HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - The Koll CompanyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. q
January 9, 2007
TO: I 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
(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 Anomaly Site 1 of the
Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the Land Use Element by 24,016 gross square feet?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council, after holding a public hearing, adopt Resolution fro.
2007 -_ approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and adopting Mitigated
Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 -081039).
DISCUSSION
The Koll Company requests that the total allowable building area for Anomaly Site 1 of the
Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan be increased
by 24,016, square feet. This General Plan Amendment will bring the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Into conformity and effectuate an October 2006 amendment of the. Koll
Center Newport Planned Community. Amendment of the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community transferred 24,016 square -feet of allowable building area from Office Site B to
Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan. Koll's.
current request for a General Plan Amendment is substantially the same as that previously
approved by City Council in October 2006 that amended both the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community and the then - current General Plan. The updated General Plan
subsequently approved by voters in November 2006, however, does not include the increase
in allowable building area approved by City Council in October and the request for 24,016
additional square -feet of General Plan allocation is again before City Council.
Koll Center Newport
January 9, 2007
Page 2
Koll Company has requested the amendments to accommodate construction of a two -story,
21,311 square -foot, corporate headquarters office building. The 1.49 -acre proposed
construction site is centrally located in Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community. The proposed 40 -foot high building is to be constructed 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
A summary of recommended City Council actions is included below. Detailed discussion of
the amendment is provided in the attached Planning Commission and previous City Council
staff reports.
General Plan Amendment
The 2006 Land Use Element allocates a maximum of 436,079 gross square feet for non -hotel
uses for Koll Center Newport Office Site A (Sub -Area 1 -1) which would not accommodate the
proposed office building 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.atter •colnpletion.`of.their current
expansion authorized by GPA 97 -3(E) (both of which amendments were incorporated in the
2006 General Plan).
The General Plan floor area limit for Koll Center Office Site A does not account for 24,016
square feet. of additional retail, office, and restaurant building area authorized in the Koll
Center Newport Planned Community. The 24,016 square feet of additional floor area .
included in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community were authorized prior to adoption of
the 1988 Land Use Element but were not added to the permissible building areas
subsequently set forth in the 1988 and 2006 General Plan Land Use Elements. The General
Plan Amendment would eliminate the discrepancy between the 2006 General Plan Land Use
Element and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The General Plan Amendment
would increase the maximum permissible floor area within Koll Center Newport Office Site A
from 436,079 to 460,095 gross square -feet.
The General Plan 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 development within this block is
anticipated in the General Plan as noted in the estimated growth table within the Land Use
.Element. In the course of reviewing this application, however, staff reviewed all building
.permits for.Koll Center Newport Office Site B and found that the existing building area is
overstated in the General Plan Land Use Element. Accordingly, staff recommends that City
Council amend Table LU2 of the General Plan Land Use Element by reducing the
"Development Limit" for Anomaly Location No. 2 by 2,502 square feet, from 1,062,648 square
feet to 1,062,146 square feet. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L4 of the General
Plan are shown in Exhibit "A" to the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment A).
Koll Center Newport
January 9, 2007,
Page 3
Charter Section 423 Analysis
The proposed amendment has been evaluated for compliance with City Charter Section 423.
As shown in the following chart, the proposed general plan amendment and prior
amendments would not exceed the 100 peak hour trip or 40,000 square -foot thresholds. A
vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not, therefore, required.
Amendment
Area
A.M. Peak Hour
Trips
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
Prior Amendments - None
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proposed Amendment
24,016
42.7
41.3
Total
24,016
42.7
41.3
Previous Actions
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment on September 7
and 21, 2006, and on a 4 -0 -1 vote (2 absent and one abstention), recommended City council-
approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission evaluated the project in the
context of both the 1988 and 2006 General Plan Land Use Elements.
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:
Submitted by:
�.
Rosalinh M. Ung, Asso to tanner David Lepo, Pofthing Director
Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution with revisions to Statistical Area L-4
Koll Center Newport
January 9, 2007
Page 4
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1697.
C, City Council staff report and minutes from October 10, 2006 meeting.
D. Excerpt of the staff report and minutes from the September 7 and 21,
2006, Planning Commission meetings without attachments.
E. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with Errata and Response to
Comments.
F. Project Plans
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION
5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -003, AN AMENDMENT
TO THE 2006 LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT
ALLOCATION BY 24,016 GROSS SQUARE FEET IN KOLL CENTER
NEWPORT OFFICE SITE A OF STATISTICAL AREA L4 (AIRPORT AREA) (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 Office Site A (Anomaly 1 of Table LU2) of the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) by
24,016 square feet. The applicant is proposed 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 Commissionconducted::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 Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006-
001. The Planning Commission evaluated the project in the context of the 1988 Land Use
Element and the 2006 Land Use Element since the adopted General Plan update was not
considered by the voters at the time when the Commission took action; and
WHEREAS, at the October 10, 2006 meeting, the City Council adopted the Mitigated
Negative Declaration including the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program and approved a
General Plan Amendment to the 1988 Land Use Element, 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 Planned Community Development Amendment 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; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2006, the voters approved the 2006 General Plan Update.
The 1988 Land Use Element is no longer valid and now superseded by the 2006 General
Plan. Since the 2006 Land Use Element does not account for the proposed project, the
proposed amendment is, therefore, necessary to accommodate the proposed development;
and
I
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on January 9,
2007 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
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 (Anomaly No. 1 of Table
LU2). 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
Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) of 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 (Anomaly No. 2 of Table LU2). 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 Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) of 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 2006 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 Pack Club. This
un -built floor area was authorized prior to the original adoption of the 1988 and 2006 Land
Use Elements. The 2006 Land Use Element established gross floor area limits at existing
levels without accounting for the un -built floor area; and,
I
Page 3 of 5
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 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,
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 by amending Anomaly No. 1 of
Table LU2 of the 2006 Land Use Element as depicted in Exhibit "A" and subject to the
standard code requirements listed in Exhibit "B" of City Council Resolution No. 2006 -91.
M
Page 4 of 5
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 January 9, 2007 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
1b
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit "A"
The following changes to the maximum gross floor area within the 2006 Land Use Element and
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 -1-12
436,979
471 Hotel
460,095
Rooms (Not
included in
total square
footage
2
L4
MU -1-12
4,062,648
1,060,146
l�
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 1697
13
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 -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 L4) 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, 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
Pack Club remaining after the implementation of their current expansion authorized by GPA
t6
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
1 L
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,
�I
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 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.
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
j�
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 21'st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2006.
AYES: Eaton, Hawkins. Cole and
Toerge
ABSENT: Henn and Peotter
ABSTAIN: McDaniel
0
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 L4)
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 1,06899 1,060,146 square feet)[GP 2006 -003].
Support retail commercial uses are allowed within this allocation.
M
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 7of19
;�1
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
01/01/1987
Projection
Growth
1 -1.
KCN OSA
0
0
0
* ** 780,223
810,483
834,201
29,962
53,978
1 -2.
KCN OS B
0
0
0
1,060,898
* * ** 1,060,146
4,862,648
1,060,146
4-,3A
0
1 -3.
KCN OS C
0
0
0
734,641
734,641
0
14.
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 BILK 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
24.
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
6,99 648
6,900,858
8,099,,332
8,121,066
' "92
1,220,208
Revised
Population
0
0
0
09/07/2006
•***Existing
Existing square footage as
of
* *Existing
as of 05/24/2005
as of
0112212002
'Existing
as of 06/22/2006
09/07/2006
;�1
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 -1-12
436,079
471 Hotel
460,095
Rooms (Not
included in
total square
footage
2
L4
MU -1-12
1,962,648
1,060,146
�;a
PART I1
• Section I.
Group I
•
r 1
U
0 (3 0) Prop* KCN P.C. Text Amendment
COMMERCIAL for New Koll Headquarters. Ittcorporates
Prepared by Langdon Wilson 8/21/06 Rvsd
Site Area and Building Area
PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES
Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with
property lines. (4)
a
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
I:1
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
5
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
674,800 square feet (I 0)(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)(111
366, t47 (16) (29) (30) square feet
967,803 (13) (16) (28) (30) square feet
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
13
•(3x4) In addition &.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acre hotel and motel and 2.0 acres
of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A.
(3x4)(16)
b. One (1) space per 300 square feet of net building area ct
120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (11)
Site A
Allowable Building Area 342,131 square f ^6)(29)
Site Area ..... 19.399 acres *(3)(4)(16)
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
' ''ear s MIR90
U
366,147 square feet (16)(29)(30)
Land Cove (16)(29)(30)
3.92 re 4.20 acres
2.`= 61 a2res 2.80 acres
1.96 aeres 2.10 acres
'., 57 acres 1.68 acres
1.31 __"" 1.40 acres
' .' -.--12 aeFes 1.20 acres
9.98 awes 1.05 acres
nn oo�aeres 0.93 acres
0.78 aeFe 0.84 Beres
°.7v 71 aeFe 0.76 acres
nn 65 acres 0.70 acres
Land Coverage
10.18 acres (11)(16)(29)(30)
C. Landscaped Open Space (4) (11) (16)Land Coverage (29i)( -3Q)
Two story development 9tee;
Three story development 7.30 aefes
Four story development 7.5aere5
Five story development 8.'e , 4 acre
Six story development 460 RPF°g
Seven story development 8.'o 9 acres
Eight story development 8. "o 93 acres
Nine story development 9.04 acres
Ten story development 9.13 acres
Eleven story development 9.20 affeS
Twelve story development 9.26 e;
2. Site B
5.02 acres •
6-42 acres
7.12 awes
7.54 acres
7.82 acres
8.02 acres
8.17 acres
8:29 acres
8.38 acres
8.461 acmes
8.52 acres
Allowable Building Area ........ 965,2 qt +arm feet E- 1- '.N"28 )
........967,803 square feet (13)(16) (28)(30)
Site Area ........ 43.703 acres (4)(11)
M
•
Is
0
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
0
Land Coverage(16)(28)(30)
..... 11.08 awes 11.11 acres
........ 7.39-aeFe 7.41 acres
........ `.� 54aeres 5.55 acres
........ 4."� n acres 4.44 acres
........3.69 acres 3.70 acres
........3.� 1;gyres 3.17 acres
7
........ ^�aeres 2.78 acres
........^ 16 ...._e_ 2.47 acres
........ 2.22 vu 2.22 acres
........^0mil nary° 2.02 acres
........ 1.85 aeres 1.85 acres
Land Coverage (11) (13) (16) (28) (3 0)
........ 26.°� 82 acre 26.88 acres
C. Landscaped Open Space (11) Land Coverage(11)(13)(16)(28)(30)
square feet (15) (17)'"
Two story development .......3:$0 acres
5.71 acres
Three story development ........ 9.49-aefes
9.41 acres
Four story development ..... 11.34 � ores
11.27 acres
Five story development ..... 12.45 was
1238 acres
Six story development ..... 13.1n 19 aeres
1 1.12 acres
Seven story development ..... 13.'r 71 &eras
13.65 acres
Eight story development ..... 14.11 n auras
14.04 acres
Nine story development ..... 14.^^ 2 safes
14.15 acres
Ten story development ..... 14.66 acres
14.60 acres
• Eleven story development ..... 1 4.87 ass
14.80 acres
Twelve story development ..... 1 5.03 acres
14.97 acres
�J
3. Site C 00)
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
A5
Group IV
Group V
E. *ding Heigh
0
Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the
Federal Aviation authority for Orange County Airport.
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)
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
Site 2.
Site 3.
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6.
Deleted see Group VII.
° yv
Eli a tiw,:3.
Site 7..........
(18)
..........1.25 acres
....1.765 acres
11:` s
....1.50 acres (8)
....0.70 acres (8)
Q sic
•
u
...................... e i Beres
13{15
Site 1 Deleted see Group VII Private Club (18)
Site 3 located within Office Site "F ". (4)
Sites 2, 4 and 5 leeated- �.Alxit-hin Office Sete "B". (4) (16)
Sit co Bell) located within Office SW�.Fe
B? &3) 6)(3,0)
Site`4`(1 00 "one "Arran Avenue. K�xp Restaurant) deleted and reverted -to
Site B Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30)
Site 5 deleted from Office Site `B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as
Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area (30)
Sites 6 and 7 located within Office Site "G ". (8)
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)
22
is
a(o
The fdoing statistics are for information onliwevelopment may include but
shall not be limited to the following.
is B. Building Area (4)
Site 2 . ...................3;900 sq. . ............ 0. 11 aeFe 2,397 sq. ft.... 0.06 acres (30)
Site 3 ................... 10,000 sq. ft . ............ 0.22 acres
Site -4 ..................... 7,000 sq. ft . ............ 0. 16 acres
Site 5 ..................... 7,000 sq. ft . ............ 0. 16 aeres-
Site 6 (8) ............... 7,000 sq. ft . ............ 0.16 acres
Site 7 (8) ............... 3,000 sq. ft .............0.07 acres
19 Goo In ft. .,
.. ...... ...... �� (8) (18)
(8) {F8) (30)
e ...0.51 acres (8) --(
C. Parkin
Criteria: 300 occupants/10,000 sq. ft
I space/3 occupants and 120 cars per acre.
Site 2 .........................38 ears . .............. 0. 4 eras 24 cars.......... 0.20 acres (30)
Site 3 ........................100 cars . .............. 0.84 acres
Site 4 ..........................70 oafs ............... 0.59 APrAs
Site 5 ..........................70 eafs . .............. 0.58 acres
Site 6 (8) ....................70 cars ............... 0.58 acres
Site 7 (8) ....................30 cars ............... 0.25 acres
� _40P, a Fq ............... 345_�ere_ (8) 0 8)
• W-'rurs; ........ —1.81acres (8) (18),(30)
D Landscaped Open Space (4)
Site 2 ............................ 0.72 aeres ........................ ........ 0.99 acres (30)
Site 3 . ...........................0.70 acres
Site 4
......A76 aeres
Site 5 ............................0 arare-s
Site 6 (8) ......................0.76 acres
Site 7 (8) ......................0.38 acres
4.08 ........ ...........................1403 aer
--e-s
2,.-8-3 _kms .............. ................ 2.83 acres (8) (18)13%
E. Building Height
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)
40 23
21
* I .. ..........................5.026 acres •
Site 2 ............................ 1.s^zes Deleted (30)
6-3 2 6 Aeres ............................... 6- 32Fraeres
5.026 acres ................... ........5.026 acres (30) •
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)
Site 2 deleted from Office Site "B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional
and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30)
B. Allowable Building Area (5)
*Retail Site No. 1 ..................102,110 sq. ft. (14)(27)
Retail Site No. 2 .................... .
*Retail Site No. 1 (S. Ft.)
Parcel
Existing
Total
Parcel I,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
(0)
(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. I shall be developed as landscape area.
If twenty -five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service
center Site No. I 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)
r1
LJ
The following statistics are for information only. Development may include
but shall not be limited to the following. •
24
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 Oven 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
-2- 2 ( "3'a3
One story development ................. 0.95 ae:es
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
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.
�b
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 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
3�
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.
3�
ATTACHMENT C
CITY COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT AND MINUTES
FROM THE OCTOBER 10, 2006
MEETING
33
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
October 10, 2006
-
System, and stated that he would like to see it im lemented-
Motio-il' by -Mavor Pro Tern Rosansky to adopt Resolution No. 2006 -90 to the
California Palic-Employees Retirement System (Ca1PERS) as required by law to
allow Chief McDoneil io CoR roue his employment with the City until June 30, 2007,
at which time he will leave the 'servic4,of Newport Beach.
The motion carried by the following roll call vok'
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Ma}ror'Pr_Tem Rosansky,
Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle,.Council
Member Nichols
K. PI133LI.C_HEARI.NGS
13. KOLL CENTER NEWPORT, 4460 MACARTHUR BLVD., GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 20064003, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 2006-001 (PA2006-096) - MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND 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 -lb) 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 (PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 21,311 SQUARE FOOT,
TWO -STORY OFFICE BUILDING OVER A SUBTERRANEAN PARSING
GARAGE ON A 1.49 -ACRE SITE AT 4460 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD).
(100 -20061
Associate Planner Ung provided a brief staff report on the request of the Koll
Company to construct a two-story, 21,000 -square foot office building to function as
their new corporate headquarters.
Motion by Council_ Member„_DAjgIe to approve the request by adopting
Resolution No. 2006 -91 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003 and
adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 - 081039); and introducing
Ordinance No. 2006 -21 approving Planned Community Development Amendment
No. 2006 -001, and pass to second reading on October 24, 2006.
Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, Mayor Webb closed
the public hearing.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky,
Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council
_ Member Nichols
— 14:---•— P.IcANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2006-004
(PA2d )„AMENDMENT TO THE AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED
COMMUNITY VELOWNT PLAN PROHIBITING NEW RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISIONS IN PLAN141ft- h41El1 JF (100-20061
Assistant Planner Bunim provided a brief staff report regard" t4he,Xequest from
Volume 67 - Page 813
35
CITY 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
31
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
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. 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 W 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.
3�
Koll Center Newport
October 10, 2006
Page 4
Prepared by: Submitted by:
osa inh M. Ung, s ciate Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planin ing 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.
Ab
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORTS AND MINUTES
FROM THE SEPTEMBER 7
AND 21, 2006 MEETING
(WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS)
M
Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
September 21, 2006
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 6
file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 01/02/2007
INDEX
11014 CALL
omrt%sioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn -
ommtoner Henn was excused, Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:37, all
others were esent.
STAFF PRESEN�
�R
Patricia Temple, Planniritbpirector
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportati6n.and Development Services Manager
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner,i,
Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner 4
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Ex utive Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
,yh
COMMENTS
None ",,,
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 15, 2i9Q6.
ti
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 7, 2006.
EM NO. 1
Commissioner Hawkins noted that he had agreed one of his suggested changesApp
ed
to these minutes referring to statements by an applicant was not included.
SUBJECT: 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 Permi
No. 2006 -095 to the City Council.
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485)
ITEM NO. 3
2920 Newport Boulevard
Page 1 of 6
file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 01/02/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006
The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub
Continued to
pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City
October 5, 2006
in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several
complaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will
valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditions
under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission
may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions oll
approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary
and revocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time.
Staff requests to continue this item to October 5, 2006.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calends
as modified.
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge
Noes:
None
Absent:
Peotter and Henn
Abstain:
McDaniel
HEARING ITEMS
ECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004
ITEM NO. 4
(PA2006 -173)
PA2006 -173
Amend th Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to
Recommended
for Approval
decrease the aximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling
units to 47 d ling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would increase
dwelling units.
Russell Bunim, Assistan Rlanner, gave an overview of the staff review:
• This item was initiated b� he City Council in response to a letter from the
Belcourt Master Association`.
• The original amendment would rdqce the number of dwelling units from
48 to 47 to be consistent with the n bar of existing lots and to prohibit
future subdivisions.
• A second amendment has been proposed th would allow language from
the General Plan to allow for reverting back to t underlying lots and that
is okay with the Homeowners' Association.
• The new recommendation on the resolution attacheXxhibit show
the Planned C ommunity Text, which remains at 48 ws for
reverting back to the underlying lots.
Ms. Temple noted that, should the Commission decide to pursue the oh i_naI
language, it is included in the staff report of the previous meeting. `
Commissioner Hawkins asked if anyone had spoken to the Council.
*,h
ssistant City Attorney Harp answered this fully addresses the Council concerns.
Ms. Temple noted that the alternate discussion came about after questions
relating to how this fits within the just adopted General Plan. Should the
Planning Commission adopt the new recommendation with the new resolution, i
file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlGvarinTC min eta112006109212006.htm
Page 2 of 6
0 P/p2/2007
.1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2
September 21, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Rosalinh Ling, 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
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:
alinh M. Ung, ociate Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Exhibit: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-
a�
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
McDaniel
The Koll Company (PA2006 -095)
4450 MacArthur Blvd.
ral Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to trans
ilt retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B
Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for I
ruction of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one le
rranean parking structure.
airman Cole acknowledged that this item is being heard past 10:30 p.m.,
ich requires a consensus of the Commission.
Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting:
. The applicant proposes to construct a two -story office building to fu
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 south,
corner of MacArthur Boulevard and at the entry driveway west of
Fairmont Hotel.
. There is unbuilt floor area identified by the Koll Center Planne
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 tot
of 340,000 square feet of office space, a 30,000 square foot private clu
and a 471 room hotel.
Office Site B permitted a total of 965,216 square feet of office spac
10,000 square feet of retail and 19,000 square feet of restaura
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
office, retail and restaurant development. This unused square foot
within the PC text; however, has not recognized by the 1988 Land I
Element due to the fact that there was no projected growth allowed
Office Site B.
. The estimated growth table in the 1988 Land Use Element shows
existing building area in 1988 equals the maximum allowed and
growth in floor area.
. Since the 1988 Land Use Element did not account for the unbuilt floor
the PC text allowed in Office Site B, an amendment to the Land
Element is being sought to increase the floor area in Office Site B by
Page 25 of 35
PA2006 -095
Continued to
09/21/2006
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PhiAgendas/mn09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
Wp
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
unbuilt amount identified in the PC text and then transferring it to
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
reflect the existing numbers tracked by our Building Permits. T
difference between the maximum allowable floor area indicate in the 19
Land Use Element for Office Site B and the existing overall gross fk
area is 2502 gross square feet.
. The proposed projects require an amendment to the Planned Communi
text to allow for the transfer of development intensity of the unused reta
restaurant and office uses from Office Site B to Site A.
. This request is consistent with the provisions allowed in the PC text.
net increase in the square footage will result from this amendment.
. Only 21,311 square feet will be used for the construction of the pr(
office building and the remaining will be reserved for future
development in that particular site.
. Koll Center Newport Planned Community allows the 24,016 square feet
additional development that the 1988 and the 2006 Land Use Elements
not. This entitlement pre -dated the 1988 Land Use Element and st
believes there was no intent to eliminate it.
. The proposed General Plan Amendment will recognize this un -bu
entitlement and make the Land Use Element consistent with the Kc
Center Newport Planned community.
. The resolution recommends approval of the proposed amendment and it ie
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 shal
take a separate action to amend the 2006 Land Use Element.
. The Commission could act on the application tonight and not have thi
return. Staff has prepared this application to have two separatio
considerations with the Council, one for the 1988 Land Use Element an
the other for the 2006 Land Use Element after the election if it i
necessary.
. Temple noted that Section 1 on page 4 of the draft resolution addresses the
ual amendment to the 1988 Land Use Element. Section 2 makes a separate
ommendation for approval of the General Plan Amendment per Exhibit B.
iibit B is the information necessary to amend the not yet adopted or approve(
the voters 2006 Land Use Element. It is segmented, and while we believe the
mmission can make a recommendation to the City Council related t(
ending either or both the 1988 plan as well as the 2006 plan, that the City
until can not consider nor adopt an amendment to the 2006 Land Use
!ment until it is actually approved by the electorate in November.
Clausen affirmed that the draft resolution reflects these issues.
Page 26 of 35
0
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /nin09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
;on Cole questioned the unused square footage within the PC
.d by the 1988 Land Use Element. The chart talks about an a
Why didn't they recognize the footage at that time?
Temple noted that a mistake had been made, there was no overt
,cience intent to reduce the entitlements within the Planned Community.
s such as Koll Center Newport where there is unique subdivis
igements we established square footage limits as opposed to floor a
s in an attempt to make them consistent. Due to the structure of
ned Community text sometimes it is difficult to figure out what the total v
in this case the square footage was missed.
uls. Clauson noted during the analysis they looked back at the record to ma
pure it was more than just the memory of staff and the intent of what we h
ntended to do and make sure that there wasn't anything indicating somethi
specific in the record that it was intended to reduce. It is not clear in the recc
at the time it was adopted. There are statements in the original adopti
anguage resolution adopting the 1988 Land Use Element that says there was
ntent to make reductions in land use approvals, but it doesn't say this prope
vas intended to be reduced. Her recommendation to both staff and 1
applicant that we need to do a General Plan Amendment to make it very clear
he record. This is a very conservative valid way to make sure that they b(
Temple added the best course of action is to deal with this through
Bral Plan Amendment.
issioner Hawkins asked how
mendation but the Council can not
vested rights to the property owner?
the Commission can n
make a similar action. Did
Is. Clauson answered that this is an attempt to assist the applicant in a situati
here they are caught in limbo. The General Plan was actually adopted by t
ity Council and just the 423 vote, which deals with the required approval of t
and Use allocation. That is what needs to be amended as staff did not c
rese numbers into the new General Plan because of the timing. This is a va
nd procedural way to assist the applicant so that they don't have to come ba
) the Planning Commission after the vote to get another recommendation wh
re analysis is made here. The actual amendment to the General Plan can r
e done until after the election.
s. Clauson answered they did not have vested rights, they had a PC text tl
rthorized a certain amount of square footage. When the General Plan w
iopted, it could very well have been a specific intent to reduce the number
luare footage in that and the PC text would later have been amended to redr,
at number.
Temple added that the presence of 'entitlements' in our zoning documents
i many people say they are vested entitlements. What that is, is ar
lability to utilize intensity. There are other factors in zoning that could taus(
individual property not to be able to exercise their full 'entitlement' or thei
ng limit. An example would be in Corona Del Mar you may have floor are(
of .5 but the nature of your use and its parking requirement may not allov
to get all of it. So, you don't have an absolute right to construct ever.
Page 27 of 35
4%
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
ble square foot unless you can comply with all other standards. In this F
compliance with the standards are easy. The zoning entitlement is r
d until whatever approval or permit is achieved as required by the zoning.
missioner Eaton noted there is no reference to the mitigation measu
Idn't it also say approved subject to the mitigation measures. Also,
itions do not match up with the mitigation measures. Should they
Clauson noted this is a resolution recommending a General
idment, which is a legislative act. It is not a conditioned approval.
that Exhibit D was the list of Standard Code Requirements.
Temple answered the standard code requirements are in the code, and
s to comply. The mitigation measures will be dealt with through
jation monitoring. The City Council resolution will certify it.
Hawkins noted that on this resolution we take no action on
document.
Clauson noted that the Commission needs to have a recommendation
ption by the Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Planr
nmission wants to adopt this resolution and forward on the recommendati
motion should require including a Whereas and specific recommendation
approval of the environmental document and adoption of mitigal
isures. Council will do that in their adopting resolution.
missioner Toerge noted it does not make sense receiving a resolution
12-3 hours before hearing and not having a chance to read it. Certainly 1
c hasn't an opportunity to read it either. We are setting a bad precedr
I am uncomfortable with this and I believe that staff is too. I have read 1
report and have no issue with the project, but I don't think we are ready
)ve this as I haven't had the opportunity to review this resolution.
issioner Peotter moved to continue this because he feels the same way.
issioner Henn noted he is not going to vote on something that he
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.
Page 28 of 35
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 29 of 35
. 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 footage
reviewing building permits and very detailed analysis to ensure that we a
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 h
increased importance.
. It is important that it be clarified and stated for the record in a very clea
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 1972 what would be happening in 2006.
. The way we read the resolution under the last Whereas, what it says
the environmental record shows there will be less than significant imps
the mitigation measures identified are feasible, they reduce poten
environmental impacts to a less than significant level, and they are appl
to the project and incorporated as conditions of approval.
. This is what covers the incorporation measures appropriately s
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
ding regarding the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. Such a findii
missing in this resolution. It should be included.
followed on possible wording.
�O
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /P1nAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
McDermott noted that with all things considered, asked that this not
tinued but come up with language to add to the resolution that would addr
Commission concerns.
rperson Cole asked about the trips being generated by this building.
McDermott answered they are at 299
:hairperson Cole noted:
. Those trips are primarily peak hour trips for office use.
. The development transfer rights are coming predominately what
called retail /restaurant uses, which would be for non -peak trips.
. Was this looked at this context?
. These peak hour trips are different.
Temple answered:
. There is no relationship between the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) a
Charter Section 423.
. The TPO does deal with peak hour trips.
. The original use designation for retail and restaurant are different in
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,
far greater than office.
. What they don't have typically is the a.m. trips, which office would
more of.
Edmonston agreed.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
nmissioner Henn noted he feels an obligation to perform his duties, so he wil
be voting on this item tonight as he has not had the opportunity to review the
Elution. He has read the staff report.
Eaton noted he would act on this tonight if the resolution was
http://www,city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/rnn09-07-06.htm
Page 30 of 35
6J
12/22/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006
s. Clausen noted the main reason this resolution came out so late is because
eir office got involved with it late. She told staff that they needed to bring thi;
the Council after the adoption of the new General Plan or the effective date
at they would have to now amend the new General Plan to reflect these
ranges because they did not transfer over. Due to that, staff had to compose
e resolution for the Planning Commission so the applicant did not have t(
ime 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
anning Commission make the recommendation to the City Council to amen(
)th of them. That is the information that is in here. The two issues would be t(
quire and to find, make the findings and have staff add to the resolution tha
nguage that was necessary to make the findings that you find that the Negative
�claration is adequate and you recommend the City Council approve it. The
her issue is standards. The last item being approved is the changes to the PC
A. There is no issue with having these attached. Your question is whether the
itigation measures should also be included when this is a PC text amendment.
rice the adopting resolution for the Negative Declaration is done by the City
:)uncil those mitigation measures will be adopted and they will have to b(
iplemented as part of the project. If you would like to have the mitigatior
easures be included in the standard operating conditions, then you can give
at direction.
mmissioner Eaton answered that this came up in two prior projects and t
igation measures were included.
. Clausen noted her confusion was she thought that these conditions we
ng attached to the General Plan Amendment, they are not. They are bei
ached to the PC text amendment, so I think the mitigation measures could
the Planning Commission added to that.
e added that given the hour and that the public comment period is not close
)ther option would be to continue this item for review and approval of t
olution. You don't have to have another public hearing. Unless there is
ange that comes up, you don't have to re -open the public hearing at the ne
sting, you could just act on the resolution. Otherwise, there could be directi
approve this resolution with the finding and staff can put those appropris
sings in and forward it to the City Council. Whatever you feel m(
nfortable with.
,nmissioner Hawkins noted that a finding similar to Section 1 of Our
een of Angels resolution is needed as a new Section 4 so long as it is to
this project.
)Ilowing a brief discussion the consensus of the Commission was to contin
is item to the next meeting.
lotion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to S
1st without having to open the public hearing on the application itself.
and
None
Page 31 of 35
�a
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usiP1nAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 12/22/2006
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 -320$
rung @citymewport- beach.ca. us
SUBJECT: Koll.Center Newport
4450 MacArthur Blvd..
General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003
Planned. Community Development.Amendment No. 2006, =001
(PA200&096)..
APPLICANT: The Koll Company
ffEQUEST . .
The Koll Company proposes to construct. a 21,311 square foot, two -story office building
over a subterranean. parking garage' on a t.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 -APea 1 -1 (Office Site A) of the Airport_Area
(Statistical Area 14) by 24,016 gross square feet; and an amendment to the Koll'Center
Newport. Planned Community (PC-15) to allow the transfer of 24,01:6 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 Amendment No. 2006 -003 and; Planned
Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 to. the City , Council by adopting the attached
draft resolution.
�3
DISCUSSION
I 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
modern, 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
55
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 speck 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 6.
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
Existin
Remaining
Office
1342,131
1340,506
*1,625
Private Club LJ
45,000 142,029
0
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.
Hot
Maximum Allowed
Existing
Remainifi " ' `
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
7,0.00
'Total: 24,01.6
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.
Hot
not recognized by the 1988 Land Use E
projected growth allowed for Office Area B.
Land Use Element shows that the existing
allowed and zero growth in floor area. The
consistent with the PC Text.
Koll Center Newport
September 7, 2006
Page 5
ement due to the fact that there was no
The estimated growth table within the 1988
building area in 1988 equals the maximum
1988 Land Use Element should have been
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.tlse 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).
61
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: 1,060,146* GPA
*This total accounts for Master Development Corporation
Office Site A
Current Limit: 436,079 GPA
Proposed Limit: 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
CD v
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 speciFed 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 alt 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 -112 (Mixed -Use Horizontal).
This designation is intended to provide for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may
include regional commercial office, mufti- 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. 3_
4.3 Transfer of Development Rights — Permit the transfer of development rights?.
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 conidor(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.
V
Koll 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 lotto 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 Aril -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 421
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..
to 1
A-Vv
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. 4
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 86 %.of the
increases noted in the table above.
Planned Community Text Amendment
The proposed project requires an amendment to the Planned Community.Tezt tcallow.
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 I of Part II
(COMMERCIAL) of the Koll Center Planned Community Text. Under Group. 1, 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.
N
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
42.7 (100%)
413(100%)
10o °l0
Total
f 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. 4
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 86 %.of the
increases noted in the table above.
Planned Community Text Amendment
The proposed project requires an amendment to the Planned Community.Tezt tcallow.
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 I of Part II
(COMMERCIAL) of the Koll Center Planned Community Text. Under Group. 1, 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.
N
J 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
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, Transportation[ftaffic, Utilities and Service. Systems.
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 7`" 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.
v3
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 ft. The proposed General Plan Amendment will recognize this.' .unbuift.
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 speerfied1h" a 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,
ft 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 ft would remain
effective if the 2006 Land Use Element is not adopted by the voters. Second, ft
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 ft will appear on the
November 2006 ballot This is the only way to avoid having this project re -heard after
I 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:
1101 alinh M. Ung, s ociate Planner
Submitted by:
Gregg Rdmirez,,Acting Plann 70irector
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
615
ATTACHMENT E
FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
(WITH ERRATA AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS)
lu'l
x'41
ERRATA and
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
for the proposed
KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
PROJECT
Prepared for:
City ofNewport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 6443208
Prepared by:
EDAW, 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 (MND), errors 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 strike - out/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 Site A. It, does not represent new
information that was not included in the IS/MND. 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 there 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. pace 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 Use Pefmit (UP 2006 008) to allow the timisfef of development intensity fi;eni offiee Site B t@ 0
Site A.
Section 1.3 Summary of Findings: nape 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
alit , 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: paragraph 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 and of the work a^° 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 Project 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 Office 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 Project Area—maEe 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 famsl).
Section 2.2 Description of the Proposed Protect: 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--UA
Center N aw......t Planned Geis. -u-4
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 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 plaza and entry. The existing-30
foot landscape setback on MacAruthur Boulevard as well as the existing perimeter landscRiny along the entry
drive will not be altered by the proposed pro ect.
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 amsll office
building with one level of subterranean parking surrounded by surface parking areas and ornamental
landscaping and trees.
Section 3.3 Air Ouality: nape 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 OF washed down at the end of the WOFIE 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 with because of the proposed project.
Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Ouality: page 3 -24: paragraph 5
tn
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
would b 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 Hydrology and Water Quality: page 3 -27; varaerav] 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: page 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. as '� �^^�.; as Ei 'o Use Pe-r t. Each of these areas is discussed in
further detai I 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 nAlo 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.
M
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
from in a transfer of available square footage f am ene area -of within the Airport Area from KCN Office
Site B to KCN Office Site A. to ane e and .. atild - °-e °° - of squa ^e f ge hat
is allowed in the General 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: parapraph 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.
ln el-dc; to t°affifer the neeessafy square fb� ages between K N OS B and KGN nc A, a use-pe
te City's ].. ing Code Per this s e f!he Zoning lode fifidi ..s must he rmde vcve .w -- - -a-p- p-ro...,�e . tl.e
benefit te !he aestheities of the aFea, results in struetuFes that are earApatible and do net Fesult in abrulm
e4anges in scale within the aFea, no lfnpaiFFRePA of PUblie NFieAb result, and no significant traffie impaets
r.c
f9SHit
Section 3.11 Noise: Daze 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: paragranh 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:Vage 3 -42: paragraph 2
The project is approximately 1/4-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 hit above mean sea level it will
not conflict with the planning guidelines of d ° °'° ° ° ° °' °.: °a°' °a 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: nape 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 Employees 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 153 yaragrap) 2
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the residential tinit
development.
i
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
AlRpou LAND USE COMIKSSION
'31Z T-1
Z-V =
NO,
i,h ix,
The language contained on page 3-41 Section 3.11 E, Noise has been
revised as shown below.
"The project is approximately '/.-mile southeast of the Airport property
.......
boundary line. Within this zone, the height of project is restricted to
200 feet movc rm,an 's!,;1 or less to ensure the safety of air traffic
and ground structures. Because the project is proposed to be 40
F
feet iw hcihiabove me sei evel it will not confli ct with Elio
mifftda�M-4)v the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The proposed project lies within
the 60 dBA in (NEL, 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.
I
Furthermore, as the project will not affect aircraft or airport
operations, there will be no increase in the exposure of people in the
a r eato noise levels associated with these sources."
Additionally, the project applicant has filed Form 7460-1 with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 26, 2006. In response
to this filing, FAA has responded with its determination which found
-0 1h, 04"
that the proposed project would have no hazard to air navigation.
Zg6 I" � b 6ti I AA
m-,A
M%3
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
X.4: ua. bie4.n>;t _�ragfx f•31 : tIe 'itua,ri'uz° c
".
2.
It is agreed that completion of the FAA 7460 process must be
1'
completed prior to the General Plan Amendment decision. However,
the timing of the required approvals was not clearly determined at the
the draft IS/MND. As the latest date
time of the preparation of such,
2
) " " "` "` " " = °'°'rs•-` "'' ° "•�' "�' "�
that could be applied (issuance of building permits) was used in
� ; «hc.anrotl,x_< nr -x >t, rfz& rA A 3 ,. maI, eo >_<ar t t :_
Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1. However, during the public review period,
iw r,rAp°" :.ra- •rs:vmt+ x" :" -` - ` "$ •' `�
'.trtl
the applicant received a determination from the FAA that the project
Ptt tASx.amNat 1,11W9 Y',:. wk rlI I, irt
A.� �. tx4+. +swsto.usSmur a .� e, •;:,,,.f M.r�.�
causes no hazard to air navigation (August 29, 2006). On that same
date, a request was made to the Airport Land Use Commission to
X34 e tLis� +cwv ai r�<�.
determine consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The
date requested for this review is September 21, 2006. This date falls
r = -, *, ,.. -- ,w -..� +�.t,� =.i.. - =, .t.;Y =;w;..� .. . >•:,�!.
between the Planning Commission hearing date of September 7, 2006
3
and the City Council anticipated hearing date of September 26, 2006.
-�k .r i .:'t ',. -.-
While the mitigation measure states that the filing of Form 7460 -1
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
..: �
letter, ALUC its determination to the
with the making poor
' + -z: -`Aa ` "
amendment of the General Plan.
4
�s•,.a f, c x�ccev : ma+ay..�r.t�} , � s +_ :.r, f.ecir��k
tM t{t4 U>». k,a M1�oxh :u tv vi "nu m,ws
III
`' �` +` " ° "0 � �"x`S 7 '�+ A' t '' ��+tN °'
3.
No heliports would be included with the proposed project.
hl—lt;
:4 .aa tes ls. Ai t'_en lwitw a. in n;rNJu +fr' *;_.. .. ,trvs
ri
4.
