Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04 - Corporate Plaza West Phase 2
I 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Z � A ENDA Agenda Item No. 20 January 10, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 jampbell @city. newport-beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 & Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive (Corporate Plaza West) 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island) APPLICANT: The Irvine Company r - -� ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Traffic Study to allow the transfer of un - built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West to build a 42,012 square -foot office building? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the requested application by adopting the attached draft resolution and introducing the attached draft ordinance and pass the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on January 24, 2006. DISCUSSION On November 17, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 7 ayes to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the City Council to consider: • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment — Transfer of approximately 44,688 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West. • Traffic Study — Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and in accordance with provisions within the General Plan Land Use Element. Corporate Plaza West Phase 2 January 10, 2006 Page 2 The project consists of a 42,012 square -foot, two -story building for general office use. All development standards, including setbacks, parking, building height and coverage, as required by the Planned Community Text and City Zoning Code are proposed to be met, and the land use designations of the respective Planned Communities will not be changed. Corporate Plaza West is developed with three office buildings totaling 117,676 gross square feet. The specific location for the proposed building is near the northeast corner of East Coast Highway and Club House Drive and is currently a vacant pad, parking lot and landscaping for the adjacent office buildings. Corporate Plaza West is designated for 115,000 square feet of floor area for office development and the proposed project would bring the total floor area to 159,688 gross square feet. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is proposing to transfer up to 44,688 square feet of un -built retail area from Fashion Island to account for the existing 2,676 square foot shortfall and accommodate the proposed construction. Land Use Both planned communities are located within Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed transfer does not require a General Plan Amendment as the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) states the following: "Transfers of Development Rights in Newport Center are permitted, subject to approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts." (Land Use Element, Page 77). Implementation of such a transfer is accomplished by amending both Planned Community District Regulations by increasing the allocation of the recipient site (Corporate Plaza West) and decreasing the donor site (Fashion Island). Staff has recently conducted a comprehensive review of records and found that Corporate Plaza West is developed with 117,676 gross square feet office uses (2,676 square feet over the maximum) and Fashion Island has roughly 300,000 square feet of retail area that is yet to be constructed at this time. Corporate Plaza West is allocated a maximum of 115,000 square feet of professional office use and would require 44,688 gross square feet of additional floor area to permit the 42,012 square foot building account for the existing 2,676 square foot shortfall and accommodate the proposed construction. The site is designated Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. Construction of additional professional office area is consistent with this designation. Fashion Island is allocated just over 1.6 million square feet of floor area for regional retail uses and theater seating. Fashion Island is designated Retail & Service Commercial and the City Council would need to determine that the reduction in the retail allocation is consistent with the General Plan. Traffic Study As noted above, a transfer within Newport Center must not result in an adverse traffic impact. Austin -Foust Associates was retained by the City Traffic Engineer to undertake a traffic analysis for the proposed project, including the impacts not only of the 42,012 square feet of Corporate Plaza West Phase 2 January 10, 2006 Page 3 general office use (no medical), but also the elimination of 45,119 square feet of retail space within Fashion Island. Note: the analysis was undertaken on 431 square feet more than being requested due to an earlier audit of the amount of actual existing square footage; the actual change in square footage is minimal and represents a slight decrease in floor area, and does not change the overall results of the Austin -Foust Traffic Analysis. The analysis was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), and also included the cumulative impacts of a number of projects within the vicinity of the project. The project results in an average daily trip (ADT) generation of 589 trips. However, those trips are offset by a reduction of future trips (total ADT of 883) from the transfer of the retail space from Fashion Island, and results in an overall net decrease of 294 trips. Despite an overall decrease in ADT, it was recognized the project could have impacts on specific intersections, particularly the Clubhouse Drive (Irvine Terrace) /Coast Highway intersection. Therefore, the Traffic Analysis evaluated the project's impact on ten intersections and included an evaluation pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Using these thresholds, if a project contributes more than one percent to an increase in an intersection's operation during the morning or afternoon peak, the intersection would undergo further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. Project related traffic increased the traffic by a minimum of one percent at five of the study intersections and an ICU analysis was performed. The ICU analysis concluded that all five will continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) of "C" or better and no impact to these primary intersections would occur. The traffic study also evaluated the closest intersection to the proposed office building Clubhouse Drive /Coast Highway. The intersection currently operates at an LOS "A" during the morning and evening peak. The proposed project will cause a slight increase in the AM and PM peak traffic volumes but it will continue to operate at LOS "A" with completion of the proposed office building. The Traffic Analysis is included as Attachment G and staff believes that the findings for the approval of the traffic study are met. Finally, based upon the limited impact of the proposed transfer, staff believes that the transfer can be found consistent with the Land Use Element. Parking Since the proposed project will be constructed on a portion of an existing parking lot that serves the existing office buildings within Corporate Plaza, staff evaluated the parking for not only the proposed project, but also the entire Corporate Plaza area. The Parking Regulations of the Zoning Code require office projects to be parked at a standard of one parking space for each 250 square feet of net floor area (gross floor area less elevator shafts, mechanical rooms and upper floor stairwells). The following chart summarizes the required and provided parking for the project and the entire Corporate Plaza area: Corporate Plaza West Phase 2 January 10, 2006 Page 4 Project Phase Net Floor Area Required Parking Provided Parking Existing (Phase 1) 96,502 sq. ft. 386 386 Proposed (Phase 2) 42,012 sq. ft. 161 166 Total 136,515 sq. ft. 547 552 It must be noted that the analysis does not include the bank building located at the intersection of Granville Drive and Newport Center Drive. This building is located within the General Plan sub area referred to as Corporate Plaza West, but it is not within the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community. The building is not controlled by the applicant and it provides its own parking supply. The Zoning Code also provides that parking may be based on a parking pool for the office buildings and may be modified to provide parking at a rate of one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area for the first 125,000 square feet, and one space for each 300 square feet over 125,000 up to 425,000 square feet. Using the "parking pool" method, the project and adjacent existing buildings would require a total of 538 parking spaces. Therefore, the project exceeds the required parking using either method. Although more than the minimum number of spaces is provided, staff noticed that the distribution of parking spaces favors the existing buildings. In addition, it should be noted that 119 parking spaces are shared pursuant to a private agreement with the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. Under the provisions of the "Shared Parking and Access Agreement," The Irvine Company has the use of the parking lot and the Tennis Club has a non - exclusive parking easement and use of the Corporate Plaza West parking on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. There are 123 parking spaces (six spaces located within the Tennis Club shared lot) 300 feet from the proposed building's main entrance and there are 177 spaces (six within the Tennis Club lot) within 300 feet from all of the entrances to the new building. This supply seems adequate based upon the number of spaces; however, many of these spaces are located within the same proximity of the existing buildings and may not always be available. In order to avoid parking distribution issues, staff recommends that a parking lot management plan be implemented such that tenants are required to have employees park in various areas delineated to avoid conflicts. In summary, it is staffs opinion that the project will be adequately parked. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, circulated and filed both with the County Clerk/Recorder and the State Clearinghouse. The IS /MND was filed and posted for a period of 30 days for a public review period from October 14, 2005 through November 14, 2005 in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. A copy of the IS /MND is included as Attachment F. Corporate Plaza West Phase 2 January 10, 2006 Page 5 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: James Campbell Senior Planner Attachments: Submitted by: atricia .Temple Planning Director A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Draft City Council Ordinance C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 D. Excerpt of the draft minutes from the November 17, 2005, Planning Commission meeting E. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study F. Traffic Study G. Project Plans ATTACHMENT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPEMNT ALLOCATION WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER, AND APPROVING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005- 004 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1200 -1400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (CORPORATE PLAZA WEST) AND 101 -1199 NEWPORT CENTER ROAD (FASHION ISLAND) (PA2005 -042). WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island) legally described as Lots 30 - 36 of PM 221, and 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive (Corporate Plaza West), legally described as Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 94 -102, requesting the transfer of development allocation of 44,688 gross square feet of unused retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West for general office purposes, and approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot office building within Corporate Plaza West. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 17, 2005 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. After considering the evidence and testimony, both written and oral, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the project. