' trails, sports facilities, community pool facilities, recreational programs, and organized activities. In 1998, the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designated a total of 219 acres, of parks and recreational facilities within the City, which includes numerous park facilities, select beach/coastal areas, community centers, sports fields and gymnasiums. In addition, approximately 4,553 acres (35.7 percent of the City) are designated open space within the City including the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, beaches, the bay/harbor, canyons and bluff areas (plus an undetermined area of ocean water open space). The nearest parks to the proposed project site are Bonita Creek Park and Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed project site. Several country clubs and golf courses are within a 5 -mile radius though are privately owned and are not regulated by the City of Newport Beach. ' (Sources: Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and NaWort Beach General Plan) ' KoUCbmmmygaleHeadquarters AW3-45 Initial Study and MND Environmental 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? No Impact. The office development would not have a direct demand for parks or recreational facilities. The users may or may not use beach and harbor facilities, parks and recreational facilities in nearby areas; that the proposed employees are currently employed in Newport Beach would suggest that a net demand on local parks and recreational facilities will not change. No significant adverse impacts on existing and fudge parks and recreational facilities are expected with compliance with City regulations for park provision and payment of park development fees. ' As previously discussed, the Newport Beach General Plan establishes a parkland ratio of five acres per thousand residents. Based on the 5-acre standard, the City's has adopted a regulation for payment of a fee or dedication of land for park and recreation facilities in accordance with the Quimby Act. The proposed project does not provide for any open space, however because the existing conditions are a surface parking lot, there is no net loss of open space. Because the proposed project does not include permanent housing, it is not subject to any requirement of the provision of open space or any payment of park development fees. (Sources: Site Survey, City of Newport Beach Recreation and Senior Services Department and Newport Beach General Plan) B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not provide open space nor recreational areas, though with no increased demand as previously discussed, there is no requirement for the provision of recreational facilities. There will be no adverse physical effect on the environment due to recreational facility construction. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan) 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAMC The proposed project site is laded along the eastern side of MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Strect and Van Kerman Avenue. MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Circulation Element, that provides six travel lanes near the proposed project site (three north and three south) and access to the project site via an on -site driveway across from Corinthian Way. Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue are currently designated as Secondary and Primary Roads, respectively, in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Circulation Element. Both streets provides four travel lanes in the proposed project vicinity. There is no signal at the access point to the proposed project site off MacArthur Boulevard, there is, however, a dedicated left turn lane for southbound traffic. Right turns are permitted onto the site far northbound traffic, however, there is no dedicated turn lane. ' The City of Newport Beach relies on its Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) (Section 15.40 of the Municipal Code) to account for anticipated traffic generation by projects and to determine whether proposed projects require a traffic impact analysis. The TPO states that projects that generate less than 300 trips per day are exempt from the preparation of a traffic impact analysis. Based on the City's traffic analysis model the proposed project would generate 299 trips per day and would, therefore, be exempt from the preparation of a traffic impact analysis. (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan Update Circulation Element and Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Kola Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-46 Inind Study and MND I Ell A. Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (1.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Las than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the number of vehicle trips to and from the proposed project site. Using the City's generation rate for General Office uses of 14.03 trips per thousand square feet of development, the proposed project would generate 299 trips (14.03 x 21,311 sq. R). This *minimal number of project - generated trips is under the City's threshold of trips (300 ADT) requiring a project - specific traffic study (Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Study). The ' City maintains that projects that generate fewer than 300 trips would have a negligible impact on the overall circulation system. As such, a less than significant impact with regard to traffic and load and sheet capacity would result with implementation of the proposed project. ' (Source: Newport Beach General Plan Update Circulation Element and Traffic Phasing Ordinance) B. Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Las than Significant Impact. The City has indicated that project's generating fewer than 300 trips would result in negligible impacts on intersections, and as such would contribute less than a one percent increase in project traffic at potentially affected intersections. Thus, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' (Source: Transportation Phasing Ordinance and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code) C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south/southeast of John Wayne Airport QWA) and within the adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. Specifically, the proposed project site is within the Height Restriction Zone for JWA, which sets various height limits for structures within a 20,000 foot radius of JWA in order to avoid adverse affects to the airport. The proposed project penetrates the 100 to I slope for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the near point of the nearest runway of JWA described in FAA Part 77.13 — Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Thus, construction of the proposed project could result in potential safety hazards for people residing or worldng in the project area if compliance with the above - mentioned height requirements does not occur. This potentially significant impact is mitigated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section above. No alterations to vehicular traffic related to the airport are expected with development ofthe proposed project. ' (Sources: Thomas Guide for Las Angeles and Orange Counties, Newport Beach General Plan, JWA Airport EnvironsLand Use Plan) D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (eg., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project site currently has access to MacArthur Boulevard from an existing easterly driveway. No changes to the on -site circulation are proposed and only minor reconfigurations of on -site surface parldng would result f om implementation of the proposed project. No alterations to the existing circulation system surrounding the project site are proposed. Thus, no traffic related hazards or incompatible uses would be introduced by the proposed project. ( Sources: Project Plans and site survey) ' Koll Company Corporate Neakumtns Page 3-47 Initial Study and MND i 1 I r EnOomnentel E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. As discussed above, no alteration to either on -site or off -site circulation systems are proposed for the project. Adequate emergency vehicle access would continue to be provided by MacArthur Boulevard for land uses on and near the site. During construction, MacArthur Boulevard would remain open and unimpeded to all vehicles, including emergency vehicles. Thus, construction of the proposed facility would not affect emergency access to the area. Upon completion of construction, operational access and emergency access to the site would continue to be available through the proposed project driveways along macArthur. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in inadequate emergency access. ( Sources: Project Plans and Site Survey) iF. Would the project result In inadequate parking capacity? Less than Slgni$ cant Impact with Mitigation. Within the proposed project area, there are a total of 98 existing surface parking spaces. The development of a 21,311 square foot office structure would require the addition of approximately 68 parking spaces. Parking for the proposed project site is governed by the KCN PC. Currently, KCN OS A is required to provide for 1,224 parking spaces; however, a total of 1,314 spaces exists (a surplus of 90 spaces). The proposed development would result in the need for an additional 69 spaces bringing the overall required parking level to 1,293 spaces. Upon project completion, the overall parking space total would be 1,335 spaces, a surplus of 42 spaces over what is required (1,293 spaces). Development of the proposed project would result in the temporary loss of 98 spaces. The loss of parking would be short-term in nature and is not considered a significant impact based upon the exiting surplus of 90 parking spaces. The proposed project complies with the on -site parking requirements and therefore would not result in parking deficiency. To ensure that all City requirements for parking areas on -site are met, the following improvements are recommended from the Tragic Impact Analysis. Mftigadon Mitigation Measure 3.15 -1: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle- turning radii. ( Sources: Project Plans and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code) 1 G. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (eg., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans or programs relating to alternative transportation. As discussed above, no alterations to interior or exterior circulation systems are proposed and as such, no alteration to existing bus turnouts would result. Development of the proposed project may lead to an increase in the use of public transportation services to and from the site by workers and guests of the site. Buses currently run along MacArthur Boulevard and can be utilized to reach the site. The potential for increased bus ridership would result in better utilization of public transportation and would not adversely affect those services. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (Sources: Site Survey) Kotl Company CaWrate Headq oun Page 3-48 Initial Study and MW Environmental Anatyy0 3.16 UTIEJMS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Water Service Water services to the City of Newport Beach, are provided by the City of Newport Beach Utility Department, Irvine Ranch Water District, or the Mesa Consolidated Water District. The proposed project site would be served by the Irvme Ranch Water District (IRWD). Groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater basin, operated by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), is the primary water supply source for the area, supplying approximately 64a/o of the City's water demand. The remaining 36a/o is purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOQ, a sub-agency of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). According to the IRWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, potable water is pumped from the Dyer Road Well Field located in the City of Santa Ana and conveyed to the IRWD distribution system via a transmission main, and then out to service sites. Solid waste The City of Newport Beach does not provide solid waste disposal services within the City. However, the City of Newport Beach General Services Department provides a list of solid waste haulers which are licensed and franchised with the City. Collected solid wastes finrn the City are brought to one of the five Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) within the County, where the refuse is collected and sent to a landfill. Orange County's Integrated Waste Management Division owns and operates the three active landfills, (Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deschecha Landfill) as well as four household hazardous waste collection centers (11HWCC) within Orange County . Solid waste fiom all Orange County cities, including the City of Newport Beach, is taken to one of the three landfills. Orange County's three existing landfills have permitted capacity through 2035. The landfill that serves the City and the proposed project site is Bowerman Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of hrvine. The Bowerman Landfill is a Class III landfill and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of no more than 8,500 tons per day. Class III landfills do not accept hazardous or liquid waste. Hazardous waste is taken to the local HHWCC. The Bowerman landfill opened in 1990 and is scheduled to close in approximately 2022. The Integrated Waste Management Department is currently conducting a study that may extend the life and disposal capacity of the landfill. Sewer Service Sewage generated within the majority of the City of Newport Beach is collected and conveyed by.the City's local sewer Imes and the regional sewer trunks of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) for treatment, reclamation, and disposal. The District owns and operates two treatment plants, Treatment Plan No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plan No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. While the treatment levels at these plants meet all current State and Federal requirements, the District is currently planing to upgrade both of the treatment plants to meet treatment standards for projected 2020 effluent flow. The plan includes the rehabilitation and upgrade of the existing facilities. The City, including the proposed project site, is served ' by the Huntington Beach treatment plant. The Huntington Beach plant currently has an operating capacity of 340 million gallons per day. Electricd Power and Gas Service The City of Newport Beach is served by Souther California Gas Company for natural gas services and by the Souther California Edison Company for electrical power services. There are no overhead utility lines adjacent to the proposed project site or in the surrounding area. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-49 InitW Study and AQVD EnvNnnmerdal Ana"s (3ource.s: Newport Beach General Plan, Cay of NeMwrt Beach, City of Newport Beach 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division, Project Plans and Site Survey) A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed development would be disposed into the sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As discussed above, effluent would be treated at Treatment Plant Nos. 1 and 2. These facilities meet RWQCB standards for sewage treatment. Wastewater from office uses is not expected to violate the standards of the RWQCB. Less than significant impacts are expected. ( Sources: Site Survey and Project Plans) B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Water demand is estimated at 16.25 gallons per employee per day or a total ' of 813 gallons per day for the proposed residential development. Sewage generation is estimated at 13 gallons per employee per day or a total of 650 gallons per day for the entire proposed project. To provide water and sewer services to the site, the proposed project would connect to existing infrastructure located in MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and in the vicinity of the site. The existing infrusructure for water service includes a water main that rims along MacArthur Boulevard. To provide sewer services to the site, the proposed project would also utilize existing infrashvctiue in MacArthur Boulevard. An existing sewer line runs along MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and other roads in the vicinity of the site. The existing infrastructure would provide adequate water and sewer services to serve the proposed project. Connection and service fees would also be paid by development to obtain sewer and water services. No significant adverse impacts in tams of water and wastewater services are expected (Sources: Project Plans, APA Planning and Urban Design Standards, and City of Newport Beach Utilities Department) C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage fadlities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is currently a surface parking lot which is mostly impervious. implementation of the proposed project would not change the amount of impervious surfaces, ' such as structures, roadways, driveways and pathways that would change runoff patterns on -site. Runoff from the site would continue to be conveyed along curbs and gutters, and directed into the existing storm drain system in MacArthur Boulevard in addition, drainage from the landscaped areas would be collected in area ' drains proposed on- site. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and would not affect drainage flows in the surrounding area or impact existing facilities. ' Exising storm drainage facilities would be able to accommodate the proposed development and are expected to adequately handle runoff from the subject site without the creation of flood hazards. Additionally, proposed project design features including curbs, gutters and on -site grades would direct flows to the existing facilities. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-50 Initial Study and AM I 1 Environmental ' No impact associated with the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would occur. ' (Sources: Project Plans, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle, and Site Survey) D. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and Iresources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project would require additional water 1 supplies provided by groundwater from the Orange County groundwater basin and purchased water from the MWDOC water supply. The current and future water supply projections for the City of Newport Beach through 2020 are shown in ' Table 3-8, Current and Projected Water Supplies. The future supply projection assumes that the city will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water. I I Table 3-8 Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY) Purchased from MWDOC 6404 5758 6157 6362 Ground Water 11927 13590 14921 14778 Recycled 317 444 478 500 Supply Total 18648 19792 21556 21640 Demand Total 18648 19792 21556 21640 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update 2006 Draft EIR Future water demand for the City of Newport Beach would continue to be supplied by the Orange County groundwater basin as well as purchased from the MWDOC water supply through the year 2010 and is expected to meet any future water demands in the City including the proposed project site. No impacts to water supply would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach purchases recycled water from the MWDOC through a program called the Green Acres Project. The City annually purchases between 300 and 800 acre -feet a year. Recycled water in the City is mainly used by golf courses, and other landscaped areas. The Green Acres Project has the capability to deliver up to 1,000 acre -feet per year. Mitigation While adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project site, the implementation of water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: ' Mitigation Measure 3.16 -1: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. ' Mitigation Measure 3.16 -2: Water leaving the user's property due to over - irrigation of landscape, should be minimal. If an incident such as this is reported, a customer service representative will visit the location, investigate, inform landowner if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. ' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -51 Initial Study and AIND lI I I I fJ EnWonniental Analysis Mitigation Measure 3.163: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m, and 9:00 am., the following morning). *11tfgation Measure 3.16 -4: All leaks are investigated and repaired. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -5: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -6: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (UL I) in the development. While the proposed project would create an increased demand for water resources in the City, local and regional water supplies have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development on -site. With implementation of the suggested water conservation measures to further reduce water use on -site, no 1 significant adverse impact on the existing water system would occur with proposed project implementation and no adverse impacts on available water supply are expected. (Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and City oJrNewport Beach Utilities Deparbnent) E. Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact Sewer service would he required to serve the proposed development. The 1 proposed project site would be served by Treatment Plan No. 2 located in the City of Huntington Beach. Assuming that wastewater generation is 13 gallons per employee per day, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 650 gallons of wastewater per day. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 340 million gallons per day (WA and currently operates at 240 mgd. Therefire, this increase in the amount of wastewater created tiom the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to existing sewer treatment capacity Treatment Plant No. 2. The projected wastewater treatment demand of the proposed project I is not expected to result in a significant impact to the provider and would not significantly impact available capacity. (Sources: Project Plans, APA Planning and Urban Design Standards and Newport Beach General Plan) F. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact According to the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division, office developments generate approximately 10 pounds of solid waste per 1000 square feet per day. Thus, the proposed office development would generate approximately 214 pounds of solid waste per day. Solid waste generated at the site would require disposal at Bowerman Landfill. Bowerman landfill has a capacity to receive a maximum of 8,500 tons of solid waste per day. If its daily tonnage limit is reached, waste is I diverted to Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. Prima Deschecha Landfill has a capacity to receive 4,000 tons of solid waste per day. Bowerman Landfill has capacity to serve the site until 2022 and Prima Deschecha has adequate capacity to serve the diverted waste, if needed, until 2067. IThe office development would be required to participate in City-wide recycling programs and household hazardous waste disposal to reduce demands for landfill space and prevent land or water contamination 1 Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -32 Abut &i* and MND Emkoamentel Analysts from hazardous wastes. The City of Newport Beach recycles approximately 25% of its waste at the five Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) operated by the County. By using this rate, the proposed project would only generate approximately 161 pounds of solid waste per day that would require disposal at county landfills. Thus, the proposed project would be adequately served by county landfills. No significant impact on solid waste disposal is expected. (Sources: Project Plans, Newport Beach General Plan, and County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Division) G. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solld waste? Less than Significant Impact. The city does not provide refuse collection for the proposed project site. The City of Newport Beach General Services Department provides a list of solid waste haulers, which are licensed and franchised with the City. The proposed project would employ one of the listed haulers to transport waste from the site to the MRF for recycling and to final landfill disposal at Bowerman Landfill in the City of hvine. The office development would be required to participate in City-wide recycling programs and household hazardous waste disposal to reduce demands for landfill space and prevent land or water contamination from hazardous wastes. The proposed project; therefore, would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations. Less than significant impact is expected. (Sources: Project Plans, City of Newport Beach General Services Department) Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -53 Initial Study and AMD I I SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 FINDINGS The environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Koll Company Corpomtr Headquarters Project would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City conditions and the recommended mitigation measures. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, as based on the results of this environmental assessment: ♦ The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive plant. or animal species on the project site and the- proposed project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites are present in the project area that may be affected by the proposed project. ♦ The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short -term goals at the expense of long- term environmental goals. The proposed project includes a 21,311 square foot, two-story office building above one level of subterranean parking with 17 stalls, 94 surface parking spaces, and ornamental landscaping areas on an approximately 1.5 -acre site in Newport Beach Although the project would have impacts to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Tramsportstionfrraffic, and Utilities and Service Systems mitigation measures would decrease these impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not significantly impact environmental resources. ♦ The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which are mclividually limited but I cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed project would not cumulatively lead to significant adverse impacts, when added to proposed, planned, or anticipated development in the area • The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The project may create short -term noise impacts during excavation, site development, and construction activities. However, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would avoid significant adverse impacts and would reduce the identified impacts to insignificant levels. I I I The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted The City of Newport Beach would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. 