Please refer to response to comment #2, above.
i�frs� ' ��trt � . tKj k'AtNS]l111 1. 54. t;, t LJ '§ `C•Y54' -+�[L �-LL i' ➢I9 ".�bA
(g�
Letter of Comment
his. Rosefuh u W
City of N%MPM Bauch
3300 Newprr Scukatud
°aewPCrt Besdl,CA S20S3
SMECT: Review of a Wfitated Negative Dectatation for Me Kdi Company
t0noMta NetelmartersProject
Guar Alt. Ung:
The City of crone tea r000"d 61,4 re,"%d Ma efo reson pepenod regodmg file
ahae rekaenead pored aM has the fdbaeg ceannents:
TM CiryW bra?e iaYieves a trace sNd2 ,016 be eriCo aM the C
hnp B t the 4eceiha tamtfer W a3bew tf ofsors: L'tt t the KCti Rtfiu
58e 8 b the KCP3 Office S&a k for the `- cavn+�, reasons:
5
a- than a rthe w of irk oLjre gad ny pea prf to 1299 RGB }s j,, ace uap sv mly Cnan p+a n+inanum ,ecukenreri recassar'Y to inStiata • lrafr�c snoaU o,oysa
tear is eXo Beaty* Treiae ?haaing OPOWMura9 (TPO), SBr6. 0n 15 3G Of the
MWiCTW Cade}
b She 35RNVI} deaS out txwde an aae pad Pfd peas iwUr Mb s510
6 deannane g» level of wwact to currowi&v sheets de+ng to peas pomade.
- hmf"e, the tree ftom of the 3 qed are rat dat9oeod and conrux be
F.ropp Wanowed.
c. The C-ily a inrem r"ta +es a kaftotvw �' ary p end Nnvnvee one
sans�on atw peak laver p {p, liceciwse tta iS'M?3D ducts not aa,y
duccme tte' IX drt,v�ct, the City of Woe is amble W deha:nme
7 whether the protect W* kwpe ct If u, scoots old N C t. 'vldffaut
iumer analysis. the cayaf h nne can coif' atnurrre seethe puioo has
00*0140 in10" unhm ltv The Cdy d tnane pxvalcre requests tea
trait sdady ne pref»aud as %mM be t0gcmd for a similar project e, n ane
Which+tufts in ttanster of One it) a moue houruvs
Afi
Response to Comment
5. 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 Seetion
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 1'or 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 ate taken from the City of Newport
Beach Transportation Analysis Model.
ANTICIPATED PROJECT- GENERATED TRAFFIC
Trip Generation Rates _
Land Use
4Ogegb
Unit
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak Hour.
city mrinh+e.^,„ -xC :rio vaaMr?lacx 'C Bax�0.i44adn. 0ati'xxrcs �:y�F
iexaummd.ia Ex,aii
Daily
O.tyMni midms rev G3Adaii
I our
Total.
his. Rosefuh u W
City of N%MPM Bauch
3300 Newprr Scukatud
°aewPCrt Besdl,CA S20S3
SMECT: Review of a Wfitated Negative Dectatation for Me Kdi Company
t0noMta NetelmartersProject
Guar Alt. Ung:
The City of crone tea r000"d 61,4 re,"%d Ma efo reson pepenod regodmg file
ahae rekaenead pored aM has the fdbaeg ceannents:
TM CiryW bra?e iaYieves a trace sNd2 ,016 be eriCo aM the C
hnp B t the 4eceiha tamtfer W a3bew tf ofsors: L'tt t the KCti Rtfiu
58e 8 b the KCP3 Office S&a k for the `- cavn+�, reasons:
5
a- than a rthe w of irk oLjre gad ny pea prf to 1299 RGB }s j,, ace uap sv mly Cnan p+a n+inanum ,ecukenreri recassar'Y to inStiata • lrafr�c snoaU o,oysa
tear is eXo Beaty* Treiae ?haaing OPOWMura9 (TPO), SBr6. 0n 15 3G Of the
MWiCTW Cade}
b She 35RNVI} deaS out txwde an aae pad Pfd peas iwUr Mb s510
6 deannane g» level of wwact to currowi&v sheets de+ng to peas pomade.
- hmf"e, the tree ftom of the 3 qed are rat dat9oeod and conrux be
F.ropp Wanowed.
c. The C-ily a inrem r"ta +es a kaftotvw �' ary p end Nnvnvee one
sans�on atw peak laver p {p, liceciwse tta iS'M?3D ducts not aa,y
duccme tte' IX drt,v�ct, the City of Woe is amble W deha:nme
7 whether the protect W* kwpe ct If u, scoots old N C t. 'vldffaut
iumer analysis. the cayaf h nne can coif' atnurrre seethe puioo has
00*0140 in10" unhm ltv The Cdy d tnane pxvalcre requests tea
trait sdady ne pref»aud as %mM be t0gcmd for a similar project e, n ane
Which+tufts in ttanster of One it) a moue houruvs
Afi
Response to Comment
5. 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 Seetion
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 1'or 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 ate taken from the City of Newport
Beach Transportation Analysis Model.
ANTICIPATED PROJECT- GENERATED TRAFFIC
Trip Generation Rates _
Land Use
Sim
Unit
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak Hour.
Daily
In
I our
Total.
In
out I Total
_
General
TSF
1.69
021
1.90
032
155 187
14.03
Office
Proposed
AM
Peak Hour
�
PM,Poak-Hour
Land�Use
SiteUnit
in
Ant
Total:
In ,
out.
Total
Dally
General
21311
TSF
36
4
40
7
33
40
299
Office
Total
36
4
40
7
33
40
299
Source: New rt Beach Transportation Analysis Model
7. Although a similar project located within the City of Irvine would require 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
sepR,,ser 1, 2M
Pao 2
Pioae, pm +e, ,aa ,, 5afff, oA,,, to an*p*are bnpact& d,
8. Please refer to Response to Comments #5 and #7, above.
289 ACT trarofer. Tmsa* should drams t+a aerurvalant AM .4 PMT
irw Vve1Wmnadm i" ezaasar "AOf#M Kate" ordw far areeaaaigrs
9. Koll Center Newport Office Site B is bounded b the following
wp Y g
atm"is of mracts to ocua.
roadways (Refer to Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2): Birch Street, Von Karmann
9
�. It is1Wdear Irma the ore!cafoseak"aa aCo mretimexattaY where w
�o, a ,lst„�f„ofagep%81vky„q,Nbe �,e"aa�,,, wderto
Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road. Please also see
au =mftia u.a adatimal e+tuareItroge at trio site MCN 05" 5 i
the Errata for the proposed project.
DeWitt! ana Shaw the ocatiw of KCN OMM Site B m r gtm 2.1 .
a. C7 Whetherw not marrovoseddaxdomn tisc0r � Nth the'anc
10. The proposed project is consistent with the land uses currently
10
uses oarenvpdoa�a` d ir.Cayaotwpor. eadfsG ra' Pon, or�ftre
devolopment8 ptopoLad 4md tracts ra?y on uw nprwai Of tte Ckys C-xraral
designated within the City of Newport Beach's existing General Plan
Flan Update cv. iof,r protects
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
Tmrk your the oppeM.at6yio reran micafor tra reposed rat.
project. However, as discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning,
° aec` b` ofr., a, raetcauaniwv °ttmnc°a'tg`aed any ru.t„e
the land uses proposed b the project would be compatible with land
P P Y P P
errswm'an ?al cbcurmrms rewarda�v�Prgea. rcyw heee �ni sgstsCm+s. ;Reese
.I
tai me at (949p T24-7453 or by &Ti9 a.LaWW slaftsa ^
uses proposed by the General Plan Update.
a4 ctxKTS,nrcp
Pi ;9 enact
C: Storm Larose, rsefsant Cmi Wtenager
Dog Y.4li ford, Mector'of Core+naaty De'.a:c::m of iE-mail)
N" styart, Matter of NWIe Woftf- ma+l}
N§aroml r.,am3z, 06Aft C% for o} vuG@c :.mks iE.rtr )
PA~ Haack. ManaW of?€annitg ate D"islom erK Servkac ;E -nmkl
Ktavart Lau. Wervaho Twsportation Maayst tE4oar,0
Dard R. law, Senor Prancer (E.rmr.')
5 n9 r, Matto, Seteor Trarspo:t aticn Ar for (E-rtat)
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
CCIIPA
Cal%omia Cultural Resource Preservation Ajgance. br.
U.M. oi�..� ..."Wo, we * aM
FLAW�
AMR918% Pimmar, Pkiwift Dbpftma c1ly
city of W-Wpmat" AdG 11 2P#5o
NMVMt ts�k CA 4260
near &k 1-
Thank you fi, Llsc oFportmaky w .,iam tlx of 1u w A6opl. Mi4wzd Wcp6w D=Im"
11. In compliance with the requirement of Senate Bill 18 to contact,
for the Ka! fpmp�y CMt
provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to
matm of th, 4�t.
amendment of a general plan, the City of Newport Beach mailed a
tribal consultation request describing the proposed general plan
MO 913 19,
amendment to the Native American Heritage Commission on August
_prw W u im ocnam P3aa Axt q W . W P" ide nouze W rtes a "" & ke rwi. is he
30, 2006.
VU -
=ond ==1
al. 5)�M.W JW=
4 ' 00Mt0a M 4(MBI#i"Fk
12. Comment noted,
L_#.,Ad ihmbe dkic. t,
P=i4m
1y�WP0
9LIF0VL
FINAL INITIAL STUDY and
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the proposed
KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
PROJECT
Prepared for:
C ty 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
Idb
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ............ _ ........................ .............................. .......................................... .. .... .... 1 -1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. ............................1 -1
1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study and MND ................................................. ............................... 1 -1
1.3 Summary of Findings ........................................................................... ............................... 1 -2
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................... .................. .................... .. .......... 2 -1
. 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ........................................ ............................... 2 -1
2.2 Description of the Proposed Project ..................................................... ............................... 2 -3
! ' 2.3 Objectives of the Project .................................................................. ............................... 2-8
2.4 Discretionary Actions ............. ............................... ........... 2 -8
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS....._ ............... _ .................................. .. ................. ............ _.... 3 -1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3,5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
Aesthetics...................:.................................... ...............................
Agriculture Resources ..................................... ...............................
AirQuality ...................................................... ...............................
Biological Resources ........................................................ I..............
Cultural Resources ........................ ...............................
Geologyand Soils ......................... ...............................
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...............................
Hydrology and Water Quality ...... ...............................
Land Use and Planning ................. ...............................
Mineral Resources ......................... ...............................
Noise.............................................. ...............................
Population and Ho
Public Services .............................. ...............................
Recreation..................................... ...............................
Transportation and Traffic ............ ...............................
Utilities and Service Systems ........ ...............................
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......
4.1 Findings ................................................... I..............
4.2 Mitigation Measures ............... ...............................
5 LIST OF PREPARERSIREFERENCES
5.1 Preparers of the Initial Study /MND ......................
5.2 References .......................... .....................7* * * * * * * ** ..
5.3 Persons Contacted .................. ...............................
................. ............................... -- I
................. ............................... 3-41
................. ............................... 3-43
................. ............................... 3-45
...................... ..........................'3 -46
................. ............................... 3-49
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
........................... 41
........................... 4 -1
.................. I........ 4 -1
........................... 5 -1
. ............................5 -1
............................. 5 -1
............................. 5 -2
................ .......... 6-1
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page i
Initial Study and MND
I
APPENDICES: Table of Contents (oontinued)
A— ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
B—AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Table
3-1
3-2
3-3
34
�3~5
3-6
| Figure
2-1
2-2
2-3
24
3~l
3-3
LIST OF TABLES
Page
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance 7hre6solda...........—.....................
3~6
Estimated Daily Construction Eroissinoa ............................................................................................
3~7
Estimated Daily Operational Emissions .....................................................................................
3~lO
Project Setback Requirements ...............................................~.3~3j
City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise ............ ... .................................
3`88
Population <]nxwth...........................................................
341
Regional Projections ......................................'...........'.,...~.
3^42
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page I/
InNal Study and MND
Z�
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
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 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) 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:
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 Planned Community in the Estimated Growth for the Airport
Area (Statistical Area L-4);
An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. (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
Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Newport Beach is serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Koll
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 a.project 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 WnGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review process for the proposed Project, the City of Newport Beach has
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 likely
to occur, whether such impacts could be significant. The purposes of this hritial 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 Impact Report (EIR) 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 EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the proposed Project to qualify for a
negative declaration;
• To assist in the preparation of an EM, 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;
K011 Company. Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -1
lnNal Study and MND
IZA
lntroductlon
• To identify whether a program E1R, tiering, or another appropriate process can he 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
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 (NINDIND) or an EIR Adoption of the MND ends - the- saviranmental review process for thv —
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.
Air Quality
The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that construction- realted air impacts would
remain at less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Use pre - coated building materials.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: Use high pressure-low volume (HPLY) 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 3.3 -4: 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
that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1-2
Initial Study and MND
2Z
- - 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 tunes.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: 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
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 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 flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary.
Mitigation Measure 33 -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 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 equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high volume-
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1-3
Initial Study and AM
z3
Introduction
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 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 filters on diesel construction
equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost-competitive for use on this proposed Project
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
W 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
r 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
i 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 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 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.
HydrologylWater 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -4
Initial Study and MND
L
fntnaductlon
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 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
r check as proof of filing with the RWQCB.
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 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 Traffic
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.
Utilities 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 shut -off the water.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
Page 1 -5
LS
Introduction
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 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 (ULFT) 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 Roll Company Corporate Headquarters Project, with the
incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, as outlined above.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and AND
Page 1 -6
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 from 1,421,233 persons to 1,932,700
persons (or by 35 percent). From 1980 to 1990, the County's population grey 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 increase in.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.
City 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
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 11.1 percent. The average household size is 2.09 persons per household.
Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -1
lnlfial Study and MND
27
The City has an estimated labor force 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 IA) in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach. The project is located
approximately one -half mile south/southeast of John Wayne Airport, approximately three-quarters of a mile
north/northeast of State Route 73 (SR -73), approximately one -half mile northwest of Jamboree Road, and
" approximately one mile south /southwest of Interstate 405 (11105) (Figure 2-1). The proposed project would be
located at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard.
' 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) Flamed 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 Office Site A, abutting
MacArthur Boulevard and the entry drive to Office Site A from MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street
and Von Karman 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 -112), 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 Flamed Community
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 (IND), and Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). 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 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
Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club with dining and athletic facilities.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
page
_21�b
ProfectDescription
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 omamental 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.
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 1.25 miles
northwest of the proposed project site.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes the development of a two -story (40 -feet tall), 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 ibot (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
l Koll Center Newport of the Airport Area (Statistical Area i: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 Planned 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 24).
Parking
The proposed project includes 10,300 NSF of subterranean parking below the office building and redesign of
the existing common area parking spaces. The project site would provide 17 subterranean parking spaces and
94 surface parking spaces.
Kell Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2-3
Initial Study and MAID
Z�
Figure 2 -1
Fee D 600 1,000 2,0 0 Regional Location and Vicinity Map
The Koll Company H
Koll Center Newport
September 2006
N
I
r�
CORIMMF
WAY
BOBIM
- PAIN4K: '
LANDSCAPEARROSCAPE GARAGE
AREA
E7081lk;
NNE STORY
OFFICE ULDM
The Koll Company Headquarters
Koll Center Newport
Figure 2 -2
ng Site Plan
September 2006
0
l g
9
!j
=
W 11NMI
M10-i
<
ra
h.
C<L
I 111RAM
Figure 2-3
Proposed Site Plan
The KoR Company Headquarters September 2006
Koll Center Newport
The proposed project would provide approximately 16,844 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 plaza and entry.
23 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The 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.
2.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
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 No. 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.
■ Kell 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 (ABLUP) Consistency Determination — Based on the project's
proximity to the John Wayne Airport, a determination must be made the Airport Land Use Commission
i.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
Page 2-B
5q
Project Desorption
(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 IWA and requires a
General Plan Amendment.
• Additionally, the proposed project penetrates the Notification Surface for IWA at the 100:1 slope
and therefore requires filing of FAA Form 7460 -1. Per the JWA AELUP, 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 Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) — The City of Newport Beach is a co-
permitee 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 hr order to comply with these requirements the proposed project would require the
following:
• 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.
Kota Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -9
fnldal Study and MND
NO
SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYsis
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
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 • Land Use and Planning
■ Agriculture Resources ■ Mineral Resources
■ Air Quality Noise
■ Biological Resources - Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources Public Services
■ Geology and Soils Recreation
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation/ Traffic
■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ 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 Significant 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
(EIR).
The references and sources used in the analysis are provided after the response to each question.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
lrtlNal Study and MND
Page 3 -t
Errvlronmental
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 structures 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 Area, 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
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 modem, contemporary architecture comprised of glass and stone or stone -like
fascia and wall elements to compliment the existing structures in the area. The proposed landscaping would be
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -2
Initial Study and MND
kAZ
Environmental Analysis
comprised of tree and groundcover /shrub species that compliment the existing landscaping of the existing site
and surrounding 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 impacts 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 outcroppings, 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
1 considered a scenic resource. Furthermore, the project proposes additional trees that would compliment the
existing Eucalyptus and Liquidambar 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 be 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 light 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3.3
Initial Study and MND
IA-3
Environmental
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 sun. 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 Survey and Project Plans)
3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
_ The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 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 within 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.
(Sources: 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 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Kali Company Corporals Headquarters
In X41 Study and MND
Page 3 -4
y�A
Environmental Analysis
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 -H2), 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 — Agricultumal).zone. However, the R -A zone is not located on or near the proposed
project site. Areas adjacent to the project site are primarily designated as APF, but also as Retail and Service
Commercial, General Industry, and Government, Educational, and Institutional 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 Community 15 — Koll 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 ezzrrting and proposed Newport Beach General Plan, G orma
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Newport Beach 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 non - agricultural use?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.B, 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 trips, 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 at 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
Initial Study and MND
Page 3 -5
kA �
Environmental Analysis
• 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 AM QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operation
NO
100 lbs1day
55 lbs/da
VOC
75 lbs/&y
55 lbs /da
PM10
150 lbs/day
150 lbs /da
SOx
150 lbs/da
150 lbs/da
CO
550 lbs/day
550 lbs /da
Lead
3 lbs /da
3 lbs /da
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
NO2
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)
PMta
10.4 gg/m' (recommended for construction)
24 -hour average
2.5 µg/m' (operation)
annual geometric average
1.0 gg/m'
annual arithmetic mean
20 µg/m'
Sulfate
24 -hour average
25 µg/m'
CO
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or
contributes in excess of the following attainment standards:
1 -hour average
20 ppm (State)
8 -hour average
9.0 ppm (StateNederal)
.
Source: SCAQMD 2006
Ibs/day = pounds per day, ppm = pam per million; AWtr? = microgram per cubic meter
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -6
Initial Study and MND
4�
0
0
EnWronmentat
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
first 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
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 (CARB 2005). URBEMIS computes emissions of
reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, CO, SO2, and PM1o. On a project of this type, SOi emissions would be
negligible and are not included in the analysis below. URBEMIS does not calculate PM2.5 emissions.
Appendix B includes construction equipment assumptions and air quality calculations.
Construction Emissions is
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 PMto.
Estimated construction - related mass emissions for each component of the expansion are shown in Table 3-
2.
TABLE 3 -2. ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Demolition
4.0
31.3
32.1
3.8
Grading
5.4
52.7
1
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
75
100
550
150
Exceeds SCA MD Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
Source: URBPd.1lS ver. ;.7 (RWO 2005)
Emissions arc not additive; the two elements of construction would not occur conwu tl .
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
Intrial Study and AM
Envlronmet'al
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 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: 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,
9 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.
Mitigation 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 33-8: 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 vdthin thirty (30) minutes of deposition.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
Page 3-8
�\k-b
Environmental Analysis
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 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 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 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 3.3 -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 equipment with high transfer efficiency,
such as the high volume -low pressure (RVLP) 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 3.345: 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 constriction activities on the proposed Project site.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -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.