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 10, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides within the Newport Center Planned Community (Statistical Area L1) that transfers of development rights are permitted within the Statistical Area, provided that findings are made that the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a professional office building at the recipient (Corporate Plaza West) and Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. The proposed construction and use resulting from the transfer of development allocation is consistent with this designation. The reduction of retail commercial development allocation at Fashion Island does not impact the ability to develop Fashion Island in accordance with the General Plan. I City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Paoe 2 of 7 WHEREAS, the proposed transfer is consistent with the general development policies of the General Plan as follows: 1. General Plan Policy B, in that the proposed transfer of development rights will not result in significant changes to long range traffic service levels; 2. General Plan Policy C, in that adequate on -site parking will be provided for Corporate Plaza West for the proposed new office building and other existing uses within the Planned Community; 3. General Plan Policy D, in that the project will not result in restriction to public views and will not result in adverse impacts to sensitive habitat; 4. General Plan Policy F, in that the project is consistent with the Zoning Code land uses and development standards for the district within which the project is proposed; and 5. General Plan Policy L, in that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to area -wide and City -wide prosperity, and will provide additional office space in an area designated for such use. WHEREAS, a traffic analysis has been completed by Austin -Foust Associates, dated August, 2005, that demonstrates that the proposed transfer of development rights will not result in adverse impacts, and will improve the overall traffic circulation within the general area of the proposed project. Specificaliy, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the traffic analysis: 1. The traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). 2. The traffic analysis considered the transfer of development allocation consisting of 45,119 square feet of unused retail space from Fashion Island, and the traffic impacts of the transfer as well as the traffic impacts of the proposed new 42,012 square feet of commercial office space. Further, the actual amount of development allocation being transferred is actually 44,688 square feet and represents less impact than the amount of space evaluated by the traffic study. 3. The traffic analysis indicates that the project, including the transfer of development rights, will result in a net decrease in average daily trips and will not increase traffic at five (5) of the ten (10) primary intersections by one percent (1 %) and therefore no impact is predicted. 4. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis determined that the project will not cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at any of the r City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 7 five (5) primary intersections where there will be an increase of more than one percent (1 %) in traffic volume and, therefore no mitigation is required. 5. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of the approval of the Planned Community Amendment approval by the City Council or the approval of a new traffic study will be required. WHEREAS, the proposed office building is consistent with the development standards of the Zoning regulations of the Municipal Code and the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community, including building setbacks, building height, landscaping and parking. WHEREAS, the proposed office building will be consistent and compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City in that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses, has no adverse impacts on area traffic, provides sufficient parking, does not block public views or access to the coastline and other significant man -made and natural features, and the project will provide landscaping and screening. WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that Initial Study, it was determined that the project would require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), said MND having been prepared, noticed, posted and circulated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. A thirty day public review period commenced on October 14, 2005 and ended on November 14, 2005, and the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 2005 and considered the MND and Mitigation Measures. And further, a noticed public hearing was conducted on January 10, 2006 where the MND and Mitigation Measures were considered by the City Council and where any interested party had the opportunity to comment on the documents. No comments related to the adequacy of the MND were received. The Mitigation Measures contained within the MND having been incorporated into conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Corporate Plaza West Phase 2 project, the transfer of up to 44,688 square feet of floor area allocation from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West through an amendment to the Fashion Island and Corporate Plaza West Planned Community Development Plans and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ". City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2006. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 0 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans dated November 10, 2005. 2. The applicant shall prepare a parking management plan that identifies the location where all tenants within the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community will be required to park. The location of tenant parking shall be so identified to provide convenient parking and avoid parking conflicts resulting from the distribution and location of parking spaces. The parking management plan shall include the method by which private enforcement of the parking restrictions shall be implemented. The parking management plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of occupancy pen-nits and once the plan is approved, the plan shall be implemented indefinitely or until such time that it is deemed unnecessary by the City. 3. Signage for the proposed office building shall be in full compliance with the standards outlined within the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Text; specifically, the proposed wall signs shall not exceed a maximum of two per building elevation, and shall not exceed letter heights of 24 inches for a primary tenant and 16 inches for a secondary tenant. 4. The maximum permitted square footage by this approval is for 42,012 square feet of office building, and that the total square footage for transfer from Fashion Island shall be 45,119 square feet. 5. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, construction of the proposed office building shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval by the City Council of the Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -04. 6. The project site shall include a landscaping plan consisting of trees and shrubs designed to complement the building architecture, surrounding landscaping, and screen parking areas and above - ground utilities such as electrical meters, stand pipes and utility vaults. 7. All exterior lighting, including both parking lot standards and building- mounted security lighting, shall be equipped with shields designed to restrict light and glare to the project site and to avoid any light spillage to surrounding properties and uses. 8. 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 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 7 minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. In addition, the project shall comply with all provisions of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. 9. 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 or otherwise washed within 30 minutes of any tracking extending for more than fifty feet from the project site access point. Any required watering shall meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 10. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines where feasible. If LPG /CNG equipment is available at comparable cost, the applicant shall specify the use of such equipment during the construction phase. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. 11. 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 flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. 12. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 13. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. 14. 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. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or any federal holiday. 15. During grading activities, all vehicles and petroleum- driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers. 16. Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Vehicles, shall be properly maintained, and shall be turned off when not in use. 14- City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Paoe7of7 17. The proposed office building shall be constructed using double pained windows and insulation to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dBA or less. Any exterior equipment such as heating and air conditioning shall be furnished with baffles, screens and /or landscaping to ensure that noise levels from that equipment does not exceed 65 dBA as measured at any project property line. 18. Sight distances at the corner of Irvine Terrace and Coast Highway, as well as the main entry driveway off of Irvine Terrace, shall be provided in accordance with City standards. 19. On site traffic signage, driveway striping and fire aisles shall be installed and maintained as required by the City Engineering, Police and Fire Departments. 20. Parking lot design shall meet all City standards with respect to drive aisle widths, parking space dimensions, turning radii and driveway /parking surface grades. 21. Bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with City requirements. k� ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 1� ORDINANCE NO. 2006- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1200 -1400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (CORPORATE PLAZA WEST) AND 101 -1199 NEWPORT CENTER ROAD (FASHION ISLAND) (PA2005 -042). WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Irvine Company with respect to properties located at 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 94 -102 (Corporate Plaza West), and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road, and legally described as Lots 30 - 36 of PM 221 (Fashion Island) to permit the transfer of up to 44,688 square feet of unused retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West for general office purposes. WHEREAS, on November 17, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. With a vote of 7 ayes, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the above - mentioned application. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on January 10, 2005 to consider the proposed recommendation of the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, Both Fashion Island and Corporate Plaza West are within Newport Center and are within Statistical Area L1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Fashion Island has a land use designation of Retail and Service Commercial, and is zoned Planned Community (PC -35). Corporate Plaza West has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and zoned Planned Community (PC -40). Both sites are governed by Planned Community Development Plans that establish land use, development intensity limits and general development standards. WHEREAS, The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that transfers of development rights are permitted within Newport Center (Statistical Area L1), provided that a finding is made that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the land use proposed for a new office building within Corporate Plaza West is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for that site, and the reduction of retail floor area will not diminish the ability to develop Fashion Island consistent with the General Plan; therefore the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. WHEREAS, a traffic study has been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and it demonstrates that there are no negative traffic impacts associated with the proposed transfer of development allocation. Additionally, the transfer will result in a net decrease in total traffic within Newport Center due to the change in use from retail to office. 