4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project would need to comply with mandatory existing federal, state and City regulations and applicable ordinances. In addition, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce or avoid the project's potentially significant adverse impacts to less than significant levels: Air Quality Mitigation Measure 33 -1: Use pre- coated building materials. ' !Coll Company Corporaw Headquarters Page 41 Inidd Study and ,BIND I 1 Mandadxy FlndkW (confined) 1 Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50 percent efficiency. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. Mitigation Measure 3.34: Doting grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed Project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour 1 (as ascertained by phone calls to the SCAQMD), all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. 1 Mitigation Measure 33-5: The proposed Project shall comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does 1 not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emiskion source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized as follows: a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. b. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. 1 C. All material transported offsite shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 1 d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 1 Mitigation Measure 33-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer. Mitigation Measure 334: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved 1 surface. Any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept or washed within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. Nfidgatbn Measure 33 -9: All diesel- powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. 1 Mltigadon Measure 3.3 -10: All diesel- powered vehicles and gasoline- powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. 1 KcB C wwny CoWata Headquarters Page 4-2 InIftl Study and MND Mandatory Findings (coot U80 Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas- powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible. Mitgation Measure 3.3 -12: As much as possible, the construction contactor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagpersm shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesha mug and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitlgation Measure 33-14: The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coated/natural colored building materials. Water-based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most stringent SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equ onent with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume -low pressure MVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or a sponge shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Mitigation Measure 33-15: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources (IVA NG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all comstructiar activities on the proposed Project site. ' Mitigation Measure 33-16: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this proposed Project. 1 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written ' evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such ' findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the }are - grading confereanoe, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered which require long term baiting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Plamiing Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. ' Kol Owipany Corporate Headquarters Page 43 lMBal Study and MND 1 ' Mandatory Findings (caiinued) ' Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building, the Project Applicant shall file Form 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Upon receiving the FAA determination, the project shall be submitted to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency. The project may be subject to additional conditions as required by the FAA and/or the ALUC in order to be found in compliance with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. ' HydroloalWater Quality Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City, the Project Applicant shall ' develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOD and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to ' n>mimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water runoff. Such best management practices (BMPs) include use of sandbags, gravel bags, check dams, silt fences, soil binders, erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, riprap pads, and practices that prevent debris and pollutants (loose soils, ' hazardous materials, oil, grease and solvents, other construction materials) from entering the storm drain system. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the RWQCB. ' Mitigation Measure 33-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and design elements to ensure that stormwater runoff is minimized to the maximum extent possible and that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Noise The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses: Mitigation Measure 3.11 -1: Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at all times. Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use. Transportation and Tra ie Mitigation Measure 3.15 -1: Tire parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - turning radii. Ud ildes and Service Systems Kb fl Company Capaste Headquarters lniGal Study and MND I I i [] 1 i 1 7 1 MandatwyRh W(=ffrut4 While . adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed Project site, the implementation of water conservation measures suggested by the City of Newport Beach, would reduce demand for groundwater, surface water and imported water supplies. These water conservation measures include: Mitigation Measure 3.16 -1: New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -2: Water leaving the user's property due to over - irrigation of landscape, should be minimal. If an incident such as this is reported, a customer service representative will visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -3: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 pm. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). Mitigation Measure 3.16.4: All leaks are investigated and repaired. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -5: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -6: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFl) in the residential units. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed Project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City of Newport Beach would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, as outlined above. Kod Company Corporate Headquadm Page 4-5 InIM Study and MND SECTION 5: LIST OF PREP CES 5.1 PREPARERS OF THE MND/EgTIAL STUDY EDAW, lim 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 610 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 291 -1347 Dustin Fuller, Project Manger Christopher Ward, Urban/Environmental Planner Andrew Martin, Urban/Environmental Planner 5.2 RF.FF.RF.NCES Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended Dec. 19, 2002 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Imuo Cant Farmland 2000. California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Manning Program California Department of Finance, E4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001 -2006, with 2000 Benchmark. California Department of Finance, E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates. 2006, Revised 2001 -2005, with 2000 Benchmark California Office of Planning and Research, 'California Environmental Quality Act and the CEOA Otfidglium 2004. California's Scenic Highway Program, California Scenic Routes. 2000. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Couservstion of Natural Resources Element 1975. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Housim Element 2003. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Land Use Elercent 2004, as amended. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Noise Element Conservation of Natural Resources Element 1974. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Safety Element 1975. City of Newport Beach, General Plan Recreation and Qpm bm Element 1998. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2003. City of Newport Beach, Planned Cormmmity, Development Standards for Koll Center Newport, Aug. 14, 1972 (Amendment No. 313). Koff ComparVCaporate Headquarters Page St Mal Study and MND .1 1 City of Newport Beach website: http://www.citv.uemmd-bcwb.miid, 2004. ' EDAW, Limited Air Quality Analysis, July 2006. ' Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Mans, 1996. National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information Svstem 2006. ' Newport Mesa Unified School District website: httoJ/www.nmusd.kl2.ca.us/. 