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
- —°
4 " 1
U
•
0
Environmental
TABLE 3 -3. ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -10
Initial Study and AND
40
i
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 PMie) 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 PMta 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-tern nature 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)
3.4 BIOLOGICAL
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.
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -11
Initial Study and MND
51
Enidronmental Analysis
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 /shrub
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
Game 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
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
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
Initial Study and WD
SZ
Environmental Ana"s
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)
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 designated2s an •_ -
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
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 ordinance?
No Impact. Existing tree species present on the proposed project site include mature Eucalyptus and
Liquidambar. The majority of the existing trees on -site 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?
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, Site Survey, and Coastal/Central Orange County NCCP)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -13
Initial Study and MND 5
Environmental Analysis
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 1800'x, 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 II 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's, rapid growth led to the building of shopping centers, hotels, high -scale restaurants, and many new
homes.
The-Gity.of Newport Beach has not beerrextensiveiy studied-or excavated: - -However; many archaeological -
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 known 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 §15064.5?
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 15064.5?
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
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 Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -14
Intttd Study and MND
5�
Environmental Analysis
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
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
archaeological resources if such resources are located on -site. However, the likelihood of encountering unique
archaeological resources is considered minimal 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:
---Wtigation Measure 3.5 -1: - Priorto -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
Newport 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
hardscape 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 bas been subject to grading activities in the
past and unique paleontological resources and geologio 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
considered potentially significant.
Mitigation
Kell Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -15
Initial Study and UND
55
r Environmental Analysts
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to unique
paleontological resources to a level less than significant:
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
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 maor 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 Plarming Department. The paleontologist shall determine
' appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
f . 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
Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental lnytact 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
1 _ 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 ofNatural 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 characterized by broad sandy beaches, coastal bluffs,
uplifted marine terraces, and tidal marshes. The nearest major ridgelines 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
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).
Solis
The City of Newport Beach is underlain by Holocene -age alluvial sediments present in active and recently
active stream channels 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -16
Initial Study and MND
54
Ent4ronmenta1 Anatysk .
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.
Seismicity
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 fault 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 Quadrangle, 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 rupture of a known 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -17
intttal Study and MND
5�
Environmental Aneiysis
earthquake faults cross through or extend onto the site, development on the site would not be exposed to
fault ground rupture 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 Impact. There 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 groundshaldng hazards
_ during an earthquake event, .This. 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
j 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: USGS 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 - related 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 -I8
Initial Study and MO
S(�
Environmental Analysis
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 €or,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 sits- 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 Headquarters Page 3 -19
Initial Study and MND
S�
j 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)
If. 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 may
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 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Land uses within the vicinity of the proposed project that are
included on EPA's TRI include Conexant Systems, Inc. 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 2.5 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 soil/emsion 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 Envirofacts 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 Headquarters Page 3 -20
Initial Study and MND
�0
Envlmnmental Analysis
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 impaet 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 would 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. Further,
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 -11
Initial Study and MND
b1
Environmental
C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardons or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one - qnarter 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 hazardons 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
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 OS miles southeast of the proposed project site. No impacts on these hazardous material users
would occur with the proposed project.
(Sources: EPA Envirofacts Database and Site Survey)
E. For a project located within an, airport land use plan or, where snch 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 (JWA) 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.
.. Koil Company Corporate Headquaners Page 3 -22
Initial SYudy and MND `
:. VZ
Environmental Analysis
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.
(Sources: 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 Guide for Los Angeles 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
'i 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)
H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland Fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The proposed project site is currently improved as paved surface parldng 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 /sbrub 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 plans)
.. Koll Company Corporate Headquarters- Page 3 -23 5
Initial Shady and MND #
Environmental Analysis
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 I of the
Lower Santa Ana River watershed. Reach I extends from what is referred to as the Tidal Basin on the coast
to 17's 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 11 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- laaown to occur on the proposed project site:
According to the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed project area is located 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)
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 further 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:
Measure 3.8 -1: Prior to issuance of grading permits by the City, the Project Applicant
p and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Koff. Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -24
Initial Study and hfND
Ent4ronmerdal Analysis
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 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.
Operation
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
t amounts of surface parking and landscaping areas. Thus, the proposed project would be largely covered
with impervious surfaces and would generate stormwater runoff. The presence of pollutants associated with
the proposed use of the site in the volume - uf`rmoff 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
i
ensure that stormwater runoff is minimized to the maximum extent possible and that no violations
of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
r
(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 land 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -25
Initial Study and MND 1 4)
Environmental
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 parldng 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`Fi-roject 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. The 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 WQNP
F requirements. NPDES permit and SWPPP requirements would properly control short-term erosion and
siltation impacts during the construction phase of the project. The requirements of the WQNP, NPDES'
permit, and SWPPP are further discussed in Section M.A. 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 paved 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
pattern 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 Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -26
Initial Study and MND 4
Envi mnmental Analysis
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 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 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.
(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
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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -27
Initial Study and BLIND V7
Environmental
(Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, 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 (FIRM). 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.
(Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element)
I. Would the project expose people.or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. The proposed project area is not located 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.
(Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, and Project Plans)
J. 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 in the
City. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with proposed project implementation.
(Sources: Site Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element)
I{. 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
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
docks 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 O
Initial Study and MND u
Environmental
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 parking
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
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 areas.
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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -29
Initial Study and WD Q
Entdronmental Analysis
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 Figure 3-1, Land Use Policy Map, the proposed project site is located in the Airport Area
(Statistical Area L4) 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 14 KCN Office 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 L4. The land use designation within the GPU for the proposed project
site is Mixed Use Horizontal 2 W -H2). "This designation provides far a horizontal intermixing of uses that
includes regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel
rooms and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Zoning for the site would still be governed by the Planned
Community text for the area (see below).
Koll Center Newport Planned Community
TThe 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 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 finther into what are referred to as office site areas (K(N Qf'tce
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 Administrative, 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 parking structure to the southeast.
South of the proposed project site at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman
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
(AEL UP) for JWA, and Site Survey)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -30
Initial Study and APM
'} u
Environmental Analysis
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 Planted Community currently developed as a
surface parldng lot with associated landscaping. The proposed project involves development of an
approximately 21,311 square foot commercial structure 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: Newport 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
j 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
j 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 parldng lot, no unique natural landforms 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 MND
--)S
Environmental Analysis
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 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.
Proposed General Plan
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 -H2). This designation provides for a
horizontal .intermixing of uses that includes regional commercial office, multi - family residential; vertical,
mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The uses
proposed by the projectmould be compatible with the land use designation of the GPU.
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 4.3 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 hips and; the
increment of growth to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development and
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
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 ensure compatibility and, as discussed in the Transportation/Circulation discussion, would not
result 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
shield views. In its existing state, the parking lot is visible from the street with only minimal landscaping
disrupting the view.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -34
Initial Study and ARID
l)
0
Koll Center Newport Planned Community
0
Environmental
u
As mentioned above, the proposed project is located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community
(KCN PC). The Plarmed 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
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
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 34 PROJECT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
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
11
Environmental Analysis
Furthermore, the proposed project is within the boundaries of the AELUP for JWA 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 confect with any - applicable habitat conservation plan or natural,
community 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 Survey, and Newport Beach General Plan, Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP)
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 1355 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
mining operations.
(Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Santa Ana Quadrangle and Site 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?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in an area where known mineral resources are present.
Future development on the site would not affect regionally significant mineral resources since there are no
known 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 USGS Laguna 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?
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -36
Initial Study and MND
Environmental
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 mineral 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, Site 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 barhestaurant noise, recreational facilities and residential and other common
sources in urban environments.
j 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 measures need to be incorporated into the design and
construction of these uses. However, no noise sensitive land uses 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 10.28.040 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 a.m. 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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -37
Initial Study and MN➢
0 0
Environmental
• TABLE 3 -5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
0
C�
J
Categories
Uses
Interior
Exterior
Residential
S. le Family, Two Family, Multiple Famil
---T5'-
5 55
65
Mobile Home
—
65
Commercial
0 M otel, Transient Lo
45
65
Industrial
omercial Retail Bank Restaurant
�Homl
55
—
Institutional
ffice Building, Research and Development,
50
—
Pro£essional 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
—
en Space I
Parks
—
65
Interpretation
I. Indoor environment secluding: 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 means of exit from
inside, mobile hoax 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 means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of
Chapter 12, Section 1205 of UBC.
4. Noiselevel requirements with open windows, if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirement
5. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL.
6. Exe t those areas around the irpott 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 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.
Construction Noise
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.
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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -38
Initial Study and MVD
Uj V
Environmental Analysis
M#igation
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 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.
Traffic 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 and from the site is not expected 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 3.0-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
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 turn 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 /1000 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 Noise
. 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 conduction activities would create noises from
construction equipment and vibration from excavation and grading activities. Temporary constmction noise
impacts would vary in noise level according to the type of construction equipment and its activity level. Short-
term conduction 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -39
Initial Study and MND
b)
Environmental
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 levels 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
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 p racy 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 employees 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
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: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Nexport 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?
Less 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.
Kali Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MNA
Page 3-40
Me
Environmental
Noise impacts associated with construction 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 working 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' /4 -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 working 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 of Newport Beach are provided in Table 3-6, Population Growth.
TABLE 3-6 POPULATION GROWTH
1980 62,556 2.4 % 1,932,709 3.1%
1990 66,643 0.6% 2,410,556 2.2%
2000 70,032 0.5 % 2,846,289 1.7%
2005 82,800 3.4% 3,047,100 1.4% •
2006 83,400 0.6% 3,072,300 0.8%
Source: Califomia D aranent of Finance
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-41
Initial Srudy and AND
V5
r
• Housing
E
Environmental
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 172 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 PROJECTIONS
(Sources: U. S. Census, SCAG, California 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
Initial Study and MND
Page 3-41
�y
Env1mnrnental Analysis
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 project 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 frill -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 of Newport 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
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, Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los 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 Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -43
Initial Study and BIND
00 g
Environmental Ana"s
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 be 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 fires, 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 Plans)
B. -- Would the project result 3n- 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 police 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 result
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 in 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 of Newport 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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3.44
Initial Study and MND
to o
Environmental Analysis
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, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance .
objectives in 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
future parks and recreational facilities 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?
Less 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.
The 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 Survey)
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 Las Angeles and Orange Counties, and Newport Beach General ,Plan)
KoU Company Corporate Headquarters - Page 3-45
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 future 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 paymentof 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 doffs 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/TRAFFIC
The proposed project site is located along the eastern side of MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street and
Von Karman 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 for northbound traffic, however, there is no dedicated turn lane.
The City of Newport Beach relies on its Traffic Phasing Ordinance (FPO) (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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and AND
MO.
Environmental
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 (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)?
Less 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. ft.). 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 street 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?
Less 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 patterus, 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 (JWA) 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 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 of the proposed project.
(Sources: Thomas Guide for Los 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 (e.g., 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 parking would result from 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 Platys and site survey)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -47
Initial Study and MND
Envimntnental Anslysis
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 new 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)
F. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less than Significant 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 Traffic Impact Analysis.
Mitigation
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)
G. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e g., has turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-48
Initial Study and AND
�U
Environmental Analysis
3.16 UTILITIES 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 Irvine 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 64% of the City's water demand. The remaining 36% is purchased from the
Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), 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 from 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
r - hazardous waste collection centers (HHWCC) within Orange County. Solid waste from 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 Irvine. 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 lines 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. I 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.
Electrical Power and Gas Service
The City of Newport Beach is served by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas services and by
the Southern California Edison Company for electrical power services. There are no overhead utility lines
adjacent to the proposed project site or in the surrounding area.
Kall Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-49
Initial Study and MND 1
Environmental Analysts
(Sources: Newport Beach. General Plan, City of Newport 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 infrastructure for water service includes a water main that runs along MacArthur Boulevard. To
provide sewer services to the site, the proposed project would also utilize existing infrastructure 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 terns 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 facilities
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 parlang 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 -SO
Initial Study and MND
0
0
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
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project would require additional water
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.
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 Cr eral 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
InitW Study and MND r
Environmental Analysts
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 a.m, the following morning).
Mitigation Measure 3.164: 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 (ULFT) 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 capacities to serve the proposed development on -site. With
t - implementation of the suggested water conservation measures to - fmther- reduce water use on -site, no. -
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 of Newport Beach Utilities Department)
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 be required to serve the proposed development. The
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 (mgd) and currently operates at 240 mgd. Therefore, this increase in the amount of
wastewater created fixem 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
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
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.
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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -52
Initial Study and WD
Environmental Analysis
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
solid 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 MND
S
f
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.1 FINDINGS
The environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Koji Company
Corporate 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,
Transportation/Traffic, 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 individually limited but
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.
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 Koji 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 3.3 -1: Use pre- coated building materials.
Koll Company Corporate
Initial Study and MND
Page 41
I/
Mandatory Findings (continued)
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 grams of ROG per liter
Mitigation Measure 3.34: 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.
j 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.
Mitigation 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 33-5: 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 33 -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 when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
KoN Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4-2
Inl0al Study and MND
Om
Mandatory Findings (continued)
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -I1: 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 minimize 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 33-13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit
incentives for the construction crew.
i Mitigation Measure 3.3 -14: The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre- coatedhratural
colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with the most
f stringent SCAQMD. Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment 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 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 filters on diesel
construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this
proposed Project.
Cuiturai 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 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.
KoN Company Corporate Headquarters
tnitiai Study and MND
I.
MandatoryFindkVs (confiued)
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.
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
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 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 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 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 Traffic
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.
Utilities and Serpice Systems.
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4.4
Initial Study and MND ` O V
Mandatory Findings (continued)
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 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning).
.__._. Al tigatioa 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 (ULFT) 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4-5
Initial Study and MAID
I�I
SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCEs
5.1 PREPARERS OF THE MND/EML4L STUDY
EDAW, Ina
8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 610
San Diego, California 92108
(619) 291 -1347
Dustin Fuller, Project Manager
Christopher Ward, Urban/Environmental Planner
Andrew Martin, Urban/Environmental Planner
5.2 REFERENCES
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, bwortant Farmland,
2000.
California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard MaDnine Program,
California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001 -2006,
with 2000 Benchmark.
California Department of Finance, E -5 Citv / 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
Guidelines, 2004.
California's Scenic Highway Program, California Scenic Routes, 2000.
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Conservation of Natural Resources Element 1975.
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Housing Element 2003.
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Land Use Element, 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 Open Space Element 1998.
City of Newport Beach, _City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2003.
City of Newport Beach, Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport, Aug. 14,
1972 (Amendment No. 313).
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page St
Initial Study and MND
103
City of Newport Beach website: hgp:/ /www.city.neyTort- beach.0a.us/, 2004.
EDAW, Limited Air Quality Analysis, July 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Mats, 1996.
National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System 2006.
Newport -Mesa Unified School District website: htti)://www.nmusd.kl2.ca.us 2006.
Orange County Integrated Waste Management Division website: hq: / /www.oclandfflls.com/, 2006.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2004 RTP Growth Forecast City Projections,
2004.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Faults of Southern California, —.
SCAQMD, Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin 2002.
SCAQMD, CEOA Air Ouality Handbook May 1993, as amended.
Thomas Brothers Maps; Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties: 2006.
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census, 1990, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Envirofacts Database; 2006.
U.S. Geological Survey, 7 '/x Minute Quadrangle for Laguna Beach, 2004.
5.3 PERSONS CONTACTED
City of Newport Beach
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
David Keely, Associate Civil Engineer
Police and Fire Depts.
Community Liaison Representative
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
1o4
SECTION 6: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and Initial Study for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project located in the City of Newport Beach. The MND
indicated that the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project, in terms of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities and Service.Systems could be mitigated to below levels of
significance. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and the MND is scheduled for adoption by the City of Newport
Beach, in conjunction with the approval of the project.
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require the Lead Agency for each project which is
subject to the CEQA to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that
implementation does, in fact, take place. The PRC requires the Lead Agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program that is designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation. In accordance with PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, this
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed for the Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project.
t/IYY a f. Y Y u_t_ ._. 1t
The mitigation measures which are required to reduce or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of future development on the project
site are listed in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Program. Responsible parties, the time frame for implementation, and the monitoring parties
are also identified for each measure. In order to determine if the responsible party has implemented these measures, the - method of verification
is also identified, along with the City of Newport Beach department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the responsible party
has completed each mitigation measure.
TABLE 1
Responsible Time Frame for Department or Agency
Mitigation Measures - Responsible for
Party Implementation M,...H.A..e
Air Quality
The following mitigation measures would reduce emissions associated with construction of the
proposed Project:
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.
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
Contractor
Building Department
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
Contractor
Building Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
d Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -1
U1
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grates of ROG per
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
liter.
Contractor
Building Department
Mitigation Measure 3.34: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed
Contractor
Building Department
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 how (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
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
Contractor
Building or Public Works
emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
Department
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 3.3-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
15 miles per hour.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Department
I Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Program September 2006
0 Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -2
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Flame for
Department Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -7: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative
Contractor
Building Department
cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer.
Mitigation Measure 33-8: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
streets, the streets shall be swept daily to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible
Contractor
Building or Public Works
track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty
Department
(30) minutes of deposition.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9: All diesel- powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
andmaintained.
Contractor
Building and Public Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 33 -10: All diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 33 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas-
City of Newport
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible.
Beach
Building or Public Works
Departments
Mitigation Measure 33 -12: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of
Contractor
Building and Public Works
through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to
Department
existing roadways, if necessary.
Mitigation Measure 33-13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Departments
Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Progiam September 20M
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -3
0
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Partly
Implementation
Monitorin
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -14: The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre-
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
coated/natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that
Contractor
Building Department
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 3.3 -15: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport Beach
(LPG/CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be
Beach
Grading Permit
Building Department
used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -16: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel
Developer/
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport Beach
construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost- competitive for use on this
Project
Grading Permit
Building Department
proposed Project.
Architect
Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown
cultural resources on -site:
Mitigation Measure 35-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe
Contractor
Grading Permit
Planning Department
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 pemtit 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 detemrine 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: Prim to the issuance of a grading petit, the applicant shall provide
written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary . The paleontologist shall be
Contractor
Grading Permit
Planning 1>eparmment
present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource
surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6-4
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitorin
or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major
paleontological resources are discovered which require long team 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
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with potential
hazards associated with John Wayne Airport:
Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building,
Developer
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
the Project Applicant shall file Form 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Building Permit
Planning Department
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/WaterQuality
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential hydrology /water quality impacts
associated with the proposed project:
Mitigation Measure 3.8 71: Prior to issuance of a grading pemmt by the City, the Project
Developer
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
Applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution
Grading Permit
Building Deparhnent and
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide
Code and Water Quality
NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices
Enforcement Division
(BMPs) to be implemented during construction to mrinimize 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 NO[ and
their application check as proof of filing with the RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall
Developer /
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project,
Contractor
Grading Permit
Building Department and
subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement
Code and Water Quality
Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
Enforcement Division
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.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project
i
i
September 2006
Page 6 -5
lP
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Mitigation Measures
Party
Implementation
Responsible for
Monitoring
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 am
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 5:00 am and 6:00 p.m.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
all times.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
Contractor
Planning Department and
maintained and shall be turned off when not in use.
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Transportation/Traffle
The following mitigation measures would reduce any potential traffic and parking related
impacts from the proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure 3.15 -1: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking
Developer /
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - tuming radii.
Contractor
Building Permit
Public Works Department
Utilities and Service Systems
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
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible.
Contractor
Building Permit
Planning Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6-6
,+
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -2: Water leaving the user's property due to over - irrigation of
Developer /
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
landscape, should be minimal. If an incident such as this is reported, a customer service
Contractor
Planning Department and
representative will visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in
Code and Water Quality
some cases shut -off the water.