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 October 14 and November 14, 2005. The Draft MND was filed with the State Clearinghouse and the California Coastal Commission, and no comments were received. The contents of the environmental document, including mitigation measures, have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 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 are anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures have been applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Fashion Island Planned Community (PC -35) shall be amended to decrease the total amount of development gross floor area by 44,688 square feet and the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community (PC -40) shall be amended to increase the total amount of development gross floor area by 44,688 square feet. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. `b City Page 3 of 3 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the of Newport Beach held on January 10, 2006, and adopted on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS . • : ATTEST: CITY CLERK 11 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 1682 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -001 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005- 004 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1200 -1400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (CORPORATE PLAZA WEST) AND 101 -1199 NEWPORT CENTER ROAD (FASHION ISLAND) (PA2005 -042). WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island) and 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive (Corporate Plaza West), legally described as Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 94 -102, requesting the transfer of development allocation of 45,119 gross square feet of unused retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West for general office purposes, and approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot office building within Corporate Plaza West. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 17, 2005 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides within the Newport Center Planned Community (Statistical Area L1) that transfers of development rights are permitted within the Statistical Area, provided that findings are made that the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a professional office building at the recipient (Corporate Plaza West) and Land Use Element of the General Plan designates site Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial. The proposed construction and use resulting from the transfer of development allocation is consistent with this designation. The reduction of retail commercial development allocation at Fashion Island does not impact the ability to develop Fashion Island in accordance with the General Plan. WHEREAS, the proposed transfer is consistent with the general development policies of the General Plan as follows: 1. General Plan Policy B, in that the proposed transfer of development rights will not result in significant changes to long range traffic service levels; 2. General Plan Policy C, in that adequate on -site parking will be provided for Corporate Plaza West for the proposed new office building and other existing uses within the Planned Community; 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 Page 2 of 6 3. General Plan Policy D, in that the project will not result in restriction to public views and will not result in adverse impacts to sensitive habitat; 4. General Plan Policy F, in that the project is consistent with the Zoning Code land uses and development standards for the district within which the project is proposed; and 5. General Plan Policy L, in that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to area -wide and City -wide prosperity, and will provide additional office space in an area designated for such use. WHEREAS, a traffic analysis has been completed by Austin -Foust Associates, dated August, 2005, that demonstrates that the proposed transfer of development rights will not result in adverse impacts, and will improve the overall traffic circulation within the general area of the proposed project. Specifically, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with respect to the traffic analysis: 1. The traffic analysis was prepared in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). 2. The traffic analysis considered the transfer of development rights consisting of 45,119 square feet of unused retail space from Fashion Island, and the traffic impacts of the transfer as well as the traffic impacts of the proposed new 42,012 square feet of commercial office space. 3. The traffic analysis indicates that the project, including the transfer of development rights, will result in a net decrease in average daily trips and will not increase traffic at five (5) of the ten (10) primary intersections by one percent (1 %) and therefore no impact is predicted. 4. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis determined that the project will not cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at any of the five (5) primary intersections where there will be an increase of more than one percent (1 %) in traffic volume and, therefore no mitigation is required. 5. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of the approval of the Planned Community Amendment approval by the City Council or the approval of a new traffic study will be required. WHEREAS, the proposed office building is consistent with the development standards of the Zoning regulations of the Municipal Code and the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community, including building setbacks, building height, landscaping and parking. WHEREAS, the proposed office building will be consistent and compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, �'o City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 Page 3 of 6 comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City in that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses, has no adverse impacts on area traffic, provides sufficient parking, does not block public views or access to the coastline and other significant man -made and natural features, and the project will provide landscaping and screening. WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that Initial Study, it was determined that the project would require a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), said MND having been prepared, noticed, posted and circulated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. A thirty day public review period commenced on October 14, 2005 and ended on November 14, 2005. A noticed public hearing was conducted on November 17, 2005 where the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program were considered by the Commission and where any interested party had the opportunity to comment on the documents. No comments related to the adequacy of the MND were received. The Mitigation Measures contained within the MND having been incorporated into conditions of approval and are recommended to the City Council for adoption should the Council approve the project. NOW, THEREFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the City Council the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the approval of Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005. MIN MIN Michael Toerge, Chairman Barry Eaton, Secretary AYES: Cole, Eaton, Hawkins, Henn, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None �tl City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 Paqe 4 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -001 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans dated November 10, 2005. 2. The applicant shall prepare a parking management plan that identifies the location where all tenants within the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community will be required to park. The location of tenant parking shall be so identified to provide convenient parking and avoid parking conflicts resulting from the distribution and location of parking spaces. The parking management plan shall include the method by which private enforcement of the parking restrictions shall be implemented. The parking management plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of occupancy permits and once the plan is approved, the plan shall be implemented indefinitely or until such time that it is deemed unnecessary by the City. 3. Signage for the proposed office building shall be in full compliance with the standards outlined within the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Text; specifically, the proposed wall signs shall not exceed a maximum of two per building elevation, and shall not exceed letter heights of 24 inches for a primary tenant and 16 inches for a secondary tenant. 4. The maximum permitted square footage by this approval is for 42,012 square feet of office building, and that the total square footage for transfer from Fashion Island shall be 45,119 square feet. 5. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, construction of the proposed office building shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval by the City Council of the Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -04. 6. The project site shall include a landscaping plan consisting of trees and shrubs designed to complement the building architecture, surrounding landscaping, and screen parking areas and above - ground utilities such as electrical meters, stand pipes and utility vaults. 7. All exterior lighting, including both parking lot standards and building- mounted security lighting, shall be equipped with shields designed to restrict light and glare to the project site and to avoid any light spillage to surrounding properties and uses. 8. 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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 Page 5 of 6 moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Under windy conditions where velocities are forecast to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. In addition, the project shall comply with all provisions of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. 9. 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 or otherwise washed within 30 minutes of any tracking extending for more than fifty feet from the project site access point. Any required watering shall meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 10. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines where feasible. If LPG /CNG equipment is available at comparable cost, the applicant shall specify the use of such equipment during the construction phase. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. 11. 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 flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. 12. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 13. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. 14. 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. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or any federal holiday. 15. During grading activities, all vehicles and petroleum- driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers. 16. Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Vehicles, shall be properly maintained, and shall be turned off when not in use. 17. The proposed office building shall be constructed using double pained windows and insulation to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dBA or less. Any exterior equipment such as heating and air conditioning shall be furnished with baffles, screens and /or �3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1682 Page 6 of 6 landscaping to ensure that noise levels from that equipment does not exceed 65 dBA as measured at any project property line. 18. Sight distances at the corner of Irvine Terrace and Coast Highway, as well as the main entry driveway off of Irvine Terrace, shall be provided in accordance with City standards. 19. On site traffic signage, driveway striping and fire aisles shall be installed and maintained as required by the City Engineering, Police and Fire Departments. 