2006. Orange Canty Integrated Waste Management Division website: httn: /lwww.oclandfills.co— 2006. Southern California Association ofGovemments (SCAG), 2004 RTP Growth Forecast City Projections. 2004. ' Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Faults of Southern California —. SCAQMD, Air Qgft Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin 2002. SCAQMD, CEOA Air Quality Handbook. May 1993, as amended. ' Thomas Brodm Maps; Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties: 2006. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 1990, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Envirofacts Database: 2006. U.S. Geological Survey, 7'/: Minute Ouadrangle for Laguna Beach 2004. 5.3 PERSONS CONTACTED 'City afNewport Beach Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner David Keely, Associate Civil Engineer Police and Fire Depts. Community Liaison Representative I J KoB Company Corporate Headquarters Page 5.2 Initial Study and MND 1 � i c a Z d a� Z o Z o 0 a c� 1 Z 1 0 W 1 1 i i N ; y z a bgo .01C' o o a 140. W d N w ° Its io ca ca ca ° y ti" •i-� -i f.l -03 Cd .. s �b� ° w x d tbU .� g Q On cs U id ��= O y �a 4' Q co .9�5n�o V ii y V y o .�a tw *UON 00 �g N t. t , Z ca U La Q � ea •a�y� aF �a a N W ..yi Fi a32 •a � N a8 L ° O U U$$ U g 0. 0. ow a a 3 A. V 0q Vl ZR IE lo :s pV 5�rp5eG 9 a391'` s y r3��jjF� .' 1. Is O 1st X . O mQ " T u 0 s:�� L CL 0 MW 2.rL��'9vVisb.' N a8 L ° I i I 11 I L_] I I Ll 11 g� V r �. W if ¢1 333 (A ¢1 SS v3 A u LA O� a �m Z pj g m9i' g q C u p� V W O a.•5 a� 1 1 t.1 4 .�o LZ� a SCC pg E Val � 8 g� V r !J 11 11 1 I i I I I 11 i i 1 1 1 �m o. o. m U U ,❑ U C w O w O p�ej 8 C =C C V W 0. W �+xgaa 9 El U lull .8 In Ing 8 al I gL g g '� S� FO � ya• E g OG � u e•�•c�i� g i� aS �� t4 LG� �0. U t'_CCCF~i 2�38�•8 ��3 �30 �m I I III L.� L L I I I 1 x� ggl d W x a e a 16 eap� ?-+` D.y d'i =�C C'� pet R Ij 11 E o $ 5 : 19 b5 $. �g lil:Iml' $5•°- pp+o�i�. 8 „, ,,, 3 a. 0 oy'y2 '�'° �Z„ aai 881.91 c ° mj� `o Cpm ,a PAO EG O .5 1 d� � sw �cym5 i iota �w0�� L"a�o gCe ■ U”' °Qm uC �1 S "J• Q ow �iN"m /�� q s �p �r p� �a0e 1Y !ter G�J�4 bo F� G Zss 1i' O94 G C1A W x� 0. m It o �►°• �� :� � �:� m 0.1 o . JIM o, X112 � m va va g 0 0 �U Otg qU qU OCg pC Pr (g o E m" 5� Y3 "Lp yg m g° T mY V p m � w ', �+ i5. 0 � y o u � Y o 3 m Bqj 3 v y� ° 0. m It o Q � �p X tit! w I w�. m1 Y a �Gg �� 4V AV pCg L38 a a FI •hp �o +^js Y � a im � w � O O p Y Q I 1 1 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Form 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 i 11 [1 I 1 1 I . Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 4450 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Orange County City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, inchuding but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A proposed Glass A Office development of 21,311 GSF on a 1.49 acre site, currently in the Airport Statistical Area of the City of Newport Beach. The project consists of a two -story office building with design character in conformance with surrounding buildings. The building is approximately 40 feet in height above ground and allows for 17 subterranean parking spaces. The existing condition of the site is a surface parking lot. The project would require a General Plan Amendment to allow the additional 24,016 GSF of general office within the Airport Statistical Area of the City's General Plan; an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community to allow the transfer of development rights from KCN Office Site B KCN Office Site A; and a Use Permit to allow the transfer of development intensity from KCN Office Site B to KCN Office Site A. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The proposed project site is currently surrounded by a variety of land uses, primarily including Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF), as well as Retail and Service Commercial (RSC), General Industry (IND), and Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). Nearby uses include the existing 10 -story Fairmont Hotel directly to the northeast and east, the approximately 7 -10 story Radisson Hotel buildings across MacArthur Boulevard to the northwest, paved surface parking lots to the north and south, and an existing nine -story office building and associated two -story parking structure to the southeast. South of the proposed project site at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Von Kerman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club with diming and athletic facilities. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission Page 1 of 10 I El I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I The environmental factors checked below would be potentially, affected by this project, involving at least ores impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ■ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public services ■ Utillitiewservice systems ❑ Agriculture Resources • Cultural Resources • Hydrology/WaterQuality ■ Noise ❑ Recreation ■ Air Quality O MandstoryFindings of significance 0 Ooologylsoila ❑ Land UselPlanning D Populationlflorasing ■ Tratmortation/TtafEc DETERMINA77ON (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 eoald have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significaut unless mitigated" impact on the emiromnent, 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 analyas as describe[ on attached sheets An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the ef%cts that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EM or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation erasures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. q L5 /04 Date R.1=1711 I \•'4•-e ' FORM "I" Page 2 of IU I I IEVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the informmation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EiR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Ia) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of I and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. I 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. I 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. i9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. I I IPage 3 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Issues: L AESTHETICS Wouldtheproject 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 ghur which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 f9r agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? HL AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to.substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Page 4 of 10 ❑ Las Than ❑ ■ Potentially Significant Las Than ■ significant With Signifiant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ ❑ hawrporated s ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ o ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ s ❑ t Lest Than Issues: Pohnfiaw slgaincant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact 1 Impact "tlgatioe Impact Incorporated 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, 13 13 13 0 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 p p ❑ 0 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.) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 p p p 0 native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Confect with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or p p p 0 other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a p p p 0 historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an p 0 p 0 archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological p 0 p ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside p p p 0 of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGYAND 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 - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' e) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Page 5 of 10 Page 6 of 10 Less Than Potentisiiy Significant Less Than Issues: SigdOaat With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? O O ■ O c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would became unstable as a result of the project, and potentially O O ■ O result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to O O ■ 0 life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where O 1 O ■ sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VIZ HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERJALS. Would -the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous O O ■ O materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions O O ■ O 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 O 13 13 ■ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section O O O ■ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a O ■ O O 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 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or o o O ■ working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation O O ■ O plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where o o O ■ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge O ■ 0 0 requirements? Page 6 of 10 Page 7 of 10 Lett Than Potentially Signifient Less Than Issues: significant with Significant No Impact Impact hmdgation Impact Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing • nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream 0 0 • or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface • 0 nmoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or • 0 provide substantial additional sources of pollutedrunotl. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 • 0 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 0 • Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which 0 0 0 • would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result 0 0 0 • of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 • k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality 0 0 ■ ❑ during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste 0 0 0 • handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect 0 0 ■ ❑ the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental 0 0 ■ ❑ harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or 0 0 • ❑ surrounding areas? I% LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 • Page 7 of 10 Page 8 of 10 Las Than Potential sigalocaut Leas Than Issues: sigalficaut With slgalticant No Impact Impact hittigntioa Impact lacorpurated 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 genera] plan, specific plan, 0 0 ■ 0 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 0 0 0 ■ natural community conservation plan? X MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 0 0 0 ■ state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 0 0 0 ■ plan, specific plan or other land use plan? M. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of wise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 0 ■ 0 0 ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 ■ 0 0 groundbome vibration or groundbome 'noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient wise levels in 0 ■ 0 0 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 0 .0 ■ 0 the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose 0 0 0 ■ 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 0 0 0 ■ to excessive wise levels? XII. POPULATIONAND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) 0 0 ■ 0 or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 0 0 0 ■ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 0 0 ■ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Page 8 of 10 Issues: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? MV RECREATION. Would the project: a) 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 or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XI: TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cunudatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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., furn equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 9 of 10 O O ■ O O Lees Than ■ O Potevdaily signidcant Less Than ■ Significant With significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ■ - Incorporated O O O O ■ O O O ■ O O O O ■ O O ■ O O O ■ O O O O ■ O O O ■ O O ■ O O O ■ O O O O ■ O O O ■ O O O ■ O ■ O O O O O ■ 0 Less Than PotenNaw Significant Lass Than Issues: Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable O O ■ O Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing O O ■ O 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 O O ■ O ' 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 O ■ O t expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has O O ■ O ' adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to O O ■ O accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations O O ■ ' related to solid waste? XVII. AL4ArDATORYFDVDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or O O ■ O animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 O O ■ O when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either O ■ O O directly or indirectly? ' Page 10 10 of i [1 1 Appendix B - Air Quality Analysis I I i 17 I Page: 1 07/21/2006 11:15 AM URREMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Nerve: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 \Projects2k2 \Roll HQ.urb Project Name: Roll RQ - Newport Beach, CA Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT ' (Pounds /Day - Sumer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 * ** 2007 * ** ROG Max CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lba /day,unmitigated) 43.44 52:72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.82 TOTALS (lba /dap, mitigated) 43.44 52.72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.62 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lba /day,unmitigated) 0.41 0.15 0.81 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbo /day, unmitigated) 2.53 3.09 32.94 0.02 3.27 SUN OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lba /day,nnmitigated) 2.94 3.23 33.75 . 0.02 3.27 1 07/21/2006 11:15 AN I URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Nsme: C: \Program Files \URBENIS 2002 version 8.7 \Projects2k2 \E011 RQ.urb Project Name: Roll NQ - Newport Reach, CA Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMAC2002 version 2.2 ' DETAIL REPORT (Pounds /Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: January: 2007 Construction Duration: 12 1 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 1 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Par Day: 0.2 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi - Family Units: 0 Retail/ Office /Institutional /Industrial Square Footage: 21375 ' CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lba /day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST • 2007••• phase 1 - Demolition Emissions 2.78 Fugitive Dust - 2'78 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 3.53 21.61 29.97 - 0.81 0.22 0.81 0.18 0.04 On -Road Diesel 0.44 9.62 1.62 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.02 0.06 Maximum lba /day 3.99 31.29 32.14 0.02 3.81 0.99 2.82 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions - Duet _ 2 00 - 2.00 Fugitive 4.06 24.09 34.48 - 0.77 0.77 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 1.29 28.50 4.80 0.05 0.67 0.55 0.12 On -Road Diesel 0.07 0.13 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Worker Trips Maximum lbs /day 5.42 52.72 40.67 0.05 3.44 1.32 2.12 Phase 3 - Building Construction - 0.82 0.82 0.00 Bldg Coast Off -Road Diesel 3.31 21.61 26.92 0.00 0.01 Bldg Coast Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 35.95 - _ 0.00 0.01 ' Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 = _ 0.00 _ 0.01 - Asphalt off -Gas 0.05 0.83 0.83 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 4.00 24.09 33.99 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-ROad Diesel 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.02 Maximum lbs /day 43.44 45.97 62.53 0.00 1.67 1.65 Max lbs /day all phases 43.44 52.72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.62 1 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 1: Jan 107 Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 25875 building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 6612.5 On -Read Truck Travel (VMT): 366 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 2 Graders 174 0.575 - 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions ' 1 Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan 107 phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT1: 1090 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Ncure /Day 3 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb 107 Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Feb 107 SubPhase Building Duration: 10.2 months Off -Road Equipment No.' Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day 1 Concrete /Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 Start Month /Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Dec '07 I 1 1 I 11 L L I 1 07//221/2006 11:15 AM SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions ROx Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec '07 Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months CO SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months TOTAL EXHAUST DUST Acres to be Paved: 0.2 - - - Off -Road Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day No. Type 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs /dayl Source ROG Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions ROx + ++ 2007 + ++ PH10 Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months CO Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions TOTAL EXHAUST DUST Fugitive Dust - - - Off -Road Diesel 3.53 - 21.61 174 0.575 On -Road Diesel 0.44 9.62 0.00 Worker Trips 0.02 0.06 0.22 Maximum lbs /day 3.99 31.29 Horsepower Load Factor Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 fugitive Dust - 0.02 - Off -Road Diesel 4.06 - 24.09 Off -Road Equipment On -Road Diesel 1.29 25.50 2.00 Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 0.77 Maximum lbs /day - 5.42 52.72 0.05 Phase 3 - Building Construction 0.55 0.12 1.39 Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 3.31 21.61 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Tripe 0.05 0.03 0.05 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 35.95 2.12 - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.82 - Asphalt Off -Gas 0.05 - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 4.00 24.09 -.19 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.01 0 0.00 Asphalt Worker Tripe 0.02 0.01 - Maximum lbs /day 43.44 45.97 0.04 Max Lbs /day all phases 43.44 52.72 Construction- Related Mitigation Measures Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions P1410 PH10 PH10 Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST On -Road Truck Travel (VMT1: 366 - - 2.78 - 2.78 29.97 174 0.575 - 0.81 0.81 0.00 1.62 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.55 Horsepower Load Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.14 0.02 3.61 0.99 2.62 Off -Road Equipment 2.00 - 2.00 34.48 1 Create - 0.77 0.77 0.00 4.80 0.05 0.67 0.55 0.12 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.67 0.05 3.44 1.32 2.12 26.92 - 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 33.99 - 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.53 0.00 1.67 1.65 0.02 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.82 Construction- Related Mitigation Measures Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 1: .Tan '07 Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 25875 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) : 6612.5 On -Road Truck Travel (VMT1: 366 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 2 Graders 174 0.575 .Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan '07 Phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months Ce -Road Truck Travel (VRT1: 1090 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 3 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb 107 Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months Start Montb /Year for SubPhase Building: Feb '07 SubPhase Building Duration: 10.2 months Off -Road Equipment No Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Concrete /Industrial saws 84 0.730 1 Create 190 0.430 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 Start Month /Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Dec '07 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec 107 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Hours /Day 8.0 Hours /Day 8.0 Hours /Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 Page: 5 07/21/2006 11:15 AM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Onmitigeted) Source ROG NOS CO 802 PNIO Natural Gas 0.01 0.19 0.12 0 0.00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.10 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - Architectural Coatings 0.30 - - - - TOTALS(1DS /day,unmitigated) 0.91 0.15 0.51 0.00 0.00 I I Page: 6 ' 07/21/2006 11:15 AM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROO NOx CO S02 PM10 General office building 2.53 3.09 32.94 0.02 3.27 1 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbe /day) 2.53 3.09 32.94 0.02 3.27 Does not include correction for passby tripe. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES ' Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summer EWAC Version: EMPAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: NO. Totes Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Tripe ' General office building 14.03 tripe /1000 sq. ft. 21.38 299.89, Sum of Total Trips 299.89 Total Vehicle Mlles Traveled 2,153.22 vehicle Assumption&: ' Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.00 1.60 98.00 0.40 Light Truck < 3,750 Ike 15.00 2.70 95.30 2.00 I Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 .16.20 1.20 97.50 1.30 Had Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.20 1.40 95.60 2.80 Lite -Reavy 8,501- 10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite -Heavy 10,001- 14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med -Heavy 14,001- 33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Reavy -Heavy 33,001 - 60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 ' Lim Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.70 76.50 23.50 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home - Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Mork Customer Urban Trip Length (milee) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (milesl 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 4 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 4 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office, Wilding 35.0 17.5 47.5 I Paget 7 07/21/2006 11:15 AN Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction Changes made to the default values for Area The hearth option switch changed from on to off. The conammer products option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2008. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emieeioe year changed from 2005 to 2008. ATTACHMENT G PROJECT PLANS V) N W N� 1..:.l �NJ C/ TW i Z L.) 0 U J J 0 w c F K Z CL � LU z O V Z J w O U Y J J w 0 T x O Z Z Z.- ' z QQ z o Z f N •� s N iC w IN } Z a p ol� U Z J � J w O z Y U w � Q'I Nk Wll o%j go ,�*i � RR W V Z O V n } Q a O V J J O Y W_ t2 O z m W H Z W V J J O Y -W O CL 0 V 11 z z::::: n 00. -•: J � Q �i dl UI Z Q Cd L O U J J Y W K O W Z W z Z W U J 0 n% NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Koll Company Corporate Headquarters (PA2006 -095) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Koll Company, for General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 on property located at 4450 MacArthur Blvd. The property is located in the PC-15 (Koll Center) District. The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendmend to allow the additional 24,016 gross square feet of general office in the Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) of the General Plan Land Use Element; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square_ footage from Office Site B to Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, 92658-8915,(949) 6443200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Caliifomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge. this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Na-D- C) �'�J ( a) k ') ( -6.-\\) V, 0 ";� U 87►m e. �, ' 4- LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach � rlaa � /as NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Koll Company Corporate Headquarters (PA2006 -095) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Koll Company, for General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 on property located at 4450 MacArthur Blvd. The property is located in the PC -15 (Koll Center) District. The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendmend to allow the additional 24,016 gross square feet of general office in the Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) of the General Plan Land Use Element; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office squara footage from Office Site B to Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge. this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Koll Company Corporate Headquarters (PA2006 -095) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Koll Company, for General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 on property located at 4450 MacArthur Blvd. The property is located in the PC -15 (Koll Center) District. The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendmend to allow the additional 24,016 gross square feet of general office in the Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the General Plan Land Use Element; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square_ footage from Office Site B to Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge. this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. c�,) LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach (1)14ewport Office of the City Clerk CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Beach, CA 92663 -3884 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.avery.com US&AVOO TEMPLATE 51600 KbU q- 14100-60-AVEKY 427-111-09 Jrsm Corp 1600 Dove St 480 Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-174-03 Sanderson J & Ray-Macarthur 2699 White Rd 150 Irvine, CA 92614 427-181-07 Ridgeway & Whitney 2804 Lafayette Rd Newport Beach, CA 92663 427-111-10 Burlington National PO Box 306 Montpelier, VT 05601 427-174-04 Newport Hotel Holding Llc 148 S Beverly Dr 204 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 427-181-08 Gurcharan & Baljeet Sandher 17130 Apricot Cir Fountain Valley, CA 