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -3: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening
Developer/
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m and 9:00 am, the following morning).
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.164: All leaks are investigated and repaired.
Developer /
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
Contractor
Planning Department and
.
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -5: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as
Developer /
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation
Contractor
Planning Department and
hazards.
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -6: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
economically feasible.
Contractor
Building Permit
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
development.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -7
J
Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Form
,i�
i
1. 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
Plannin 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, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets) if necessary.)
A proposed Class 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 Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club
with dining 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
NO we, 1 Af 1 n
1 zl
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checldist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑ Biological Resources
■
Cultural Resources
❑
■ Hazards & Hazardous
■
Hydrology/Water Quality
❑
Materials
■
Noise
❑
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
■ Utilittes/Service Systems ■ Air Quality
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
OeologylSons
Land Use/Planuiug
Population/Housing
Transportallon/ltaffic
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVB
DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ L find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect onto environment, there will not be a
significant affect 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 significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects 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 EIR 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 measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
8�3 /OG
Data
City ofNewoort Beach
For
FORM "J"
Page 2 of 10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information 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 rapture 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 XVU, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EM or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(cx3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) 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
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
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.
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
9) 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.
n " "A i of in 1 L3
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS
paundnP 1 n 1Ly
Less nan
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues:
Significant With significant No impact
Impact mfigation impact
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
H. 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 for 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?
III. 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- attaimnent
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
❑ p ■ 11 .
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
people?
Ii! BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
paundnP 1 n 1Ly
Issues:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, verrial pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
VL 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
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction ?.
iv) Landslides?
Paae 5 of 10
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Cl ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑
Las Than
❑ ❑
I'dentlslly
Significant
Las Than
Significant
Will
Significant No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Inmrporated
❑
❑
❑
❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Cl ❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑
❑ ■
❑ ❑
❑ ■
❑ ❑
❑ ■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
■
❑
■
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
•
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
❑
■
1 L'S
Pave 6 of in
Less Tian
Potentlow signiflcant - Less Than
Issues:
significant with significant No Impart.
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
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
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
VIL HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
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
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VHL HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
requirements?
Pave 6 of in
Page 7 of 10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues:
Significant With Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation 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
❑ ❑ ❑
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 streahi
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
❑ ❑ ❑
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned.storm water drainage systems or
❑ ❑ ❑
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -yew 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
❑ ❑ p 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
of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
❑ ❑ 13 0
k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
❑ ❑ ❑
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
❑ ❑ 13 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 ❑
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 ❑
harm?
o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or
❑ ❑ J ❑
surrounding areas?
Lx LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
❑' ❑
Page 7 of 10
Pace R of 10 , Z�
Less Than
Potentially signt0ant Less Than
Issues:
SigniReant With Significant No Impact
Impact Mffigatton Impact
'Incorporated
i
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
❑ ❑ ❑ j
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
natural community conservation plan?
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
state?
b) Result in the loss of'availability of a locally- importaiif
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
U NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
groundbome vibration or groux%ome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
❑ ❑ ❑
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
❑
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
❑ ❑ 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
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
to excessive noise levels?
MI. POPULA77ON AND HOUSING Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other
infrastturcture)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Pace R of 10 , Z�
Page 9 of 10 jZ q
Lees Than
potentially
Significant
Less Than
' Issues:
Sig ffl ant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
hfitigation
Impact
Incorporated
. 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?
❑
❑
■
❑
. XIK 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?
XV. 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 cumulatively, 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., farm 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 jZ q
i
Page 10 of 10 ' 3�
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues:
Significant With Significant No Impact
Impact b ifigation Impact
Incorporated
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Boatel?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
p ❑ ■ ❑
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
❑
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
❑ ■
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
p ❑ ■ ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g), Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
related to solid waste?
XVH.. MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCF-
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
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
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
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
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
❑ ■
directly or indirectly?
Page 10 of 10 ' 3�
Appendix B — Air Quality Analysis
Page: 1
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
ORBEMIS 2002 For
Windows
8.7.0
File Name:
C: \Program
Filea \URBEMIS
2002
Version 8.7
\Projects2k2 \Roll HO.urb
' Project Name:
Roll NO -
Newport Beach,
CA
Project Location:
South Coast
Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
Based on EMPAC2002 Version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds /Day
- Summer)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PM10
PM10 PM10
' 2007 ...
ROG
NOR
CO
502
TOTAL
EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (ibe /day,unmitigated)
43.44
52:72 62.53
0.05
4.47
1.65 2.82
' TOTALS Ilbs /day, mitigated)
43.44
52.72 62,53
0.05
4.47
1.65 2.82
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOR
CO
S02
PM10
. TOTALS (lbs )tlaY,unmitigated)
0.41
0.15 0.81
0.00
0.00
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOR
CO
S02
PM1O
' TOTALS (lbs /day,unmitigated)
2.53
3.09 32.94
0.02
.3.27
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOR
CO
SO2
PH10
TOTALS (lbs /tlay, unmitigated)
i
2.94
3.23 33.75
0.02
3.27
1 33
- Page: 2
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
-
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 6.7.0
,
File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEHIS 2002
Version
8.7 \Projects2k2 \Roll
HQ.urb
Project Name: Roll HQ - Newport Beach, CA
.
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Loa
Angeles area)
-On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version
2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds /Day - Summer)
Construction Start Month and Year: January, 2007
Construction Duration: 12
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 1 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.2 acres
. Single Family Units: 0 Multi - Family Units: 0
Reta11/ Office /Institutional /Industrial Square Footage: 21375
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs /day)
PM10
PM10
PM10
Source ROG NOx CO
S02
TOTAL
EXHAUST
DUST
2007 * **
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust - - -
-
2.78
-
2.78
Off-Road Diesel 3.53 21.61 29.97
-
0.81
0.81
0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.44 9.62 1.62
0.02
0.22
0.18
0.04
- Worker Trips - 0.02 OA. 0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 3.99 31.29 32.14
0.02
3.81
0.99
2.82
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Dust - - - -
-
2.00
-
2.00
Off -Road Diesel 4.06 24.09 34.48.
-
0.77
0.77
0.00
On-Road Diesel 1.29 28.50 4.80
0.05
0.67
0.55
0.12
Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 1.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum lba /day 5.42 52.72 40.67
0.05
3.44
1.32
2.12
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.31 21.61 26.92
-
0.82
0.82
0.00
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Arch Coatings Off -Gas 35.95 - -
-
-
-
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Asphalt Off -Gas 0.05 - - -
-
-
-
-
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 4.00 24.09 33.99
-
0.83
0.83
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
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 43.44 45.97 62.53
0.00
1.67
1.65
0.02
Max lbs /day all phases 43.44 52.72 62.53
0.05
4.47
1.65
2.82
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month /Year for Phase 1: Jan '01
Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet) : 25875
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 6612.5
. -- On -Road 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 '
Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan '07
Phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1090
Off -Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours /Day
3 Rubber Tired Loaders 165
0.465
8.0
Phase 3 - Building Conatruction Assumptions
- Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb '07
Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Feb '07
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
107
3
1 3y'
- Page: 3
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
SubPhaae Architectural Coatings Duration:
1 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt:
Dec
107
SubFbase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months
Acres to be Paved: 0.2
off -Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours /Day
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
/day)
'
PMIO
PM10
PM10
Source ROG
NOx
CO
502
TOTAL
EXHAUST
DUST
. ... 2007 ""
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust -
-
-
-
2.78
-
2.78
Off -Road Diesel 3.53
21.61
29.91
-
0.91
0.81
0.00
On -Road Diesel 0.44
9.62
1.62
0.02
0.22
0.1B
0.04
Worker Trips 0.02
0.06
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 3.99
31.29
32.14
0.02
3.81
0.99
2.82
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Duet -
-
-
-
2.00
-
2.00
Off -Road Diesel 4.O6
24.09
34.48
-
0.77
0.77
0.00
On -Road Diesel 1.29
28.50
-- --4.BC
• ^0.05 '
"0.67
0.55
0.12
Worker Trips 0.07
0.13
1.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum lba /day 5.42
52.12
40.67
0.05
3.44
1.32
2.12
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Conat Off -Road Diesel 3.31
21.61
26.92
-
0.82
O.B2
0.00
Bldg Conat Worker Trips 0.05
0.03
0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Arch Coatings Off-Gas 35.95
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05
0.03
0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Asphalt Off -Gaa 0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
Asphalt off -Road Diesel 4.00
24.09
33.99
-
0.83
0.83
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
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 43.44
45.97
62.53
0.00
1.67
1.65
0.02
Max lbe /day all phases 43.44
52.72
62.53
0,05
4.47
1.65
2.82
• - Construction - Related Mitigation Measures
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 -Road 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
Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan 107
Phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months
On -Road Truck Travel (VMTI : 1090
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours /Day
3 Rubber Tired Loaders
165
0.465
8.0
Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb '07
Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building:
Feb '07
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
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration:
1 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt:
Dec
107
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months
13s
' Page: 4
-
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
Acres to be Paved: 0.2
Off -Road equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours /Day
1 Graders
1740.575
8.0
1 Pavers
132
0.590
8.0
1 Rollers
114
0.430
8.0
Page: 5
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
(Summer
Pounds per Day,
Unmitigated)
Source
ROG
NOx
CO'
S02
PM10
Natural Gas
0.01
0.14
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(lbs /day,unmitigated)
0.41
0.15
0.81
0.00
0.00
13`►
Page: 6
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL
EMISSIONS
ROG
NOx CO
802
PM10
General office building
2.53
3.09 32.94
0.02
3.27
TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day)
2.53
3.09 32.94
0.02
3.27
Does net Include correction for passby tripe.
Dees not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
Analysis Year: 2008 Temperature (F): 90
Season: Summer
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002
(9/2002)
Summary of Land Uses:
No.
Total
' Unit Type
Acreage Trip
Rate
Units
Trips
General office building
14.03
trips /1000 sq. ft.
21.38
299.89
Sum of Total
Trips
299.89
Total Vehicle Miles
Traveled
2,153.22
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
' Vehicle Type
Percent Type
Mon - Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
Light Auto
55.00
1.60
98.00
0.40
Light Truck < 3,150 lbs
15.00
2.70
95.30
2.00
Light Truck 3,751- 5,750
.16.20
1.20
97.50
1.30
Mod Truck 51751- 81500
7.20
1140
95.80
2.80
Lite -Heavy 81501- 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,DD0
1.00
D.00
20.00
80.00
Heavy -Heavy 33,D01- 60,000
0.90
0.00
ll.1D
88.90
Line Haul > 60,000 Its
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
Urban Bus
0.20
0100
50.00
50100
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 -Work
Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles)
11.5 4.9
610 10.3
515
515
Rural Trip Length (miles)
11.5 4.9
610 10.3
515
515
Trip Speeds (mph)
35.0 40.0
40.0 40.0
40.0
40.0
$ of Trips - Residential
20.0 37.0
43.0
8 of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
'General office building
35.0
17.5
47.5
13t6
Page: 7
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
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 consumer 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 emission year changed from 2005 to 2008.
ATTACHMENT F
PROJECT PLANS
fA
THE KOLL COMPANY HEADQUARTERS
(KOLL CENTER NEWPORT)
THE KOLL COMPANY
LANCDON
ulmilil►
+ ARCHITECTURE
L h n n I n 0
HT ERI CR8
�J
.II II.•
iF
Nk,
4L
9
X! ;I
A
PAW.W.
PUA -1
THE KOLL COMPANY HEADQUARTERS EXISTING SITE PLAN ( 1
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
WILSON
} { t
~Y
'b
cowr
.Y
'4' 'IS
L
UJ
xol% rsmwswaw ,N'P�'F' - - PROJECT DATA:
a
\ f 11GIlY - W
LL
�./ �� . � � i' omaruMC C) Cp - untxrran w>•a
van
I Illc.ul,na
rl
r rr
Q 1' - '.....:J 110101m _ -Ir I r I
{ I � - � ISKJIY OYB MIMIC' ..._ r ate♦♦ .. .. . " -- - ' ' r r r r r aagar�
aNp NRgY ------------ --------------- ------
.--r
____________� ______ __ _____ n{qr fA91'H fart 1-
E'
MAC ARTHUl BLVD
^• ...Y SuWt IJ�
THE KOLL COMPANY HEADQUARTERS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN" J 3
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT „� ' LAKIDOON
WEST NOR714
THE KOLL COMPANY
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT
EAST
Al ELEVATIONS (5)
LANGDON
my w WILSON
tr
11
r�
rJ
COUNCIL AGENDA
NO.
- 9- 07��
� y T
FINAL INITIAL STUDY and
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the proposed
KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
PROJECT
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
33W 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
0
0
ERRATA and
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
for the proposed
KOLL COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
• PROJECT
Prepared for:
City qfNewport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 6443208
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 (MND), errors 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 strike- out/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 1S/MND discussion of the proposed General Plan
Amendment for a net increase of 24,016 gross square feet within Office Site A. It does not represent new
information that was not included in the IS/MIdD. 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 there 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: Rage 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
southlsoutheast 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.
-- - ..:
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: paragraph 4
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets shall be swept daily or Aushea a,...,a at the end e f the . eAE a^, 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 Project 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 Office 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 Protect 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 Project: 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 rte"° POFFRit (UP 2006 008) is a!se
intensity
Center Newpo— Plamed Community.
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 proiect area. 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 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 project.
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 Quality: page 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 or washed do mm at the end of the week 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 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: page 3 -22: paragraph I
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 with because of the proposed project.
0 Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Ouality: 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 [RWQCBj). The City of Newport
Beach is a co- permittee with Orange County in the NPDES Program. Accordingly, the Project Applicant is
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 farther detail below.
Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality: vaee 3-27: paraeraph2
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 runoffare not
generated on -site.
ection 3.9 Land Use and Planning: pace 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. as • ell as a Use n°.. o« 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 s.-The additional square footage proposed
by thO PFE)jOOt WOUld not fepfesent Fiet new square footage within the Mr-pert Afea; vather, sqtwe feetage
would be ineved within this aFea.
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
&&m in a transfer of available square footage €real ene area-e within the Airport Area from KCN Office
Site B to KCN Office Site A. to another
is allowed in the Ge..eFal 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.
Use z- crnr[
As diseussed thfeugheut this daeumea; aPA within this se6tion, the PFE)POSed pFeieet would Genfamn te the
RqUiPed findings and would not result in sigriffieant inipaels. Speeifieally the pi:E�jeet would faake effleiern
use ..P the available land. , eeld include a :.,t„ aFehiteetuf„ massing and sealle-so Rq scale-s to retain the
aestheties of the area and ensuFa aempatibility with the eAsting development in !be afece; weuld not
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 342: paragraph 2
The project is approximately Va 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 design regulations ^ afldated 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 343: 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 I ✓ employees 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 Svstems: page 1-53 paragraph 2
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra -Low Flush Toilets (ULFT) in the residerRial an+'ts
development.
•
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
AWORT LAND USE COMMISSION
J OiANGE
1. The language contained on page 3-41 Section 3.11 E, Noise has been
rM, I
revised as shown below.
"The project is approximately 1/4-mile southeast of the Airport property
boundary line. Within this zone, the height of project is restricted to
M, !!. s�
200 feet ancivu mean e hNei or less to ensure the safety of air traffic
and ground structures- Because the project is proposed to be 'W, 98
feet in- rneLn sea re!, it will not conflict with iht
of dei=, I- -by the Airport
---------- - ---- �j �u -
MCLVA�. jfmr:?'
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The proposed project lies within
Fb I
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 a[ .a level that is less than significant.
Furthermore, as the project will not affect aircraft or airport
t K- AllAw 4w env d -.iftq all,
operations, there will be no increase in the exposure of people in the
area to noise levels associated with these sources."
ZW
Pi.
Additionally, the project applicant has filed Form 7460-1 with the
CAMUFF
�l` f4
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 26, 2006. In response
to this filing, FAA has responded with its determination which found
till fUi/t
that the proposed project would have no hazard to air navigation.
FAA
=P Mlllt XI4W,-Pmil i MA
0 0 0
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
Mhv ate., }* ,,al ,_.. ,: r� .�.� etiksaar.:,vn/y
2.
It is agreed that completion of the FAA 7460 process must be
zs„,r_.,. M, jr,;, ,, ty +,•F__,
sz„,� t�,t ,k. =,.� , :rte.,..,: .;.,,,:�,�+ •,,h,� •„ •a,�
completed prior to the General Plan Amendment decision. However,
the timing of the required approvals was not clearly determined at the
:n»�u, x .__��.�,,;, s si a .• „ t...__.� �'
time of the preparation of the draft IS /MND. As such, the latest date
_�:.� ,.�. _,�.,�
2 " "x "" ' "` " "''` ° " ° "` "j '"
that could be applied (issuance of building permits) was used in
tuaume nme
Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1. However, during the public review period,
HI"""" "'�`
the applicant licant received a determination from the FAA that the project
vRI#Ib'N 5X Ytl Y!l`.. .','G' ((t1 SYiLFw,. #nni*R 4 M6 YilF9� r 4 4 jll4KA %Aht •.'.. lF$
,<n�6 , , ,4g ,J
causes no hazard to air navigation (August 29, 2006). On that same
.
rezc v� <r- rx� °"-"` '`^```" "g `b"°"� ""°`
=
d5c k�a i&.A
-,c6
date, a request was made to the Airport Land Use Commission to
M EM
rt «et:c 47 E:C tfic yc- r. mara. .t 4a fx
determine consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The
fved, =y,� .Fx +e.,;,� „s k . , %_�;• f,. =sa,.,.3_;r's -K wr,�z „;�„r -;a'..
date requested for this review is September 21, 2006. This date falls
�11f7 R `^ a�••- •r.,, =n; e t + «- =- n ++ + +��= awn =
between the Planning Commission hearing date of September 7, 2006
in
3 kw. n , ,r sb+n =•t aY f. -.a 'u �... - .1 ,:
and the City Council anticipated hearing date of September 26, 2006.
s,.
K,zi:wa z ,��:� -i» u r =�„a„z- •nor z, .X._a t .Ke
While the mitigation measure states that the filing of Form 7460 -1
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
;,,zn„u .,, • scm:x EK ',... *::,�,„zi r, _ .;�„ � r,,,;�;.
letter, with the ALUC making its determination prior to the
' • °'" `-' -'°
amendment of the General Plan.
4 ii`gtFtt`4l CG'4CSY i± "+" i{amj4',�5{0.99 �g tV LUt'C.C" ?1MY C 4.F^}..".;,}•j .AID({( fv"W ;n
�Nc.tl C +`m:fPdtum� If a= Aynn -: rt :r3}53ar. " "..pi_ i,iioax St C v_•c;l
k *1 MAX nurvcr. kM'W i w�zil-a-; m Ar '00,
3.
No heliports would be included with the proposed project.
k T.',Ctlst Q$. lin•.`\k A tU Ofk'Y;Ij U3 TY�, 3 }.�,C' 31µVk4E:Sl ataYC It Xlti=" -.eP:L Y'A Sw it•'u.
4•
Please refer to response to comment #2, above.
(G545 .=:?:t vviae xUx,y;_k�a3u'S*„i4:�ti7a' .cv usnt xnY aJS �inba4:snaiFS, %:
'
%SC,MVNtaart {,'�'Y/Jnyy 9hP n'v"ssYa tt5oteuT e ttw ✓H =.