20. Parking lot design shall meet all City standards with respect to drive aisle widths, parking space dimensions, turning radii and driveway /parking surface grades. 21. Bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with City requirements. ' 'A ATTACHMENT D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ;lz5 Planning Commission Minutes l I/ 17/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Pagel of 7 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 11, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 3, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None • r r HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Carl & Barbara Mosen (PA2005 -136) ITEM NO. 2 2811 Villa Way PA2005 -136 Use Permit to allow a commercial drug and alcohol recovery center and a parking waiver of 55 Continued to paces associated with the existing use. 0111912006 Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to January Rnnrint by Rcttcnmud and A—m .tue ile: / /H: \Plancomm \2005\] 1 1705.htm 12/09/2005 E, Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 7 I19, 2006 as they are trying to find available parking in the are for their business to enter into and i bff -site parking agreement otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to January 19th yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: None bstain; None I ♦AR SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza West Phase II (PA2005 -042) ITEM NO. 3 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive PA2005.042 101 -1199 Newport Center Road Approved request by the Irvine Company for an amendment to the Fashion Island Planned Community District Regulations and the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community District Regulations t allow the transfer of 45,119 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West to facilitate the construction of a 42,012 square -foot, two sto ffice building. A Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is also required. iior Planner Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting a Traffic Study had bee pared to review the traffic impacts. A transfer of this nature is authorized by the Gener, n without a General Plan amendment. An amendment to the Fashion Island Planne nmunity Text is necessary to implement this transfer and it will be reduced in squat rage and the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community Text will be increased. There is r Lilting adverse traffic impact due to this transfer. The transfer is consistent with the Gener n. Construction of an office building at the Corporate Plaza West location is consistent wil current designation. He then noted changes to the resolution on page 3 of it ommendation action Including the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and it gation Monitoring and Report Program conditions. The site plan has changed and will t ilained by the applicant. The existing entitlement within Corporate Plaza West is allocated ximum of 115,000 square feet of professional office use and would require approximate 119 gross square feet of additional floor area from Fashion Island to construct the propose m building. It is the intent of the applicant to not transfer any more square footage the y really need to. These numbers will be re- verified prior to the Council meeting. ioner Hawkins asked if any public comments had been received on the Declaration? answered no. loner Hawkins noted that the agenda for this item did not list review, mal ndations or hold a hearing on the environmental document. Does Counsel advise Commission going forward on this item? on Harp, Assistant City Attomey answered that the required CEQA notices w, iropriately given. The question that has arisen is whether or not the description of this ite the agenda complies with the requirements of the Brown Act, which generally requires cription of the item. The agenda references the staff report which contains more in del it is going to be happening tonight; and 1 believe it does comply with the Brown Act nissioner Eaton noted the revised resolution has no conditions attached to it now. report indicated a couple of things that should be addressed, particularly the Pa gement Plan. Do we have any assurances that will be done as there are no cond IMr. CampbebnarWweredAhatdh&A# &report has comments identifying the parking distributiorl it e: //H: \Plancomm\2005\111705.htm '^'nnlnn - Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2005 Page 3 of nd management. Staff did not believe that conditions were necessary; however, if thel ommission chooses, a condition can be added. Staff feels the applicant can direct the wilding tenants to park appropriately to minimize any parking conflicts. II ussion followed on the parking management plan as a condition. It rmined that the mitigation measures need to be listed as conditions of approval iissioner Tucker asked about the parking spaces for the tennis club and spaces are part, or in addition, of the provided parking? Staff noted the answer. discussion regarding entitlement with the potential economic impact of the loss ail floor area for Fashion Island office ensued Temple noted that the Commission will need to find that this transfer meets ti -mical criteria and the intent of the General Plan for Newport Center. Discussii rtinued on converting retail floor area to office floor area i Miller, representing The Irvine Company, noted the following: • They are requesting a Planned Community Development Amendment to facilita the construction of approximately 42,000 square foot, two -story office buildii that will complete the build -out of Corporate Plaza West. • Referencing a slide presentation, he indicated the location, surrounding la uses, net footages, size of site area, and relationship to existing buildings. • The transfer is allowed under the General Plan as long as it is consistent, whi this is, and it will not result in adverse traffic impacts. • Through the implementation of the CIOSA Agreement we have 30,000 squa feet on lower Bayview that was temporarily put in Fashion Island with the intent go here as office. . We do not want to use the existing retail square footage that is left, our intent is to build out retail, so this is a pass - through for the 30,000 square feet fr Lower Bayview. To get this up to the kind of building similar to what is out th today, it gets up to 42,000. This 30,000 was put in temporarily by the City and to eventually get over here for this office. • In the new General Plan being discussed, we are asking for more square footage in retail and our goal is to build up Fashion Island as allowable. • The General Plan and the zoning remain the same. • Once the numbers are worked out it will be less than 45,000 square feet transfer. • We need a Coastal Development Permit through the Coastal Commission once this application is approved by the City Council. • We are restricted to a height limitation of 32 feet. . There is no significant impact at the studied intersections and no mitigation i� Reprint by Bettenmurt and Associates ile : 1/11:\P1ancomm\200511 1 1 705.htm 12/09/200`_ q� Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 7 required per the traffic study. . We meet the Citys parking requirements. The total spaces on this site wit completion of this building will be 552. . The architecture and landscaping will be the same as to what is there today. . We allow non - exclusive parking easements on Saturdays, Sundays and holiday for the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. . We have reviewed the staff report and agree with all the findings and conditions. iissioner Tucker asked about the 386 parking spaces with the proposed ned for a total of 552. The staff report notes that 119 spaces are shared thr ate parking arrangement with the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. Additionally Company has the use of the parking lot and the Tennis Club has a non -excli lent for company spaces. is any part of the 552 spaces on the tennis ,ty pursuant to the easement? Miller answered it is on site, additionally we have reciprocal rights on days, etc. rmissioner Tucker asked if there are any other sites in Newport Center where anticipating you will want to transfer retail to? He then asked about the buil asks along Coast Highway. Miller answered no, this is a unique situation as the 30,000 at the Lower Bayview. intent now is to focus the rest on retail and the updated General Plan will outline it our long -term plan for Fashion Island will be as it is our intent to bring anothe :)r anchor tenant here. He answered that the proposed building is designed to be ated based on the location of the remaining vacant area. continued. ;on Toerge asked if there was any documentation to preserve open space buffer with the Country Club? He then noted a letter received from t members of the country club that suggested a promised landscape buffer entry. Miller answered that he had not seen the letter; however, during pi fissions with the abutting property owner, all concerns had been worked out. missioner Tucker noted that the letter is from some Equity Committee membe has something to do as a private matter, not a land use matter, assuming it Miller answered this has never come up in the past discussions with no the last month. ommissioner Hawkins asked for and received clarification on the reciprocal parkin rrangement. Do you have the ability to park on 119 of their spaces Monday throug Friday? He noted his concem of the convenience of the spaces to the buildings. Did (you discus iDsys"siderangnsaetW!gnment of the building to allow for parking alon ile :NH: \Plancomm\2005 \111705.htm Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 7 Coast Highway? Miller answered yes, and they have on weekends and holidays the use of o ces. This has worked out fine and has not created any problems to date. Based c existing parking we meet all the City requirements and we felt this was the best N Id do. We have had no issues with the current buildings and we do not believe be a problem. e Erickson, RBF consultant, noted: • There is a requirement of 161 spaces. Referring to the site plan, he noted the immediate field around the proposed building at 126 spaces. • There are 188 spaces being added behind the buildings. • There will be a good proximity in the area with the orientation of the new building. • He then noted the egress and ingress arrangements. Miller added that there is a future access provided for the O'Hill project, once it i; sinner Henn asked for and received information about the retail build -out Island. issioner Eaton asked if the Parking Management Plan was added as a cond the applicant accept that? r. Miller noted they had assumed that was a requirement. No matter what the of the document, they agree to everything. comment was opened. comment was closed. Hawkins noted the following corrections to the resolution: . Insert verbiage regarding, conducted a hearing in connection with Environmental document; . change the word lasting to 'lasted' in the last Whereas paragraph; ltinuing, he noted the mitigation measures 3 -1 through 3-6 address the violation quality standards, although the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the discussi udes the proposed project would not result in any impact or air quality. Tl flicts with both the checklist as well as the title. He noted the section needs to sed and suggested striking any reference in Section 3b that says there are acts and recognize that there is the potential to create impacts; insert the mitigati 3sures that are listed as part of (a). was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend the City Council apF Community Amendment � No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 1lea/H:\Plancomm \2005\ 11 1705.htm i o inonnnc Planning Commission Minutes 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 7 the additions that the Parking Management Plan in the conditions, include the 1 mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration in the conditions of approval, that the changes recommended by Commissioner Hawkins including the �onduct of the public hearing and the inclusion of the above language. Commissioner Tucker noted the mitigation measures should be listed as condition that will become enforceable. He then noted a typo to be corrected. The maker of the motion agreed. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn oes: None bsent: None bstain: None OBJECT: Review of the General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations ITEM NO.4 Discuss goals and policies related to Land Use as part of the ongoing General Plan Update process and selection of Land Use Plan project description. The minutes for this item will be delivered at a future General Plan Update meeting- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted at the last meeting they completed their review of the draft goals and policies of the Recreation Element. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none due to the length of meeting time. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee — none due to the length of meeting time. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none due to the length of meeting time. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none due to the length of meeting time. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none due to the length of meeting time. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none due to the length of meeting time. Project status — Ms. Temple noted the Commission needed to pick up their copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Mariner's Gateway. Requests for excused absences -none. P—Hd f by R.ff. .� and Geery t.. ile: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \1 i 1705.htm 12/09/2005 3i ATTACHMENT E MND /INITIAL STUDY 3� ac'_VCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 toaN (949) 644 -3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research XX P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 County Clerk, County of Orange F Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: October 14, 2005 — November 14, 2005 Nome of Project: Corporate Plaza West/Phase 2 Project Location: 1200 — 1400 Newport Center Drive (Northeast comer of East Coast Highway and Club House Drive. Project Description: 42,012 sq. ft. (gross floor area) office building consisting of two stories (maximum building height of 32 ft.), and adjacent 161 parking lot, landscaped and hardscape areas. The project includes an amendment to both the Corporate Plaza West and Fashion Island Planned Community texts to allow the transfer of development rights in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element, Newport Center Statistical Area L1. A total of 45,119 sq. ft. is proposed to be transferred from Fashion Island (Sub - statistical Area 18) to Corporate Plaza West (Sub - statistical Area 12). Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200. Plan ner, Title""' - "�'�'t' ` /�'� I�J�'1'w -- Date OGT'gc?" / o2Vos 1 6 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Corporate Plaza West/Phase 2 (PA2005 -042 for Planned Community Development Amendment (PD) 2005 -001 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Bill Cunningham, Planning Department (949) 644 - 3227/(562) 438 -6204 4. Project Location: 1200 — 1400 Newport Center Drive (Northeast corner of East Coast Highway and Club House Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Irvine Company Attn: Mark Middlebrook Investment Properties Group P. O. Box 6370 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -6370 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial & Retail and Service Commercial 7. Zoning: Planned Community (PC -40), Corporate Plaza West and Planned Community (PC -35) Fashion Island. 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.) 42,012 sq. ft. (gross floor area) office building consisting of two stories (maximum building height of 32 ft.), and adjacent 161 space parking lot, landscaped and hardscape areas. The project includes an amendment to both the Corporate Plaza West and Fashion Island Planned Community texts to allow the transfer of development rights in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element, Newport Center Statistical Area L1. A total of 45,119 sq. ft. is proposed to be transferred from Fashion Island (Sub - statistical Area 18) to Corporate Plaza West (Sub - statistical Area 12). Page 1 3A Site Air Photograph Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Vacant and Parking Lot To the north: Tennis courts Balboa Bay Racquet Club To the east: Office Buildings (Corporate Plaza West, Phase 1 To the south: Across East Coast Highway, single - family residential and Irvine Terrace Park To the west: Across Club House Drive, parking lot for Newport Beach Country Club Page 2 35 Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 ' City of Newport Beach Ka Fashion Island C � df n f? 1 Ls L`N T e\ Yid t G I j .Li"yE s._ Corporate Plaza W �: �t/ _� �)'/ l e+s'�..� �. .use � k S It �N V " Y ISLAND �� ✓i. �r>'��t� �. .. arc � u.% pR �,. '✓� N ^ ^: Feet "CaPlaza`A Phase2m'ea•�- .- � ! "�. .vl- �� (;C, �:,<,�` ,L :7A_' Page 3 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission Building Permits — City of Newport Beach Building Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water 0 Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ 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, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as Page 4 .31 earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by: /James Campbell; Planning Department nior Planner*Sianature Date 9,23 -0,5- Prepared by: William Cunnirfgham, AICP Signature Date Contract Planner 0 CHECKLIST Page 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ o Page 6 3q b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El A A 0 0 A A El No Impact ❑ o ❑ o A El A bil Page 7 jAb d) Interfere substantially with the Less than No movement of any native resident or Significant migratory fish or wildlife species or Impact with established native resident or Impact migratory wildlife corridors, or Mitigation 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? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ o VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Page 8 (t 1 Page 9 u'X Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpomted i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ ❑ p ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ defined in Table 18- 1 -13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ p supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Page 9 u'X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Page 10 q3 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ D use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Page 10 q3 a) b) C) d) e) f) g) h) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 fate 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)? 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? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? 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? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Page 11 �a 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 m udflow? 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 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 proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o Page 12 .� 5 Page 13 0 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ID conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use 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? Page 13 0 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Potentially Potentially Less than No ❑ Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact example, by proposing new homes Mitigation Incorporated and businesses) or indirectly (for f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip, would the project example, through extension of expose people residing or working roads or other infrastructure)? in the project area to excessive noise levels? Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION Page 14 41 Page 15 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ Q access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 15 XVI. UTILITIES & 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 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Page 16 A'A a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ Q ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ Q environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides expanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist. 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 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). Page 17 The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified with each response I. AESTHETICS The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes primarily commercial office uses to the east, commercial recreation to the north and west, and single family residential to the south across East Coast Highway. The project site is currently approximately 50 percent developed with a parking lot associated with the existing office buildings identified as Corporate Plaza West, Phase I. The project site is adjacent to Coast Highway, a major divided six -lane roadway providing regional north -south access through the City. Therefore, the site and project improvements when completed will be highly visible to vehicular traffic in both directions along East Coast Highway. However, the project will not block public views of the Coastline or other significant public view features. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project site is highly visible from East Coast Highway. However, the project, upon completion will not adversely impact any public views or a scenic vista. The project site is located on the east side of the highway and is not between the highway and the coast. The surrounding areas are urban and developed. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to , trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The project, even though highly visible from East Coast Highway, will not block or impede public views of the coastline, ocean or other public scenic resources. Coast Highway is not a designated Scenic Highway, and no historic buildings will be affected by the project. The site has been developed with parking and associated landscaping for the existing office buildings to the east. C) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is characterized as an urbanized area consisting of a business park, and the site is partially developed with a parking lot for existing office buildings located on the same property. The project is highly visible from East Coast Highway and the vehicular traffic on that roadway in both directions. In addition, the site would be visible from the existing office and recreational uses to the north and east. However, due to the screening wall, landscaping, East Coast Highway and orientation of the homes in the Irvine Terrace residential neighborhood, the project will not be viewed from those homes. Nevertheless, the project will result in introduction of a two -story office building on a site currently utilized for landscaping and parking lot for the adjacent office buildings. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will introduce a new two -story office building with associated parking to an area currently developed with a parking lot and landscaping. Even though the existing parking lot contains security lighting, the new office building will introduce a new light source from interior lighting and exterior building- mounted light fixtures. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with items I.(a) and I.(d): Mitigation Measure I -1 — The project site shall include a landscaping plan consisting of trees and shrubs designed to complement the building architecture, surrounding landscaping, and screen parking areas and above - ground utilities such as electrical meters, stand pipes and utility vaults. Mitigation Measure I -2 — All exterior lighting, including both parking lot standards and building- mounted security lighting, shall be equipped with shields designed to restrict light and glare to the project site and to avoid any light spillage to surrounding properties and uses. Page 18 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance 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. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are not designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial" and the zone designation for the site is "Planned Community (PC -40), Corporate Plaza West." The property is designated for commercial office use within the PC text. Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for. agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. 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. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and is not designated as agricultural land. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project was evaluated using the URBEMIS 2002 Model which analyses both mobile source and stationary source emissions. The model, developed by the Southern California Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), provides a fair estimate of projected emissions. Based on that analysis, the following daily emissions would be generated by the project: Estimated Project Emission; URBEMIS 2002 Poljufar f Emiss`ti7jts: Itis Threshold Ibs °la,ThCeskjutd i Carbon monoxide CO 483.4 550 88.9% Reactive Organic Comp. ROC 40.7 55 74.0% Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 22.7 55 41.3% Sulphur oxides Sox 0.1 150 0.3% Particulate matter (PM 10) 6.8 150 4.5% Lead 000.0 550 n.a. While the project will generate some measurable daily emissions, such emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and the project would not obstruct or conflict with SCAQMD's Air Quality Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would lead to temporary construction emissions that may affect regional air quality. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during the construction stage of the proposed development, including the on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction employees commuting to the site and trucks Page 19 r-�'X delivering building materials. Heavy -duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the construction phase. Operation of these vehicles and machines would temporarily increase air pollutant levels in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, emissions from delivery and haul trucks, construction crew vehicles, concrete mixers, and other off -site vehicle trips would add to local pollutant levels. Given the relatively limited size of the project, and the fact that the site is already rough graded and partially landscaped, construction emissions for CO, ROC, Sox and PM -10 would generally be low from equipment use and truck trips. However, the use of diesel fuel in most of the equipment and trucks would lead to increased NOx levels. In addition, VOC emissions from paints and coatings would create ROG emissions during construction. Dust emissions on site would be generated by grading and initial construction activities. However, given the flat nature of the site, little grading is proposed and total cut and fill, including import and /or export of soils, is likely to be very limited. Once constructed and operational, the proposed project will generate 589 new vehicle trips to the area roadways. The new vehicle trips generated by the project on completion are reflected in the URBEMIS 2002 run for a worst - case proposed project build -out year of 2007 (see response to Ill.a, above). As noted in the URBEMIS model run, the project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Not reflected in the URBEMIS model run is the fact that the 42,012 new square feet of office use will be off -set by a transfer of approximately 45,000 square feet of retail commercial square footage from Fashion Island. This transfer will actually translate into an off -set of the project's 589 average daily trips (ADT) by the decrease of 883 ADT, resulting in an overall decrease of 294 ADT (see discussion under Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, below). Similar to the project operational emissions, the proposed project - related mobile source emissions would not exceed designated thresholds and all pollutant emissions are considerably below significance levels. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to air quality. C) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. As discussed above, construction and vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below. There are not "hot spot" CO impacts (either individually or cumulatively) associated with implementation of the proposed office building project. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. There are no sensitive receptors, such as senior housing, hospitals, schools or public parks located near the proposed project site. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed project will result in the development of an office building, which will not involve the use of large quantities of solid waste materials, chemicals, food products, or other odorous materials. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. There may be temporary odor emissions during construction of the project from construction equipment diesel exhausts and asphalt paving, but such odors are brief and would not threaten regional air quality standards. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with item III.(b): Mitigation Measure III -1 — 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, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until winds that are forecast to abate below this threshold. In addition, the project shall comply with all provisions of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 Page 20 5 Mitigation Measure III -2 — 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 or otherwise washed within 30 minutes of any tracking extending for more than fifty feet from the project site access point. Any required watering shall meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Mitigation Measure III -3 — The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines where feasible. If LPG /CNG equipment is available at comparable cost, the applicant shall specify the use of such equipment during the construction phase. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Mitigation Measure III -4 — 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 flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. Mitigation Measure III -5 — The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. Mitigation Measure III -6 — To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 project site is in an urban setting and the site and surrounding area have been developed for a number of years. The site is currently developed with a parking lot and landscaping. No candidate, sensitive or special status species have been identified on the site or surrounding areas. 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. See response to IV.a above. 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 project site is not a wetland and a 404 Permit is not required. 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 project site and surrounding areas are developed and therefore the project will not interfere with resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no policies or ordinances that would be impacted by the project with respect to biological resources. The project will result in the removal of introduced trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing Page 21 54 on the site and within the existing parking lot. However, replacement plants will be installed at the completion of construction. 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. There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans affected by the proposed project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined §15604.5? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas have no identified historical buildings, sites or resources. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and there is no evidence of archaeological resources. C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and there are no unique geologic features on the site or within close proximity to the site. No significant paleontological resources have been identified on the site or within surrounding areas. d) Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of native American burials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the substantial evidence of a known fault? potential substantial adverse effects, including delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo State Geologist for the area or based on other Less than Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on or in close proximity to the site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest of the site, and the San Andreas Fault is located more than 50 miles to the northeast. Episodes on those two faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, but it is highly unlikely that there would be ground fault rupture. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce ground movement hazards to acceptable levels. if) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response to VI.a. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The site and surrounding areas are relatively flat, and have been developed for a number of years. The project is not expected to be subject to seismic - related ground failure, such as landslides or Page 22 5� liquefaction. A soils /geologic survey and report will be prepared prior to issuance of building permits, and any identified unstable soils will be removed from the site, or the site will be engineered accordingly. iv) Landslides? No Impact. See response to VI.a.iii above. b) Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat and loss of topsoil is not likely. Dust and erosion control measures will be required during the construction phase of the project. There will also be mandatory grading and building permit requirements. C) 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? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, not expect to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 187 -113 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan Public Safety Element designates the project site and surrounding area as "Category 2" expansive and collapsible soil hazard area. "Category 2" areas are defined as having moderate to high possibility for expansive soil hazard. However, the project site and surrounding areas have been developed and fill soils introduced that are adequate to support buildings. A geologic /soils analysis will be completed as part of the building permit process, and additional building permit measures will be incorporated into the design plans to ensure structural safety associated with expansive soils. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project will be connected to existing sewer lines. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as oil, gas, tar, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site could add hazards in the event of accidents or spills on area roadways. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to prevent contamination of soils. In addition, trash enclosures will be required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and /or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the limited nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. On -going operation of the site as an office building will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials on -site, other than normal cleaning solvents. Page 23 5 `� b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. See responses to Vll.a above. C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest schools to the project site are Corona Del Mar High School, Lincoln Elementary School, Harbor View Elementary School, and Harbor Day School (private). All four schools are located approximately 1.5 to 2.0 miles from the project site, and will not be impacted by construction activities on the site. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed project site is not on a list of hazardous materials site. e) For a project 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? No Impact. The project site is located approximately five miles south of John Wayne Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan. Operations at John Wayne Airport will not pose a safety hazard for workers and visitors to the office building once the office building is completed and operational. 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 airports within the vicinity of the project site. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site will not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan, and the site is not adjacent to an emergency evacuation roadway, although Coast Highway serves north -south traffic, including emergency vehicles. As noted in the attached Traffic Analysis (Austin- Foust, 2005), the traffic generation upon completion of the project is not expected to decrease Levels of Service (LOS) at major area intersections during peak operation periods, and there are not expected to be traffic impediments to emergency vehicular use as a result of the project. 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 project site and surrounding areas are not located within a "Potential Fire Hazard Area" as identified by the Newport General Plan Public Safety Element. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a parking lot and landscaping, and increase in stormwater runoff is anticipated to be minimal. Existing storm drains will accommodate the runoff of rainwaters from the site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required of the project to ensure stormwater impacts are minimized, or eliminated to the maximum extent feasible. Page 24 51 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 project will result in an increase in water demand, but given the office use of the project, the demand is expected to be minimal and can be accommodated by the domestic water purveyor (the City of Newport Beach). There are no water wells located on or near the site, and the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. 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? No Impact. The project is relatively flat and will not alter existing drainage patterns. No erosion or siltation will result from the project construction or operation, and normal stormwater runoff measures for winter months during construction will provide acceptable mitigation. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? No Impact. The project site is currently partially developed as a parking lot. Development of the site will result in additional ground coverage with resultant stormwater runoff amounts, but the amount of increase is anticipated to be normal and can be accommodated by existing storm sewers and drainage facilities. 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. See response to Vlll.d above. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. See responses to Vlll.a and d above. g) Would the project 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? No Impact. No housing is proposed with the project. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as identified by the latest Flood Rate Maps. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to Vlll.g above. 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 project site is not within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Page 25 5`� No Impact. The project site is in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. However, given the location inland from the beach, intervening Newport Bay and urban land uses, and the elevation of the site (101 +), it is unlikely that the project site would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? No Impact. See response to Vlll.a above. Would the project result in 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. Given the office uses proposed for the project site, the project will not result in pollutants associated with material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance, waste handling or storage or other outdoor work areas. 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. See response to Vlll.a above. n) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact. The project site is relative flat and the project will not result in alteration of stormwater patterns or velocities, or a significant increase in stormwater volumes. o) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact. See response to Vlll.n above. Stormwater runoff from the project upon completion can be handled by existing curbs, gutters and storm drains. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project divide an established community? No Impact. The project is proposed to be located in a portion of a site currently developed with an office complex, and would not introduce a new use to an existing neighborhood. b) Would the project conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency and 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 Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site as "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial." The site is located within the Newport Center Planned Community (Statistical Area L1, Subarea 12 Corporate Plaza West), and is designated for 115,000 square feet of professional office use. Included in the General Plan provisions for Newport Center is the following: Transfers of Development Rights in Newport Center are permitted, subject to approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts" (Land Use Element, page 77). The applicant proposes to transfer a total of 45,119 square feet of unbuilt retail square footage from Fashion Island (Subarea 18) to Corporate Plaza West (Subarea 12). In order to make the finding relative to traffic impacts, a traffic analysis has been completed and is attached as an Addendum to this Initial Study (see discussion under Section XV, Trans portatioNTraffic). Page 26 5A The project site is zoned "Planned Community (PC -40)" and is designated for commercial office use. The Corporate Plaza West Planned Community indicates an office building on the site, but limits the total floor area to 115,000 square feet. As noted above, the applicant proposes to transfer 45,119 square feet from Fashion Island. Therefore, it is necessary to process a Planned Community Development Amendment to increase the total floor area within Corporate Plaza West and to correspondingly decrease the floor area within Fashion Island to reflect the transfer of development rights. The Local Coastal Plan (LCP) land use plan designates the site as Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial. Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with the LCP. In addition, the project is located on the inland side of Coast Highway and does not interfere with public access nor public views of the coastline, and the project does not obstruct a public accessway, trail or bikeway that provides access to the coastline. The site's location on the east side of Coast Highway makes it unfeasible to provide public parking or other public access facilities for public coastal access. C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project is not in conflict with any conservation plan — see response to IV.f above. X. MINERAL RESOURCES 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 is not located in an area where there are known mineral resources, and development as proposed would not affect regionally significant mineral resources. 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? No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. XI. NOISE 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term, construction - related noise increases associated with grading, equipment operations and other construction activities. Noise levels generated by these operations generally range from 75 to 100 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The nearest residential use to the site are the homes in the Irvine Terrace neighborhood, located approximately 150 feet to the south. However, that residential neighborhood is separated from the project site by Coast Highway (six travel lanes and median island) and the wall and landscaped parkway on the south side of the street. The temporary increase in ambient noise levels would be buffered by the street, wall and landscaping; however additional mitigation as recommended below would decrease the potential impact to the residential and other existing surrounding land uses. Long -term increased noise levels could result from the introduction of a new office use and associated vehicle traffic along the adjacent streets. However, given the relatively minor increase in traffic (refer to discussion under Section XV below), the increase in noise levels is not anticipated to be significant. The project site is located adjacent to Coast Highway, and the Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that a portion of the site, including portions of the proposed new office building, are located within the 65 CNEL noise contour. Therefore, there is the potential for exposure of persons working within the building to high noise levels resulting from traffic along Coast Highway. Mitigation measures to reduce the interior noise levels to acceptable levels are included below. Page 27 �� b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to Xl.a above. Mitigation measures follow. 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. See response to Xl.a above. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to Xl.a above. Mitigation measures follow. 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? No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. 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. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airport. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with items XI.(a), (b) and (d): Mitigation Measure XI -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. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or any federal holiday. Mitigation Measure XI -2 — All vehicular and petroleum- driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers. Mitigation Measure XI -3 — Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Vehicles, shall be properly maintained, and shall be turned off when not in use. Mitigation Measure X14 — The proposed office building shall be constructed using double pained windows and insulation to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dBA or less. Any exterior equipment such as heating and air conditioning shall be furnished with baffles, screens and /or landscaping to ensure that noise levels from that equipment does not exceed 65 dBA as measured at any project property line. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 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? No Impact. The project will result in a new 42,012 square -foot office building. The applicant proposes to transfer development rights by the transfer of retail commercial square footage on a foot -by -foot basis from Fashion Island. Therefore, there will be no net increase of commercial square footage within the General Plan Statistical Area, in turn resulting in no increase beyond that analyzed initially for the General Plan. While the project may increase the employment, the increase, given the relatively minor nature of the project, is not expected to cause substantial population growth in the area. Page 28 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is zoned for office use and is currently partially developed as a parking lot for the existing adjacent office buildings. No housing or residents will be displaced by the project. C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? No Impact. See response to Xll.b above. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in a new 42,012 square foot office building that will be offset by transfer of a like amount of commercial square footage from Fashion Island. While the project will result in an additional building requiring emergency and utility services, the increase is minor and has been anticipated by the City's General Plan. • Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. See previous response. • Schools? No Impact. The project will not result in additional residential or additional school -age children. • Other public facilities? No Impact. See responses above. XIV. RECREATION 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 project will result in a new 42,012 square -foot office building located on a site designated for commercial office use and that is partially developed with a parking lot for existing office uses. The project will not occupy a park or recreational facility and will not directly generate additional population or demand for park or recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project will not require expansion or construction of park or recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC A traffic analysis has been completed for the project and is attached as an addendum to this Initial Study. 