92708 427-181-10 427-181-12 First States Investors James R Glidewell PO Box 27713 PO Box 8127 Houston, TX 77227 Newport Beach, CA 92658 427-222-05 Malaguena 1000 Dove St 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-223-02 David W Wilson 30100 Town Center Dr 310 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 445-121-16 Irvine Co, 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-122-05 Makar Vdv Llc 4100 Macarthur Blvd 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-122-11 Sunstone Macarthur Llc 903 Calle Amanecer 100 San Clemente, CA 92673 445-122-15 Pacific Club 4110 Macarthur Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 00915 OAHRAV 427-222-06 Pmc General Partnership 4001 Macarthur Blvd 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-072-13 Regents Of The University 0 1111 Franklin St 6Th Oakland, CA 94607 445-121-17 Irvine Co- 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-122-06 Steadfast Koll I Llc 20411 SW Birch St 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-122-12 4400 Macarthur Inc Irvine 18818 Teller Ave 277 Irvine, CA 92612 445-122-16 Kcn A Management Llc 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 ANAV-09,0084 Luco,Ajawmmm * AVERY@ 5160® 427-173-01 Bank First • 4301 Macarthur Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-181-01 :1 Pacific Plaza Associates 4299 Macarthur Blvd 220 Newport Beach, CA 92660 427-181-09 Timothy J Flathers 20292 Acre Orange, CA 92869 iii < 427-222-01 Ca-Redstone Plaza Ltd Ptnshp PO Box A3879 J, Chicago, IL 60690 l:1 427-223-01 Mac Arthur building Llc 2700 N Main St 780 Santa Ana, CA 92705 445-121-14 f Irvine Co 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 445-121-18 Bwe- &- Esa Properties Llc -1 100 Dunbar St Spartanburg, SC 29306 445-122-09 Smiii 4590 Macarthur Llc PO Box 130174 '(Carlsbad, CA 92013 445-122-13 4400 Macarthur Inc 18816 Teller Ave 277 Irvine, CA 92612 .il 445-131 -02 I I ill Rockwell semiconductor 1:j 4311 Jamboree Rd E09 901 i. j Newport Beach, CA 92660 qats 4ueqe8 ei zman ai6idej arseqns q 4a asemnoqaue uopmudiul Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use AoeryP TEMPLATE 51600 445- 131 -03 Rockwell Semiconductor 4311 Jamboree Rd . Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -08 Ocrc Capital Corp 7 Corporate Plaza Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -11 Pres -4340 Von Karman 1201 Dove St 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -16 Mbc Holdings 4320 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -21 Whl 1976 T Llc 4490 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.averycom 1- 800.60 -AVERY 445- 131 -04 Kcn A Management Llc 4.343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -09 Spectrum Investments 17901 Von Karman Ave 950 '.' Irvine, CA 92614 '1 445- 131 -13 Tst Macarthur Llc Macarthur(4525A) Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -18 Cornerstone Partners Iv Llc 18818 Teller Ave 277 Irvine, CA 92612 445- 131 -23 Nicholson Properties Vk Llc 18101 Von Karman Ave 1800 i Irvine, CA 92612 445- 131 -26 445- 131 -27 Santa Barbara Bk & T, 4200 Von Karman Llc PO Box 3170 i 1401 Quail St 100 Honolulu, HI 96802 r Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 132 -06 445- 132 -09 Scholle Jamboree Prop Dev .y:.,r, sauth Coast Thrift & -Loan Acs 19500 Jamboree Rd 19752 Macarthur Blvd Irvine, CA 92612 Irvine, CA 92612 i 445- 132 -18 "'i 445- 141 -08 Cip Centerpointe 123 Llc', Beachwood Partners 19762 Macarthur Blvd 350 4931 Birch St Irvine, CA 92612 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 141 -11 j 445- 141 -12 Alma Group Lyon Housing I Llc *M* ' 4650 Von Karman Ave j.' 4901 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 \ 445- 141 -14 Kcn Ltd Edition Owners Assn 5030 Campus Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 ®09tS ®M3AV n 445- 141 -16 i Beachwood Partners 4132 Katella Ave Los Alamitos, CA 90720 A83A"D-008-1, urw AAaAWNWAM QAVERY® 51600 445- 131 -05 Pres- Lakeside 1201 Dove St 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -10 4350 Von Karman Llc 19800 Macarthur Blvd 500 Irvine, CA 92612 1 445- 131 -15 4000 Macarthur 45 Rockefeller Plz New York, NY 10111 i 445- 131 -19 i Cornerstone Partners Iv Llc 18818 Teller Ave 277 Irvine, CA 92612 445- 131 -25 Kcn A Management Llc 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 131 -28 Kcn A Management Llc 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 132 -11 Bates-Johnson--Building Ltd 19742 Macarthur Blvd 240 Irvine, CA 92612 445- 141 -10 Lambeau Properties Llc 4921 Birch St 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 141 -13 Aetna Life Insurance Co 4911 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 92660 445- 141 -27 Kcn Ltd Edition Owners Assn I, 5030 Campus Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 @W I.S >jege6 al zegLnn apides abeypi)s g is a5eunocique uoissaidurl Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use'AieO TEMPLATE 51600 445- 141 -28 Beachwood Partners Two 4740 Von Karman Ave 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.werycom AVERY® 5160® 14800 -GO -AVERY 445- 141 -29 445- 141 -30 Beachwood Partners Roger Stone 5031 Birch St J 20321 SW Birch St 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 926 0 445- 141 -31 445- 151 -01 930 -30 -401 Lebata Inc i '. County of Orange Nelson G Mamey 4621 Teller Ave 1040 1143 E Fruit St 5160 Birch St 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 '.!, Santa Ana, CA 927011 Newport Beach, CA 92660 930 -30 -402 930 -30 -403 930 -30 -404 Duggan -West Birch Street Llc j j Darts Building Partners I, Associates i 34655 Camino Capistrano 5120 Birch St 200 5100 Birch St i Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 ;\ Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 * ** 69 Printed * ** '.i i I i t i I i, 'I i I �. I i ;... . ... __._ ...._... . i 3� L i S OA113AV ® m g� apidej a6egns q la efimnocipue uol saidwi 09/22/06 FRI 12:44 FAX 949 646 5008 DEPT Q001 AG12622 33DONewport Blvd, NewportBeach, CA f f I q 'o'j V t 0 Ad(bpi. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public bearing on the application of The Noll Company, for General Ict a two garage on site at 44: and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned CoMMUni/y to allow the transfor of 24.016 gross square feet of unused retail, res- taurant and office sovaro footage from Dffice Site B to Office She A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Com. munit (PC -05), NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Deb la18tlpn has been pre- pared by the City of Newport Beach in con- nection with the appli. cation noted above. The Mitigated Negative Dec laration states that, the subject deVelopmant will (rot result in a signifi. cant effect on the environment. It is the . - adproofpg.l -- 09/22/06 FRI 12:46 FAX 949 646 5008 KINr j M Ar*Y Y a- OF LOT -LGL DEFT City to accept the MiNgatad Negative Dec- laration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval Or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on are available for review and im ser, me, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. It yov challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues YOU or someone else raised at the pubric hearing described in this noticeo, in written correspon- dence delivered to the City at. or prior m, the public hearing. For information call (949) •— ad proof pg. 2 -- I Ad #27473195 DAyNot 11 Di, MD [a 002 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Koll Company Corporate Headquarters (PA2006 -095) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Koll Company, for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-003 and Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006-001 on property located at 4450 MacArthur Blvd. The property is located In the PC-15 (Koll Center) District. The Koll Company proposes to construct a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building over subterranean parking garage on a 1.49 -acre site at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan. Amendmend to allow the additional 24,016 gross square feet of general office in the Sub -Area 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of "the General Plan Land Use Element; and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square. footage from Office Site B to Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and °all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge. this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. C./ 1G( (J �1/J�.�i �. � I • ��rC� LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach (Skewport Office of the City Clerk CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Beach, CA 92663 -3884 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24811 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: September 30, 2006 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 2, 2006 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature RECEIVED 2N6 OCT -5 M 9:08 Oz ier 01 CITY CLERK CITY OF NEL.'.90MI 511ACi+