G4 s '�1eb
ft.. Rigrne
kxacwsFOa G,T�.zx
0
•
Letter of Comment I Resluonse to Comment
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 -Hour
PM Peak r
Daily
In Ou[
Total
Total
General
1.69 0.21
1.90
1.87
14.03
Office
Proposed
Sim
LUn
AMPeak Haur
kHour
"
Uaily
.Land Use
In out
Total
Total
General
21,311
36
4
40
40
299
Office
Total
36
4
40
40
299
Source: New or[ Beack Trans ortation Analysis
7. Although a similar project located within the City of I rvine would require 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.
i
0 •
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
rat 9xt
se t, M
Page 2
ft�e vaf teanty m anayza eu k �t4Md e
8 Please refer to Response to Comments #S and #7, above.
8
MADT aensfer. The 9h Ad dnaaa Ste egL&almft Akt mr4 PMT
ha m psvmlarecnnapawWarasikofthspmect mm t« -a me
9. Koll Center Newport Office Site B is bounded b the following
P Y g
a mwis of h"ote to=vr.
roadways (Refer to Figures 2 -I and 2 -2): Birch Street, Von Karmann
9
�. Itlamcleweom the e,eg �
,edNsMaCe Watone.acty whff eft
aadwmiwo"fmagemwAywA xea„arerrod ftm moru,w
Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road. Please also see
at WMV&te Ufa add[Ironel SW" tor,<aga m thM Ske %CN Office site »;
the Errata for the proposed project.
Dewfibe and show lfte tocetbrs d KCN IXece 31w B on FVgwe Z.t.
r <. Qaidywhetlfmwmt € he pmpoesd oetiatocntant z cons�ttart With the laod
10. The proposed project is consistent with the land uses currently
10
davelopnr emepfoacaed�ndt ESearegan The anpMaa;mareC4VC.ene:a
L Mee t fv*y dasignoted ir. City of Newpw... Beach's >en w Pler, w Rthe
designated within the City of Newport Beach's existing General Plan
Plat!Odda a arenty in taocaes
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
Tnw�ya w wtzwaw eixwa dwpoposed-
project. However, as discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning,
The Crty of tme°Dcu vwd m'emwkxtavaftaamy and &W fiaax
the land uses d b Y the project would be compatible with land
ro ose
proposed P
aveMZtinaroai Mtlo aoiect. dyau tmva aay . ro eaae
cab me at i949) 72a-7453 w uy �10at kyMe en r=.
uses proposed by the General Plan Update.
Psrxrer
C: Stwm Lmlra. Asa;stzm, City klwn W
.
Dow All d. Dkedwof Cvm AwAy oem�op mnt OE-,Hain
Marty"n't Dkfc rw Public Wor"fe- irolli
WrAsel Gomez, OtiBnyr -t W of Fu1Nic Waft (EAv» i
hitdtam Head' l menag f e fftrsuv am DBE se"Tes (E~t
KafwAt Lau. Sngervhktg Ttmnapwl*aw Aaafpt M -mail
Da," R. Law. Seri ,wrm tE -mie:)
5t Sf T. fAWifiv, ServorT2fsspait'tion Aamlyat {Enta83
• 0
0
Letter of Comment
Response to Comment
CCRPA
CalftmmcuttarM Resourm Preservation A, ,me.
»mom. �{na�wdhdixswd�9wiaeeamnsWks -,yak
a tOtK�rratlea�mWOtibsuda8�er<rud.
Aap w 13.20M
1�.aaadiax Uag PEAN?t::d; :;. ;.:: _s�t2r51
':k�GY
AesaclslaPSxane�'. v4nwr� wi GtiY �:.- .-. -.. •
AU5 17
3'.WUNrwya2EWlev AM : ', i
Tton7mn aa&, CGi 92GSa g:�IS i iFer'.. ,
Thank r.fktio vw*.Ayw, A��.N«k. oileeew o k&p4 a r,Wpwd Mqaive
11. In compliance with the requirement of Senate Bill 18 to contact,
provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to
amendment of a general plan, the City of Newport Beach mailed a
t" a'° P" t°""`°"`` ""`"" "'`"`�'� °°�"`"°" "�'""'``�'
tribal consultation request describing the proposed general plan
a,u�n pmJaa w «ufil re,4uire a (ssnrrW Pivi ra+m�6nm1 �euaie wn ek ear 6ax w amPty �tk tia i t.
l`
a. iaaieuattw au enGa.ea karod,u <bn page. sa iarcquv'xa WS,�p..�•�,,,,w.��.n..w �,r
amendment to the Native American Heritage Commission on August
w maw=% na= pla[miwder3aw wd WPMViae P'Atain the
30,2006.
r�plu®1>p Maceas t 94usviel. Tur m d mtaerzquvimeMx rN m ®{aP aM
ameadavaffefpz'sretPlmutia cove $asa?Qb ma3saa,.Mixp�inaS4sawrseJ3-
I t,6�cWr,xudiagaat,ca«us�e �rciauoa ar "."""
12. Comment noted.
sta�my,
�.
Pad <fa Stun. PIM
vraeNrno
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Section Page
' 1 INTRODUCT ION ............... ..... ..................... .................... .................... ..... ................ .... ..... ..... 1 -1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study and MND ................................................. ............................... 1 -1
1.3 Summary of Findings ........................................................................... ............................... 1 -2
2 PROJECT DESCRIPT ION ..................................................... ................... ..... ..................... 2 -1
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ........................................ ............................... 2 -1
2.2 Description of the Proposed Project ..................................................... ............................... 2 -3
2.3 Objectives of the Project .......................................................................... ............................2 -8
2.4 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................... ............................... 2 -8
10
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. ............................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
Aesthetics............................................................... ...............................
Agriculture Resources ............................................ ...............................
AirQuality ............................................................. ...............................
Biological Resources .............................................. ...............................
CulturalResources ................................................. ...............................
Geologyand Soils .................................................. ...............................
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................... ...............................
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................... ...............................
Land Use and Planning .......................................... ...............................
MineralResources .................................................. ...............................
Noise....................................................................... ......................:........
Population and Housing ......................................... ...............................
PublicServices ....................................................... ...............................
Recreation.............................................................. ...............................
Transportation and Traffic ..................................... ...............................
Utilities and Service Systems ................................. ...............................
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......... ...... ........ .............. ............................ 4 -1
4.1 Findings .................................................................................................... ............................4 -1
4.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. ............................... 4 -1
5 LIST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES ...................................................... ............................... 5-1
5.1 Preparers of the Initial Study/NM ........................................................... ............................5 -1
5.2 References ..... : ......................................... . .............................................................................. 5 -1
5.3 Persons Cont acted ...................................................................................... ............................5 -2
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......... ............................... 6-1
1 •
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page i
Initial Study and MAID
Table of Contents (continued)
�
A— ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
B— AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
III
��
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page if
Initial Study and MND
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Table
Page
3~1
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Threhsolds ..............................................................................
3~6
3^2
Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ............................................................................................
3^7
3^3
Eotizoukxd Daily Operational Emissions .....................................................................................
3-l0
3-4
Project Setback Requirements ....................................................................................................
3~35
3'5
City of Newport Beach Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ..................................................
3~38
3~6
Population Growth ......................................................................................................................
3~4l
3'7
Regional Projections ......^.................................................3~42
KuDCentcr Newport Land Use Policy Map .............................3^3l
III
��
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page if
Initial Study and MND
Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2^1
Regional and Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................................
2-4
2^2
Existing Site Plan ...............................................................................................................................
2`5
2`3
Proposed Site Plan .............................................................................................................................
2~6
2-4
81cvwti000...................—............................2^7
3^1
KuDCentcr Newport Land Use Policy Map .............................3^3l
III
��
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page if
Initial Study and MND
•
,•
1
1
II
II
II
II
SECTION 1: INrRODumoN
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 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) 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:
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 Planned Community in the Estimated Growth for the Airport
Area (Statistical Area L4);
An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (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
Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Newport Beach is serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Koll
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 a.project 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 for the proposed Project, the City of Newport Beach has
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 likely
to occur, whether such impacts 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 Impact Report (EIR) 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 EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the proposed Project to qualify for 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
1nftl Study and MND
Introduction
• To identify whether a program EIR, 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
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 detemvne the subsequent
environmental review needed for the proposed Project, which may take the form of a (Mitigated) Negative
Declaration (MND/ND) 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.
' Air Quality
The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that construction- realted air impacts would
' remain at less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Use pre- coated building materials.
' 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 3.3 -4: 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
1 Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -2
initial Study and AND
Introduction
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 3.3-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per
hour.
Mitigation 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.
I'•Mitigation Measure 33-8: 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
I 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
when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
' Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas-p owered
equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible.
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 flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if necessary.
' Mitigation Measure 33-13: 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 much as possible precoated/natural
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-
,
KoU Company Corporate Headquarters Page I -3
Initial Study and ABM
LJ
' • Introduction
1 low pressure 0-rVLP) 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 3.3 -15: If constriction 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 filters on diesel construction
equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost- competitive for use on this proposed Project.
' Cultural Resources
I
LI
i*
L
1
1
1�
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 pre - grading conference,
shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the
applicant, procedures for tengwrarily 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 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.
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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -4
Intttal Study and MND
I
' Introduction
' • 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 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 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 hours of 8:00 a.rrL 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.
I
' Transportation and Traffic
' 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 - tuming radii.
Utilities 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 shut -off the water.
1 •
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 1 -5
' Initial Study and A&D
• lntroduc8on
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 a.m., the following morning).
Mitigation Measure 3.164: 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 (ULFT) 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
10
1
J
1
1�
' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page I -6
Initial Study and MAD
SECTION 2SPROJECT 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 umincorporated 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 from 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 increase. in. 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 fi-om 2000 to 2004). As of January 2004, the Comity
had a housing vacancy rate of 3.57 percent and an average household size of 3.07 persons per household.
'• City of Newport Beack
' 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
' approximately 4.7 percent from the 1990 population of 66,70.0. 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 11.1 percent. The average household size is 2.09 persons per household.
Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 2 -1
tInitial Study and MND
0
'•
1
The City has an estimated labor force 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
approximately one -half mile south/southeast of John Wayne Airport, approximately three-quarters of a mile
north/northeast of State Route 73 (SR -73), approximately one -half mile northwest of Jamboree Road, and
approximately one mile south /southwest of Interstate 405 (1405) Ofture 2-1). The proposed project would be
located at 4450 MacArthur Boulevard.
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 Office Site A, abutting
MacArthur Boulevard and the entry drive to Office Site A from MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street
and Van Karman 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 -112), 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 Community
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 (IND), and Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF). 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 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
Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club with dining and athletic facilities.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -2
Initial Study and MND
Project 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 -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.
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 (I -405) via MacArthur Boulevard or the San Joaquin Trills
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 1.25 miles
northwest of the proposed project site.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF TI3E PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes the development of a two -story (40 -feet tall), 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 foot (1.24 acres) of the site 'includes 98
parking spaces and ornamental landscapmg 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
r• 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
r unused retail (10,000 NSF), restaurant (9,535 NSF), and office (4,481 NSF) uses from Office Site B to Office
S ite 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 Planned Community.
rOffice
r The proposed two -story office building totals 21,311 GSF over one subterranean level of parking. The
footprint of the office building totals I0,700 GSF. The small scale structure features a modern,
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 24).
rParking
The proposed project includes 10,300 NSF of subterranean parking below the office building and re- design of
r the existing common area parking spaces. The project site would provide 17 subterranean parking spaces and
94 surface parking spaces.
�r
r'
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -3
rInitial Study and MND
®STA R /
MESAp�
/ JOHN WAYNE
i INTERNATIONAL
/ AIRPORT
I
GaF
Co
ory
i�
5�
r
. Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000
The Koll Company Headquarters
' Koll Center Newport
a
IRVINE
Location and
5
Figure 2 -1
September 2006
The Koll Company Headquarters
Koll Center Newport
Figure 2 -2
ng Site Plan
September 2006
.ij
Figure 2 -3
N® Proposed Site Plan
The Koll Company Headquarters September 2M6
Koll Center Newport
Project Description
0 Landscaping
The proposed project would provide approximately 16,844 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 plaza and entry.
23 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The 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 No. 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.
■ Koll 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
Koff Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
I
' Project Description
• (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.
' • 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 AELUP, 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 Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) — The City of Newport Beach is a co-
' pernritee 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 (NO]) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide .NPDES permit for
construction activity.
1
1
t •
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 2 -9
` Initial Study and UND
• SECTION 3: ENYIRoNMENTAL ANALYSIS
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
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 Resources
• 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.
1 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 Significant 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
(EIR).
The references and sources used in the analysis are provided after the response to each question.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -1
Initial Study and MND
I
1
Environmental Analysis
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 structures across MacArthur Boulevard to the west.
(Sources: Site Survey, Project Plans, and Aerial Photograph)
I AL Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
I
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 Area, which is characterized by relatively
level terrain and existing urban development. Potential long- distance views of the Santa Ana MormWns to the
north of the project site are obstructed by existing structures. According to the City of Newport Beach, a `bluff'
is any landforin 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
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 -like
fascia and wall elements to compliment the existing structures in the area. The proposed landscaping would be
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -2
Initial Study and MND
I
Environmental Analysis
• comprised of tree and gromdcover /shrub species that compliment the existing landscaping of the existing site
' and surrounding 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 impacts 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 outcroppings, 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
1 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 Liquidambar 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
Pltms, 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?
ILess 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 31.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 be 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
1 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
1 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 light 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters - Page 3 -3
1 Initial Study and MND
Environmental
• 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.
1•
II
II
1
II
In addition, the proposed building materials would not create the potential for substantial glare resulting
from reflection of the sun. 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 Survey and Project Plans)
3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 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 -H2), 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 within 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.
(Sources: 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 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-4
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
. 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 (AP.F) 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.
,•
1
1
1
1
1
1�
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. Areas adjacent to the project site are primarily designated as APF, but also as Retail and Service
Commercial, General Industry, and Government, Educational, and Institutional 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 Community 15 — Koll 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 Beach 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 non - agricultural use?
No Impact As discussed in Section 3.2.13, 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 nonagricultural use. No impact
would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(Solaces: 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)
K1Rl,\ t &I ii 1_yli Y
A limited Air Quality Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by EDAW hic 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 trips, 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 at 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 MND
'•
1
L-J
i
Environmental
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
Pollutant
Construction
550
150
TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk 2: 10 in 1 million
(including carcinogens Hazard Index ? 1.0 (project increment)
and non - carcinogens) I Hazard Index >_ 3.0 (facility-wide)
Odor I Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402
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)
PMI0
10.4 µg/m3 (recommended for construction)
24 -hour average
2.5 pg/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 -hour average
9.0 ppm (State/Federal)
lbs /day = pounds per day; ppm = parts per million;
cubic meter
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -6
' Initial Study and MND
0 0
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
' first 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
reductions as specified in the AQMP.
The AQMP assumes specific emissions from the operation of certain land uses, e.g., residential, retail,
1 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 (CARB 2005). URBEMIS computes emissions of
' reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, CO, SO2, and PMro. On a project of this type, SO2 emissions would be
negligible and are not included in the analysis below. URBEMIS; does not calculate PM2.5 emissions.
Appendix B includes construction equipment assumptions and air quality calculations.
,+ Construction Emissions
Excavation and grading activities would generate fugitive dust including PMio. 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 PM,o.
' Estimated construction- related mass emissions for each component of the expansion are shown in Table 3-
2.
TABLE 3 -2. ESTIMATED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
J
I
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.
KoR Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -7
' Initial Study and MND
•
1
L
LJ
1
r,
I
Environmental
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 3.3 -2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with
50 percent efficiency.
Mitigation Measure 3.33: 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 3.3-6: 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 3.3 -8: 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.
Ka1! Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-8
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
• 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 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 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 flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways, if necessary.
Wftation Measure 3.3 -13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and
transit incentives for the construction crew.
■ Mitigation Measure 3.3 -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 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.
11Titigation 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 filters on diesel
' construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost-competitive for use on this
proposed Project.
1
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 AND
0
0
Environmental
• TABLE 3 -3. ESTIMATED DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
o
a.
��
of
Mobile -
Source
®
®�®
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 SCAQ1vD'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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -10
' Initial Study and AND
1
' Environmental Analysis
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 PM,o) 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 PMto 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 nature of construction and the low level of on -sits 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)
' 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.
' Koll Company Corporate Headgtarters Page 3 -11
Initial Study and MND
I
' Environmental Analysis
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 /shrub
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
' Game 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
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
' 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
1 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
1 by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, tilling, 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
Initial Study and MND
' Environmental Analysts
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)
tD. 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
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
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 ordinance?
No Impact. Existing tree species present on the proposed project site include mature Eucalyptus and
Liquidambar. The majority of the existing trees on -site 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,
1 Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
' 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, Site Survey, and CoastalJCentral Orange County NCCP)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3.13
initial Study and MAD
Environmental Analysis
•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 1800's, land holdings of the Capistrano Mission were divided out as Spanish and Mexican
I 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 Il brought about an influx of new military operations and personnel working and living in the
area. The Santa Ana Freeway (I -5), built in the 1950's, brought even more people to the City. By the
1970's, 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
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 known 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
IBluffs 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?
1 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 15064.5?
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
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 Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -14
Initial SWy and MND
Environmental Analysis
. destroyed as a result. However, the proposed project site has not been extensively studied or excavated to
deternune 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
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
archaeological resources if such resources are located on -site. However, the likelihood of encountering unique
archaeological resources is considered minimal 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
1 Newport 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
' hardscape 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 carrot be conclusively confirmed or disproved, the ground-disturbing
activities (i.e., grading and excavation) required for construction of the proposed two -gory office building and
subterranean parking level have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to unique paleontological
1 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
' considered potentially significant.
Mitigation
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-15
Initial Study and MND
0
Environmental
hnplementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to unique
paleontological resources to a level less than significant:
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
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.
(Sources: Site Survey, Proposed General Plan Update and the Cultural Resources 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 ofNatural 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 characterized by broad sandy beaches, coastal bluffs,
uplifted marine terraces, and tidal marshes. The nearest major ridgelines 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 OS miles south/southeast from John
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 Haan sea level (amsl).
1 Soils
tThe City of Newport Beach is underlain by Holocene -age alluvial sediments present in active and recently
1 active stream channels 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
' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -16
Initial Study and b1ND
I
' Environmental Analysis
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.
ISeismicity
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 fault 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
1 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 Quadrangle, 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 rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
' delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
' 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 Headquarters Page 3 -17
Initial Study and MND
' Environmental Analysis
• earthquake faults cross through or extend onto the site, development on the site would not be exposed to
' fault ground rupture 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 groundshakmg?
Less than Significant Impact. There 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. This 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 properly 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
M 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: USGS 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 - related ground failure, including liquefaction.
(Sources: California Geological Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element)
' D. Would the project be subject to landslides?
1
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 Study and MND
EnWronmental Analysis
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 Headquarters Page 3 -19
Initial Stady and AND
Environmental Analysis
ensure that the proposed project is not located on expansive soils. Tbus, 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. Tbus, 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 may
include pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, and even nuclear
M 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. Environnental Protection Agency (EPA)
Envirofacts Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Land uses within the vicinity of the proposed project that are
included on EPA's TRI include Conexant Systems, hic. 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 23 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 soil/erosion 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 Envirofacts 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 Headquarters Page 3 -20
Initial Study and MND
..... ............................... ........ - - -- -...... .
I
Environmental Analysis
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
1
1 1*
1
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 would 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. Further,
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 -11
1n1na1 Study and MND
' Environmental Analysis
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.
J
F41:1
�I
J
II
1
1�
(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
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, hic. 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 Envirofacts Database and Site Survey)
E. For a project located within an airport laud 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 (TWA) and within the adopted Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for TWA. Specifically, the proposed project site is within the Height
Restriction Zone for TWA, which sets various height limits for structures within a 20,000 foot radius of TWA 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -22
Initial Study and MND
' Environmental Analysis
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.
(Sources: 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 Guide forLos Angeles 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
1 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)
H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
' No Impact. The 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 parldng 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 firm the proposed project.
(Sources: Site Survey, proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, and project plans)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -23
Initial Study and MND
I
' Environmental Analysis • 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 I of the
' Lower Santa Ana River watershed. Reach I extends from what is referred to as the Tidal Basin on the coast
to 171' 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 II 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 located 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 Della Channel.
(Sources: Newport Beach General Plan the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update, and USGS
L� Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan)
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,further 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 Measnre 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)
'
Koll. Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -24
Initial ,% dy and AMD
' • Environmental Analysis
' 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 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.
Operation
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 stormwater runoff. The 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 land 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -29
Initial Study and AMD
' • 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
I 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.
1 (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. The 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 WQW
requirements. NPDES 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 M.A. 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
1 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 paved 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
pattern would not be substantially altered and the existing rate and amount of surface runoff would not be
1 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 Company Corporate Headquarters Page
Initial Study and A91D
I
Environmental Analysis
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 planned stormwater drainage
I 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 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.
(Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Newport Beach General Plan)
F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
1 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)
1 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
1 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.
1 Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -2J
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
• (Sources: Site Survey, FEAU, project Plans and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element)
li. 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 (FIRM). 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.
(Sources: Site Survey, FEMA, Project Plans, and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element)
I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. The proposed project area is not located 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.
(Sources: Site Survey, Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element, and Project Plans)
J. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving inundation by selche, tsunami, or madflow?
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 in the
City. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with proposed project implementation.
(Sources: Site Survey and Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element)
IC- Would the project result in, significant alteration of receiving water quality during or
following construction?
1 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
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
docks 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 MND
E
I
I
Environmental Analysis
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 parking
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.
U. 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
I 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
Development within the City of Newport Beach varies and includes lower density single - family residential
1 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 areas.
I 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -29
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
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 Figure 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 brealodown of
various uses allowed within the area. The proposed project site is identified as subheading 1 -1 KCNOfce 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 - family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel
rooms and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Zoning for the site would still be governed by the Planned
Community text for the area (see below).
IKoll Center Newport Planned Community
TI he 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 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
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 Administrative, Professional, Financial
j Commercial (APF) uses.
i
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
1
1
1�
1
(GE1F). 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 parking structure to the southeast.
South of the proposed project site at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Von Kamman
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
(AFL UP) forJWA, and Site Survey)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
Page 3 -30
9
i
iPS
f
1
i
Newpol
1
1 �
N
The Koll Company Headquarters
Koll Center Newport
1
El
Planned Community 15 -
"' .er Newport
�v
& service Commercial
istrative, Professional,
acial Commercial
anent, Educational,
litutional Facilities
IiVt) - General Industry
Figure 3 -1
Land Use Policy Map
September 2006
1•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
J
Planned Community 15 -
' Koll Center Newport
rco";v7thi
O ~~7F =l
OLe
a_
c
CL
F—
Newport Place Di
G4
0
V �
d
The Koll Company Headquarters
Koll Center Newport
�t > I
= PC -15 - KollCenter
® APF - Administrative, Professional,
& Financial Commercial
Planned
Figure 3 -2
September 2006
Environmental Analysis
• 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 structure 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: Newpon 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
t 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 landforms 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 Shady and A9JD
I
Environmental Analysis
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 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.
Proposed General Plan
' 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 -H2). This designation provides for a
horizontal intermixing of uses that includes regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical
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.
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 hips and; the
increment of growth to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development and
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 hips (general office
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 ensure compatibility and, as discussed in the Transportation/Circulation discussion, would not
result 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 5.3.6 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
shield views. In its existing state, the parking lot is visible from the street with only minimal landscaping
disrupting the view.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -34
Initial Study and AND
0 0
Environmental
0 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
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
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.
II
ii
I
i
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 34 PROJECT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
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
Administrative, Office, Financial
Commercial
30
na
na
Koll Company Headquarters
Office /Commercial
30
+48
Na
Source: City of Newport Beach Mmrici al Code and Roll Company ficadquartets 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
Environmental Analysts
Furthermore , the proposed project is within the boundaries of the AELUP for JWA 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 3.11E, 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
community 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 Survey, and Newport Beach General Plat, Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP)
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 an present in or
near the proposed project area and the proposed project site and adjacent areas are not subject to oil, gas, or
mining operations.
(Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Santa Ana Quadrangle and Site 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?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in an area where known mineral resources are present.
Future development on the site would not affect regionally significant mineral resources since there are no
known 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 USGS Laguna 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 Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -36
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
is 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 mineral 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.
1
1
1�
(Sources: USGSLaguna Beach Quadrangle, Site 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 measures need to be incorporated into the design and
construction of these uses. However, no noise sensitive land uses 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 10.28.040 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 a.m. 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)
Koll Company. Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -37
Initial Study and MND
•
M
L
0
Environmental
TABLE 3 -5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Categories
Uses
Interior
Exterior
Residential
Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family
45 55
65
-
M obile Home
—
65
Commercial
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging
45
65
Industrial
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant
55
—
Office Building, Research and Development,
50
—
Institutional
Professional Offices, City Office Building
Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium,
45
—
Meeting Hall
G sium (Multipurpose)
50
Sports Club
55
--
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale,
65
—
Utilities
Movie Theaters
45
—
Institutional
Schools' Classroom
45
65
-Hospital,
Church, Library
45
—
Open S ace
Parks
--
65
Interpretation
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 means of exit from
inside, mobile home park, hospital patio, park's picnic area, school's playground, hotel and =let recreation area.
3. Noise level requiremernt with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other rteeans 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 meet natural ventilation requirement
5. Exterior noise level should be such that interim noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL.
6. Exc t those areas around the airport within the 65 CNEL contour.
Source: Ci 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 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.
' Construction Noise
li
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.
hi 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -38
Initial Study and MND
Environmental
• Mitigation
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 a.m. and
6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m
Traffic 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 and from the site is not expected 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 3.0-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
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 turn 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 /1000 square feet), the proposed project
Ile 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 Noise
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 constriction 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -39
Initial Study and WD
Environmental
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 levels 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
activities. Noise from scrapers, jackhammers, pavers, and other types of construction equipment may range
M 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 employees 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
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: Site 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?
Less 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-40
Initial Study and MAD
1 • •
Environmental Analysis
• Noise impacts associated with construction 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 working 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 %4 -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)
M F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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 of Newport Beach are provided in Table 3-6, Population Growth.
TABLE 3-6 POPULATm GROWTH
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-41
Initial Study and MND
• Housing
Environmental Analysis
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 17.2 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 PROJECTIONS
(Sources: U. S. Census, SLAG, California 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 -sits 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
37,015
72,684
3,047,100
978,423
1,580,855
2005
82,800
2010
89,527
39,443
75,386
3,291,628
1,034,027
1,749,985
2015
91,147
40,196
76,588
3,369,745
1,046,473
1,801,602
2020
92,365
41,345
77,698
3,433,609
1,063,976
1,848,135
Souroc
SCAG
(Sources: U. S. Census, SLAG, California 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 -sits 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
EnNrortmenia! Analysis
• 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 project area is Fire Station 7, located at 2301 Zenith
Avenue, or approximately I mil es south of the proposed project location. Newport Beach currently has
eight fie 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 swom 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 of Newport 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
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, Site Survey, Thomas Guide for Los 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
I Y Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 343
Initial Study and MND
Environmental 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 be 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 fires, 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 Plans)
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 police protection?
in 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 result
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 in 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 of Newport 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 term 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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-44
Initial Study and MND
Environmental Analysis
• 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, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance.
objectives in 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 incase 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
future parks and recreational facilities 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?
Less 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,
Ino adverse impacts on medical services are expected.
The 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 Survey)
' 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/Irarbor, 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
I 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 Newport Beach General Plan)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -05
Intttal Study and MND
IEnvironmental Analysis
• 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 parr
and recreational facilities will not change. No significant adverse impacts on existing and future parks and
recreational facilities are expected with compliance with City regulations for park provision and payment of
park development foes.
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 TRANSPORTATIONIIRAMC
The proposed project site is located along the eastern side of MacArthur Boulevard between Birch Street and
Von Kannan 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.
1 Birch Street and Von Kamran 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 for 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)
KoR Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-46
1 Initial Study and MND
• 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 (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)?
Less 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. ft.). 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 street 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?
Less 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 (JWA) 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
1 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 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 of the proposed project.
(Sources: Thomas Guide for Las Angeles and Orange Counties, Newport Beach General Plan, .TWA Airport
EnvironsLand Use Plan)
D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g., 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 parking would result from 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 Headquarters Page 3-47
Initial &udy and M,VD
•
16
I
Environmental Analysis
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)
F. Would the project result in inadequate parldng capacity?
Less than Significant 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 Traffic Impact Analysis.
Mitigation
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)
G. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
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)
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -48
Initial Study and tMD
I
Environmerdal Analysis
• 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water Service
Water services to the City of Newport Beach, are provided by the City of Newport Beach Utility Department,
I, hvme Ranch Water District, or the Mesa Consolidated Water District. The proposed project site would be
served by the hvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Groundwater from the Orange County. Groundwater
I basin, operated by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), is the primary water supply source for the
area, supplying approximately 64% of the City's water demand. The remaining 36% is purchased from the
Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), a subagency 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.
1 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 from 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 (HHWCC) within Orange County. Solid waste from 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 Irvine. 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 lines and the regional sewer hunks 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.
I
Electrical Power and Gas Service
The City of Newport Beach is served by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas services and by
• the Southern California Edison Company for electrical power services. There are no overhead utility lines
adjacent to the proposed project site or in the surrounding area.
Kall Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3-49
Initial Study and AND
Environmental Analysis
(Sources,- Newport Beach General Plan, City of Newport 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.
1•
I
I
I
I
J
J
F�
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 infrastructure for water service includes a water main that runs along MacArthur Boulevard. To
provide sewer services to the site, the proposed project would also utilize existing infrastructure 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 temis 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 facilities
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 MND
L
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)
tD. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1�
1
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project would require additional water
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.
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 Beaeh Cx =l Plan Update
2006 Draft EEt
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 MND
EnvlronrnentalAnaly
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 a.m., the following morning).
Mitigation Measure 3.164: 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 (ULFT) in the development.
While the proposed project would create an increased demand for water imurces in the City, local and
regional water supplies have adequate capacities to serve the proposed development on -site. With
implementation of the suggested water conservation measures to further reduce water use on -site, no
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 of Newport Beach Utilities Department)
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 be required to serve the proposed development. The
' 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 (mgd) and currently operates at 240 mgd. Therefore, this increase in the amount of
wastewater created from 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
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
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.
' • 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
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -52
' Initial Study and AND
EnvftonmenWAnalysis
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
solid 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 Irvine.
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)
i
1
1
1
1
1
1�
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 3 -53
1 Initial Study and AND
SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 4.1 FINDINGS
The environmental analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Koll Company
Corporate 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,
Transportation/Traffic, 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 individually limited but
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.
t 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 3.3 -1: Use pre - coated building materials.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4 -1
Intttal Study and MND
Mandatory Findings (continued)
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with 50 percent
efficiency.
Mitigation Measure 3.33: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter.
Mitigation Measure 3.34: 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
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 3.3-6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 miles per
hour.
Mitigation 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 3.3-8: 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 33 -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 when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
KoN Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4 -2
initial Study and MAID
• Mandatory Findings (continued)
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 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 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 3.3 -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 equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as the high
volume -low pressure (IIVLP) 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 (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 filters on diesel
construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on this
proposed Project.
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 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.
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4-3
' Initial Study and MND
• Mandatory Findings (conftnued}
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.
HydroloVlWater Quality
Mitigation Measure 3.&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
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 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 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 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 3.113: 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 Traffur
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 - tuming radii.
' Utilities and Service Systems
Kod Company Corporate Headquarters Page 4-4
Initial Study and MND
• Mandatory ✓ indings (continued}
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 p.m. and 4:00 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 (ULFT) 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
i
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
' Initial Study and MND
• SECTION 5: LLST OF PREPARERS/REFERENCES
5.1 PREPARERS OF THE MND/EWMkL STUDY
EDAW, Inc.
8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 610
San Diego, California 92108
(619) 291 -1347
Dustin Fuller, Project Manager
Christopher Ward, Urban/Environmental Planner
Andrew Martin, Urban/Environmental Planner
5.2
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, Important Farmland,
2000.
California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Mapping Pro rg am
'• California Department of Finance, E-4 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 CEQA
Guidelines, 2004.
California's Scenic Highway Program, California Scenic Routes. 2000.
1 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Conservation ofNatural Resources Element. 1975.
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Housing Element. 2003.
City of Newport Beach, General Plan Public Land Use Element 2004, as amended
rCity 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 Open Space Element 1998.
' City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2003.
• City of Newport Beach, Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport, Aug. 14,
1972 (Amendment No. 313),
' Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Page 5.1
Initial Study and MND
I
1
I
[1'
1
1�
1
City of Newport Beach website: bgp://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/ 2004.
EDAW, Limited Air Quality Analysis, July 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maus, 1996.
National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System 2006.
Newport-Mesa Unified School District website: httn: / /www.nmusd.kl2.ca.us/, 2006.
(range County Integrated Waste Management Division website: httn: //www.oclandfills.com/, 2006.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2004 RTP Growth Forecast. City Projections,
2004.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Faults of Southern California , —.
SCAQMD, Air Ouality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, 2002.
SCAQMD, CEOA Air Quality Handbook May 1993, as amended.
Thomas Brothers Maps; Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties; 2006.
U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census, 1990, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Envirofacts Database; 2006.
U.S. Geological Survey, 7 I/2 Minute Quadrangle for Laguna Beach, 2004.
5.3 PERSONS CONTACTED
City of Newport Beach
Rosalmh Ung, Associate Planner
David Keely, Associate Civil Engineer
Police and Fire Depts.
Community Liaison Representative
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
Initial Study and MND
r
SECTION 6:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROA
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and Initial Study for the proposed Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project located in the City of Newport Beach. The MND
indicated that the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project, in terms of Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities and Service Systems could be mitigated to below levels of
significance. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and the MND is scheduled for adoption by the City of Newport
Beach, in conjunction with the approval of the project.
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require the Lead Agency for each project which is
subject to the CEQA to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that
implementation does, in fact, take place. The PRC requires the Lead Agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program that is designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation. In accordance with PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, this
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed for the Koll Company Corporate Headquarters project.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures which are required to reduce or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of future development on the project
site are listed in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Program. Responsible parties, the time frame for implementation, and the monitoring parties
are also identified for each measure. In order to determine if the responsible party has implemented these measures, the method of verification
is also identified, along with the City of Newport Beach department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the responsible party
has completed each mitigation measure.
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitorin
Air Quality
The following mitigation measures would reduce emissions associated with construction of the
proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Use pre- coated building materials.
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
Contractor
Building Department
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: Use high pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators with
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
50 percent efficiency.
Contractor
Building Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -1
•
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
'time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Party
Implementation
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3: Use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
liter.
Contractor
Building Department
Mitigation Measure 3.34: During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
twice per day. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed
Contractor
Building Department
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
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
Contractor
Building or Public Works
emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
Department
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 3.3 -6: All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
15 miles per hour.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project
September 2006
Page 6 -2
M M r M
•
r � �
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Responsible
Tim Frame for
Department or Agency
Mitigation Measures -
Party
Implementation
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 33 -7: All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
activities, that will not be utilized within three days, shall be covered with plastic, an alternative
Contractor
Building Department
cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer.
-
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
streets, the streets shall be swept daily to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Any visible
Contractor
Building or Public Works
track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty
Department
(30) minutes of deposition.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9: All diesel- powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
and maintained. -
Contractor
Building and Public Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -10: All diesel- powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Department
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas-
City of Newport
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible.
Beach
Building or Public Works
Departments
Mitigation Measure 33 -12: As much as possible, the construction contractor shall time the
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of
Contractor
Building and Public Works
through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to
Department
existing roadways, if necessary.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -13: The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Contractor
Building or Public Works
Departments
Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -3
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Mitigation Measures
Party
Implementation
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -14: The construction contractor shall utilize as much as possible pre-
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
coated/natural colored building materials. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that
Contractor
Building Department
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 3.3 -15: If construction equipment powered by alternative fuel sources
City of Newport
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport Beach
(LPG /CNG) is available at comparable cost, the developer shall specify that such equipment be
Beach
Grading Permit
Building Department
used during all construction activities on the proposed Project site.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -16: The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel
Developer/
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport Beach
construction equipment if use of such filters is demonstrated to be cost - competitive for use on tins
Project
Grading Permit
Building Department
proposed Project
Architect
Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with unknown
cultural resources on -site:
Mitigation Measure 3.5 -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
written evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been retained to observe
Contractor
Grading Permit
Planning Department
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
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
observe grayling activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be
Contractor
Grading Permit
Planning Department
present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resource
surveillance, and shall establish cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 64
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
party
Implementation
Monitorimt
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
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with potential
hazards associated with John Wayne Airport:
Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building,
Developer
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
the Project Applicant shall file Form 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Building Permit
Planning Department
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
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential hydrology /water quality impacts
associated with the proposed project:
Mitigation Measure 3.8 71: Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City, the Project
Developer
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
Applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution
Grading Permit
Building Department and
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide
Code and Water Quality
NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices
Enforcement Division
(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 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 3.8-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project,
Contractor
Grading Permit
Building Department and
subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement
Code and Water Quality
Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
Enforcement Division
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.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Kell Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6-5
M = M
0
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Responsible for
party
Implementation
Monitoring
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.
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -2: Equipment mufflers for construction equipment shall be used at
Developer /
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
all times.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.11 -3: Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
Contractor
Planning Department and
maintained and shall be turned off when not in use.
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Transportation/Traffic
The following mitigation measures would reduce any potential traffic and parking related
impacts from the proposed Project:
Mitigation Measure 3.15 -1: The parking design shall meet all City requirements regarding parking
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
stall width, parking stall depth, parking aisle grade, and parking aisle - turning radii.
Contractor
Building Permit
Public Works Department
Utilities and Service Systems
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
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
materials and drip irrigation systems, wherever possible.
Contractor
Building Permit
Planning Department
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -6
TABLE 1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Responsible
Time Frame for
Department or Agency
Mitigation Measures
party
Implementation
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -2: Water leaving the user's property due to over - irrigation of
Developer/
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
landscape, should be minimal. If an incident such as this is reported, a customer service
Contractor
Planning Department and
representative will visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in
Code and Water Quality
some cases shut -off the water.
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -3: Watering should be done during the early morning or evening
Developer/
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning).
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -4: All leaks are investigated and repaired.
Developer /
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -5: Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces, such as
Developer/
Ongoing
City of Newport Beach
sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc., except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation
Contractor
Planning Department and
hazards.
Code. and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16-6: Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is
Developer/
Prior to Issuance of
City of Newport Beach
economically feasible.
Contractor
Building Permit
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Measure 3.16 -7: Installation of Ultra-Low Flush Toilets (ULF't) in the
Developer/
Construction Phase
City of Newport Beach
development.
Contractor
Planning Department and
Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2006
Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project Page 6 -7
i
t
I,
d
Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Form
1
i
I
1
i
I
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Koll Company Corporate Headquarters Project
' 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial
7. Zoning: Administrative, Professional; Financial (APF)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets) if necessary.)
' A proposed Class 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 projects 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 Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club
with dining 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
Pape 1 of 10
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3208
'
4. Project Location:
4450 MacArthur Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
'
Orange County
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address:
City of Newport Beach
Plpn� 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, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets) if necessary.)
' A proposed Class 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 projects 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 Karman Avenue is the Pacific Club, a private members only club
with dining 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
Pape 1 of 10
• ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
' DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
' ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, tyre 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 fed 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 significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
' but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ 1 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 EIR 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 measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
11
[1
1
TAS /04
Date
City of Newport Beach
For
FORM "P'
Page 2 of 10
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Biological Resources
■
Cultural Resources
❑
(3eoloesoils
■
Hazards & Hazardous
■
Hydrology/Water Quality
❑
Land UsetPlamting
Materials
■
Noise
❑
■
Population/Ilousing
Trsnsportation/Traffic
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
■
Utilitiea/sesvice Systems
0
Air amity
'
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
' DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
' ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, tyre 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 fed 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 significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
' but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ 1 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 EIR 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 measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
11
[1
1
TAS /04
Date
City of Newport Beach
For
FORM "P'
Page 2 of 10
• EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information 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 rapture 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced).
' 5) Earlier analyses may be 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:
a) 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
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.
' 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
' 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.
9) 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.
Pa I 11)
I
I
J
J
1
i
1
1
II
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
paaa. d of 10
No Impact
0
■
0
0
0
J
n
01
1
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues: -
Significant With Significant
-
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
L AESTHETICS Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
0 0 ■
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
0 0 0
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
0 0 ■
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
0 0 ■
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
0 0 0
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
0 0 0
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
0 0 0
Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
III. 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
0 0 ■
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
0 0 ■
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- attaimnent
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
0 0 ■
(including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
0 p ■
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
0 0 ■
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
paaa. d of 10
No Impact
0
■
0
0
0
J
n
01
1
Issues:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
K CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
YI. 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
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Paee 5 of IQ
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
O ❑ ❑ ■
Less Than
❑ ■
Potentiany
Significant
Less Thin
Significant
With
Significant No Impact
impact
Nfigauon
Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
O ❑ ❑ ■
❑
❑
❑ ■
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ■
❑
❑
❑ ■
❑
■
❑ ■
❑
■
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑ ■
❑ ❑
■ ❑
❑ ❑
■ ❑
❑ ❑
■ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ■
Issues:
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
HE HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) 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?
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?
1) 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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildl nd fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGYAND {PATER QUALITY. Would the
project
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Pane 6 of to
❑ ❑
Less Than
❑ ❑
■ ❑
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
❑ ■
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact.
Impact
A1ifigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
❑
■
13
❑
❑
❑
■
❑ ❑
■ ❑
❑ ❑
■ ❑
❑ ❑
17 ■
❑ ❑
❑ ■
❑ ■
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑
•
❑ ❑
■
❑
❑ ❑
❑
■
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Issues:
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
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
runoff 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 phmned.stomr water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
1) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
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
of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
drying 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
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
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
harm?
o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Page 7 of 10
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
impact
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ o
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Page 9 of 10
Less Than
"
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues:
Significant With Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
- Incorporated
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
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 ❑ ■
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
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 noise levels in
0 ■ ❑ 0
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
p ■ ❑ 0
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
p ■ 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
❑ ❑ ■
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 ■
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
to excessive noise levels?
X11 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 ■ ❑
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?
XUI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Page 9 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?
XY 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 cumulatively, 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., farm 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
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
significant
No Impact
Impact
Mifigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
■
❑
❑
o
■
Page 10 of 10
No Impact
0
0
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues:
Significant With significaat
Impact butigation Impact
Incorporated
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
❑ ❑ ■
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
❑ ❑ 0
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
❑ ❑ ■
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
❑ ■ ❑
expanded entitlements needed?
c) Result in a deterreination by the wastewater treatment
provider wbich 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient perinitted capacity to
❑ ❑ ■
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g). Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
❑ ❑ ■
related to solid waste?
XVIL MANDA TOR YFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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
❑ ❑ ■
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
❑ ❑ ■
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 hutrwan beings, either
❑ ■ ❑
directly or indirectly?
Page 10 of 10
No Impact
0
0
I
i
'i
Appendix B — Air Quality Analysis
1
Page: 1
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
• URHEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0
File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 \Projects2k2\R011 HQ.urb
Project Name: Roll HQ - Newport Beach, CA
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMPAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds /Day - Summer)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
' <' 2007 ' ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS ilbs /day,unmitigated) 43.44 52:72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.82
TOTALS (lbs /day, mitigated) 43.44 52.72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.82
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx 00 802 PM10
TOTALS (lbs /day,unmitigated) 0.41 0.15 0.81 0.00 0.00
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO 802 PH10
TOTALS (lbs /day,unmitigated) 2.53 3.09 32.94 0.02 3.27
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG Nbx CO 802 PM10
TOTALS (lbs /day,unmitigated) 2.94 3.23 33.75 0.02 3.27
BID
i
1
i
I
�1
i
�1
�1
I
I Page: 2
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
• URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0
I File Name: C: \Program Files \URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 \Projects2k2 \Roll HQ.urb
Project Name: Roll HQ - Newport Beach, CA
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
' DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds /Day - Summer)
Construction Start Month and,Year: January, 2007
' Construction Duration: 12
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 1 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.2 acres
Single' Family Units: 0 Multi- Family Units: 0
Retail /office /Institutional /Industrial Square Footage: 21375
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs /day)
PH10 PM10 PM10
Source ROG Now CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
2007•'*
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust - - - _ 2.78 - 2.78
Off -Road Diesel 3.53 21.61 29.97 0.81 0.81 0.00
On -Road Diesel 0.44 9.62 1.62 0.02 0.22 0.16 0.04
Worker Trips 0.02 0.06 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs /day 3.99 31.29 32.14 0.02 3.81 0.99 2.82
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions - -
Fugitive Dust -
2.00 2.00
Off -Road Diesel 4.06 24.09 34.48 0.77 0.77 0.00
On -Road Diesel 1.29 28.50 4.80 0.05 0.67 0.55 0.12
Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs /day 5.42 52.72 40.67 0.05 3.44 1.32 2.12
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 3.31 21.61 26.92 0.82 0.82 0.00
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Arch Coatings Off -Gas 35.95 - - - - - -
�rch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
sphalt Off -Gas 0.05 - - _ - - -
ephalt Off -Road Diesel 4.00 24.09 33.99 0.83 0.83 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 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs /day 43.44 45.97 62.53 0.00 1.67 1.65 0.02
Max lbs /day all phases 43.44 52.72 62.53 0.05 4.47 1.65 2.82
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month /Year for Phase 1: Jan '07
Phase 1 Duration: 0.6 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 25875
Building Volume Daily (cubic feat): 6612.5
i On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 366
Off -Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Houra /Day
2 Graders 174 0.575 8.0
Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions '
Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan '07
Phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months
On -Road Truck Travel (VMTh 1090
Off -Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day
' 3 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0
Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb '07
Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Feb '07
' SubPhase Building Duration: 10.2 months
Off -Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Houra /Day
1 Concrete /Industrial saws 84 0.730 B.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
1 •
I
I.•
Page: 3
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
*Ub Phase Architectural Coatings Duration:
1 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec '07
I
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months
Acres to be Paved: 0.2
off-Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours
/Day
1 Grafters
174
0.575
8.0
'
1 Pavers
132
0.590
8.0
1 Rollers
114
0.430
8.0
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs /day)
PM10
PM10
PM10
Source ROG NOx
CO
S02
TOTAL
EXHAUST
DUST
• "" 2007` *+
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust -
-
-
-
2.78
-
2.78
Off-Road Diesel 3.53 21.61
29.97
-
0.81
0.81
0.00
On -Road Diesel 0.44 9.62
1.62
0.02
0.22
0.18
0.04
Worker Trips 0.02 0.06
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum Sba /day 3.99 31.29
32.14
0.02
3.81
0.99
2.82
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Dust -
-
2.00
-
2.00
Off -Road Diesel 4.06 - 24.09
34.48
-
0.77
0.77
0.00
On-Road Diesel 1.29 28.50
4.80
0.05
0.67
0.55
0.12
Worker Trips 0.07 0.13
1.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 5.42 52.72
40.67
0.05
3.44
1.32
2.12
I
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 3.31 21.61
26.92
0.62
0.62
0.00
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.05 0.03
0.64
0.00
0.01
0100
0.01
Arch Coatings Off -Gas 35.95
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.05 0.03
Asphalt Off -Gas 0.05
0.64
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 4.00 24.09
33.99
0.83
0.83
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
0.00
0.00
Maximum lbs /day 43.44 45.97
62.53
0.00
1.67
1,65
0.02
Max lbs /day all phases 43.44 52.72
62.53
0.05
4.47
1.65
2.82
'
Construction - Related Mitigation Measures
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 -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 366
Off -Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours
/Day
2 Grafters
174
0.575-
6.0
Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions
'
Start Month /Year for Phase 2: Jan 107
Phase 2 Duration: 1.2 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1090
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower
Load Factor
Hours /Day
3 Rubber Tired Loaders
165
0.465
8.0
Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month /Year for Phase 3: Feb '07
Phase 3 Duration: 10.2 months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Building: Feb '07
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 107
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration:
I months
Start Month /Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec '07
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months
I.•
' 712114
0
07/21/2006 11:15 AN
•Acres to be Paved: 0.2
' Off -Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Pavers
1 Rollers
1
1
i
J
J
1
Horsepower Load Factor Hours /Day
174 0.575 8.0
132 0.590 8.0
114 0.430 8.0
1
11
10
1]
11
1
1�
Page:
'
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
eu SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
(Summer
Pounds per Day,
Unmitigated)
Source
ROG
NOx
CO
502
PM10
t
Natural Gas
0.01
0.14
0.12
0
0.00
Rearth - No summer emissions
Landscaping
0.10
0.00
0.69
0.00
0.00
Consumer Prdcts
0.00
-
-
-
Architectural Coatings
0.30
-
-
-
-
'
TOTALS(lbs /day uitigated)
nm
0.41
0.15
0.81
0.00
0.00
1
11
10
1]
11
1
1�
II
1
1�
1
Page: 6
t
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
i
UNMITIGATED
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
ROG
NOx
CO 502
PM 10
General office building
2.53
3.09 32.94
0.02
3.27
TOTAL EMISSIONS 11ba /day)
Does not include correction
2.53 3.09 32.94
for passby trips.
0.02
3.27
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal
trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION
ESTIMATES
Analysis Year: 2008 Temperature (F): 90
Season: Summer
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002
(9/2002)
Summary of Land Uses:
No.
Total
Unit Type
Acreage Trip
Rate
Units
Trips
General office building
14,03
trip311000
sq. ft, 21,38
299,89
'
Sum
of Total Trips
299.89
Total Vehicle
Miles Traveled
2,153.22
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type
Percent Type Non - Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
Light Auto
55.00
1.60
98.00
0.40
Light Truck < 3,750 lbs
15,00
2,70
95,30
2,00
.Light Truck 3,751- 5,750
16.20
1.20
97.50
1.30
'
Med Truck 5,751- 8,500
7.20
1.40
95.80
2.80
Lite -Heavy 6,501- 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
He8vy -Heavy 33,001- 60,000
0.90
0.00
11.10
88.90
line Haul > 60,000 Ica
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
Bus
0.20
0.00
50.00
50,00
_._)Urban
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- Some-
Rome-
Work Shop
Other
Commute Non -Work
Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles)
11.5 4.9
6.0
10.3 5.5
5,5
Rural Trip Length (miles)
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
8 of Trips - Residential
20.0 37.0
43.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
- General office building
35.0 17.5
47.5
II
1
1�
1
1
' Page: 2
07/21/2006 11:15 AM
'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 consumer 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 emisaion year changed from 2005 to 2008.
1
i
t
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, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443200.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
January 9. 2007, 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.
POud iv ?. I - - Iz.Gq -04
�At'cd -0
PoS ai rti )�,C�qWow- 11.2"14
an- 11 -Z,4
?VDViQ -HO �Q IGV
'
4
Maid � 0- ►ti -U-0
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 properly 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, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
January 9. 2007, 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.
(/ IiG Uhl/1`t L"
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, 92656 -8915, (949) 6443200.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 9. 2007, 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.
LaVonne M. Haddess, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Office of the City Clerk
CITY HALL
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
IMPORTANT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Jam and Smudge Free Printing 111111111111110 www.ave com
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 p.acy�b_ cSQ �j '�� 1-800-GO-AVERY
995- 131 -03
Rockwell Semiconductor
4311 Jamboree Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -08
Ocrc Capital Corp
7 Corporate Plaza Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
445- 131 -11
Pres -9390 Von Karman
1201 Dove St 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -16
Mbc Holdings
4320 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -21
Whl 1976 T Llc
9990 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -26
Santa Barbara Bk &
PO Box 3170
Honolulu, HI 96802
995- 132 -06
Scholle Jamboree Prop Dev
19500 Jamboree Rd
Irvine, CA 92612
445- 182 -18
Cip Centerpointe 123 Llc
19762 Macarthur Blvd 350
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 141 -11
' Alma Group
4650 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92660
i
995- 191 -19
Kcn Ltd Edition Owners Assn
5030 Campus Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
009&5 OAMBAV
995- 131 -04
Kcn A Management Llc
4343 Von Karman Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -09
Spectrum Investments
17901 Von Karman Ave 950
Irvine, CA 92614
995- 131 -13
Tst Macarthur Llc.
Macarthur(4525A) Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -18
Cornerstone Partners Iv Llc
18818 Teller Ave 277
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 131 -23
Nicholson Properties Vk Llc
18101 Von Karman Ave 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 131 -27
4200 Von Karman Llc
1401 Quail St 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 132 -09
South Coast Thrift & Loan As:
19752 Macarthur Blvd
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 141 -08
Beachwood Partners
4931 Birch St
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 141 -12
Lyon Housing I Llc *M*
4901 Birch St
'j Newport Beach, CA 92660
995 - 141 -16
Beachwood Partners
4132 Katella Ave.
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
A83AW-09.008-&
uiasNane• m ��
V AVERY® s16oO
995- 131 -05
Pres- Lakeside
1201 Dove St 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 131 -10
4350 Von Karman Llc
19800 Macarthur Blvd 500
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 131 -15
4000 Macarthur Y�
45 Rockefeller Plz
New York, NY 10111
995- 131 -19
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
995- 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
995- 141 -10
Lambeau Properties Llc
4921 Birch St 1
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 141 -13
Aetna Life'Insurance Co
4911 Birch St
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 141 -27
Kcn Ltd Edition Owners Assn
5030 Campus Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
O09&S weqv§ 81 zegipn
apidej e6eLPqs @ &e eBeunoq.Ww uoismdwi
Impression antibourrage et A secbage rapide www.averycom
Utllisez le gabarit 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY
427- 111 -09 427- 111 -10
Jrsm Corp Burlington National
1600 Dove St 480 PO Box 306
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Montpelier, VT 05601
QAVERY® s16o®
427- 173 -01
Bank First &
4301 Macarthur Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
427- 174 -03 927- 179 -09 927- 181 -01
Sanderson J & Ray - Macarthur Newport Hotel Holding Llc Pacific Plaza Associates
2699 White Rd 150 148 S Beverly Dr 204 4299 Macarthur Blvd 220
Irvine, CA 92614 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Newport Beach, CA 92660
427- 181 -07 : 927- 161 -08 927- 181 -09
Ridgeway & Whitney Gurcharan & Baljeet Sandher Timothy J Flathers
2804 Lafayette Rd 17130 Apricot Cir 20292 Acre
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Orange, CA 92869
4.27- 181 -10
First States Investors
PO Box 27713
Houston, TX 77227
427- 222 -05
Malaguena
1000 Dove St 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
i 427- 223 -02
David W Wilson
30100 Town Center Dr 310
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
995- 121 -16
Irvine Co
550 Newport Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 122 -05
Makar Vdv Llc
4100 Macarthur Blvd 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 122 -11
Sunstone Macarthur Llc
903 Calle Amanecer 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
995- 122 -15
Pacific Club
4110 Macarthur Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
®09LS ANRAV n
427- 181 -12
James R Glidewell
PO Box 8127
Newport Beach, CA 92658
427- 222 -06
Pmc General Partnership
4001 Macarthur Blvd 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 072 -13
Regents Of The University Of
1111 Franklin St 6Th
Oakland, CA 94607
995- 121 -17
Irvine Co
550 Newport Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
427- 222 -01
Ca- Redstone Plaza Ltd Ptnshp
I" PO Box A3879
Chicago, IL 60690
427- 223 -01
Mac Arthur Building Llc
2700 N Main St 780
Santa Ana, CA 92705
995- 121 -14
Irvine Co
550 Newport Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
995- 121 -18
Bre & Esa Properties Llc
100 Dunbar St
. Spartanburg, SC 29306
995 - 122 -06 -
995- 122 -09
Steadfast Koll I Llc
S'miii 4590 Macarthur Llc
20411 SW Birch St 200
PO Box 130174
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Carlsbad, CA 92013
995- 122 -12
995- 122 -13
-. 9900 Macarthur Inc Irvine
- 4400 Macarthur Inc
18818 Teller Ave 277
18818 Teller Ave 277
Irvine, CA 92612
Irvine, CA 92612
995- 122 -16
995- 131 -02
-: Kcn A Management Llc
Rockwell Semiconductor
- -. 4343 Von Karman Ave
i' 4311 Jamboree Rd E09 901
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AM3AV-0"08•L
D09LS nvuivin &4jenV asil
11A rf"OAWAAA�
bum ua aau a6onwc oue wer
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600
445- 141 -28
Beachwood Partners Two
4740 Von Karman Ave 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
�.
wwwaverymm AVERY® 51600
1- 800 -GO- AVERY V
445- 141 -30
Roger Stone
20321 SW Birch St
101
Newport Beach, CA
926 0
930 -30 -401
Nelson G Mamey
5160 Birch St 101
Newport Beach, CA 92660
445- 141 -29
Beachwood Partners
5031 Birch St J
Newport Beach, CA 92660
445- 141 -31 445- 151 -01
Lebata Inc County Of Orange
4621 Teller Ave 1040 1143 E Fruit St
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92701
930 -30 -402 930 -30 -403
Duggan -West Birch Street Llc Darts Building Partners
34655 Camino Capistrano 5120 Birch St 200
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Newport Beach, CA 92660
* ** 69 Printed * **
930 -30 -404
Associates
5100 Birch St
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
On °t (2 2006, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing
regarding:
The Koll Company Corporate Headquarters
(PA2006 -095)
Date of Hearing: January 9, 2007
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public entices by
Decree of the Superior Coon of Ornuge Cozmty, California. Number A -6214,
September 29, 1961, and A -24M I 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
parry 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 CallfOmia, and that attached
Notice is a true and complete copy as
was printed and published on the
following dates:
DECEMBER 30,2006
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on DECEMBER 30,2006
at Costa Mesa, Galifomia:
Signature
RECENED
7M, sag 1 1 0 9. 33
NOTICE
NEARING
The Koll Company
Corporate Headquarters
(PA2DO6.095)
NOTICE S HEREBY GIVEN
that the council of
the City of Newport
Beach will hold a public I
hearing On the
Compan l
y, for General
he property is locaieo 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 614450 MacArthur
Boulevard. The proposed
project requires approval
of a General Plan
n.n.namana to allow the
an
of
will not result in a
tmticant effect on the
,nvimnment. It is the
esent intention of the
City to accept the
Mitigated Negative
Declaration and
upporting documents,
This is not to be
construed as either
,proval or as by the
City of the subject
application. The City
ncourages members of
the general public to
eview and comment on
this documentation.
Copies of the Mitigated
legative Declaration and
supporting documents
are available for public
,,view and Inspection at
he Planning Department,
Cityy of Newport Beach,
1300 Newport Boulevard.
Newport Beach,
California, 92658 -6915,
(949) 644-3200.
NOTICE M B GIVENlhat said
public hearing will be
held on
January 9, 2007. at the
hour Of 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall,
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, Califor-
nia, at which time and
place any and all persons
interested may appear
and be heard thereon. If
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
ie limited to raising only
those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing de-
scrl n writtenscorrece or,
December 3u, zuuo 438
�—
,X