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)? Page 29 � 3- Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The traffic analysis prepared for the project took into consideration the proposed transfer of retail commercial space from Fashion Island, as well as a number of cumulative projects within the vicinity of the project. While the project itself will result in an average daily trip (ADT) generation of 589 trips, those are offset by a reduction of future trips (883) from the transfer of square footage from Fashion Island, for a net decrease of 294 trips. Given the fact that there will be an increase in traffic at the construction site, a traffic analysis was conducted. The total ADT for the project, including increases in AM peak and PM peak traffic are summarized in the following table: LAND USE UNITS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TO FAIL IN PM PEAK HOUR OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES (NBTADI) 0 17 0 1 No 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 General Office TSF 1.69 .21 1.90 32 1.55 1.87 14.03 Regional Retail* TSF .14 .07 .21 .62 .80 1.42 19.56 TRIP GENERATION 0 -1 -1 6 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 Proposed Project 1 6 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 2 24 0 General Office 42.01 TSF 71 9 80 13 65 78 589 Entitled Use 0 0 1 6 Yes Regional Retail 45.12 TSF 6 3 9 28 36 64 883 NET NEW TRIPS 65 6 71 -I5 29 14 -294 * Rates in effect at time of entitlement (1994) The traffic analysis evaluated the project's impact on a total of ten intersections, and included an evaluation based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Under the provisions of the TPO, if a project contributes more than 1 percent to an increase in an intersection's operation during the morning and afternoon peak, the intersection would undergo further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. Five of the ten intersections were identified as passing the 1% test" and were further evaluated as outlined in the following table' SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS - - - -AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - - -- LESS THAN I% OF NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUM 1. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 1 17 0 0 Yes 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 0 17 0 1 No 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 0 16 2 Yes 4. Irvine Terrace /Clubhouse & Coast Hwy 0 4 16 6 No 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -1 45 5 0 No 6. Newport Center & Coast Hwy 0 -1 -1 6 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 6 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 2 24 0 0 Yes 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 0 18 2 2 No 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 6 Yes - - -- PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - - -- LESS THAN I% Of Page 30 v3 I . Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 7 4 0 0 Yes 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara -1 -4 0 6 Yes 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 -1 -3 10 Yes 4. Irvine Terrace/Clubhouse & Coast Hwy 0 23 -2 -4 No 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -8 -2 42 0 No 6. Newport Center & Coast Hwy 0 -11 1 -2 Yes 7, Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 17 -1 -2 0 No 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 0 4 18 -1 No 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes The five intersections identified for futher ICU analysis did not result in negative impacts, and the intersections continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better with completion of the project, as outlined in the following table: IN "]ERSECTION AM ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING BACKGROUND PM AM PM BACKGROUND + PROJECT AM PM 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .447 .494 .473 .522 .474 .521 4. Irvine Terrace & Coast Hwy .492 .566 .509 .585 .510 .601 5. Newport Center & Corp Plaza .133 .250 .134 .257 .137 .282 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .609 .777 ,615 .791 .615 .793 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .549 .534 .550 .545 562 .549 Level of service ranges .000 - .600 A .601 - .700 B .701 - .800 C .801 - .900 D .901 - 1,000 E Above 1.000 F The intersection closest to the project site, Irvine Terrace and Coast Highway, and therefore the intersection most likely to be impacted by the project, has a slight increase in AM and PM ADT; however that intersection currently operates at LOS "A" and continues to operate at LOS "A" with implementation of the project. In summary, the traffic analysis concludes that there will be no marginal impact and concluded that no mitigation is required. However, given that the project will generate additional traffic and parking, Mitigation Measures have been included in this Initial Study. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to XV.a above. C) Would the project result in a change in air traffic pattern, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns and will not result in substantial safety risks. 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 project will be constructed on an existing site and no off -site improvements or changes are proposed to the surrounding streets and intersections. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Page 31 No Impact. The project would provide an additional source for emergency requests associated with additional employees and clients in the new office building. Given the relatively small -scale of the project size, any increase in emergency demand is relatively insignificant and can be handled by existing emergency services personnel and equipment. The traffic analysis completed for the project indicates that the traffic levels on the existing streets and intersections in the vicinity of the project is insignificant, and would actually improve given previously proposed uses in the general area. A fire access plan has been prepared as part of the project review process, and the plan as well as the overall project plans have been reviewed by the City Fire Department and no significant impacts have been identified. f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in a demand for 161 new parking stalls. The 161 parking spaces will be provided in addition to the parking spaces for the existing office building located to the east of the site. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed office building will be constructed on an existing site and will not require the realignment of existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity. The project may result in a minimal increase in use of public bus ridership by employees and clients, but given the minor nature in the floor area increase, any increase is expected to be accommodated by existing bus service and facilities. Bicycle racks will be required and provided in accordance with City ordinances. Mitigation Measures: Even though the Traffic Analysis prepared for the project concluded that there will be no marginal impacts and did not require mitigation, the following mitigation measures are included for the overall traffic, circulation, and parking mitigations: Mitigation Measure XV -1 — Sight distances at the corner of Irvine Terrace and Coast Highway, as well as the main entry driveway off of Irvine Terrace, shall be provided in accordance with City standards. Mitigation Measure XV -2 — On site traffic signage, driveway striping and fire aisles shall be installed and maintained as required by the City Engineering, Police and Fire Departments. Mitigation Measure XV -3 — Parking lot design shall meet all City standards with respect to drive aisle widths, parking space dimensions, turning radii and driveway /parking surface grades. Mitigation Measure XV-4 — Bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with City requirements. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS 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 new office building would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 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? No Impact. Water demand and wastewater generation will be minimal with a minor incremental increase associated with the employees and users of the 42,012 square -foot office building. The project will connect to existing water and sewer lines in the vicinity. Existing infrastructure and facilities will be able to service the proposed project. Page 32 I�� 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? No Impact. The project site is partially developed with a parking lot. The project will result in additional impervious service areas by the new building, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a slight increase in runoff during storm periods, however, this runoff is minimal and can be accommodated within existing curbs, gutters and stormdrains in the area. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased and may even be decreased based on the transfer of development rights on a square -foot per square -foot basis of retail commercial use from Fashion Island. The site is currently landscaped. Implementation of the project will not result in additional water demand associated with irrigation of the associated landscaping around the building and within the parking lot. 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? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project would result in a small incremental increase in solid waste associated with an office building. Given the minor nature of the increase in size and associated solid waste increase, existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. The project will be required to participate in City recycling programs, and recycling bin(s) will be provided within the trash enclosures. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project will be required to comply with all federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste. See response to XVI.f above. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis, including the attached traffic report prepared for the project, indicates that the proposed 42,012 square -foot office building would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City conditions and the recommended mitigation measures contained herein. Therefore, the following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines: a) 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 strict the range a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. The proposed project will result in a new 42,012 square -foot office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 12.7 acre site currently developed with two office Page 33 buildings. Although the project cold have impacts to air quality, noise, aesthetics and transportation /traffic, mitigation measures would decrease these impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not significantly impact environmental resources. C) 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. d) 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 and air quality impacts during grading and construction. 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 would consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Corporate Plaza West office building project, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 8. Traffic Analysis, Corporate Plaza West, Austin -Foust Associates, August, 2005 (included as Addendum to this Initial Study /Checklist. Page 34 V1 ADDENDUM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO August, 2005 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Page 35 V� ATTACHMENT F TRAFFIC STUDY 0 CORPORATE PLAZA WEST EXPANSION TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705-7827 (714) 667 -0496 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUG 3 0 2005 AM PM 71819110111112111213141516 August 18, 2005 I�1 � CORPORATE PLAZA WEST EXPANSION TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This report summarizes an analysis performed for the proposed development of 42,012 square feel of general office space in exchange for 45,119 square feet of regional retail space in Fashion Island in Newport Beach based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. In addition, this report summarizes the results of an analysis of cumulative conditions in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed office building is located on the northeast corner of Irvine Terrace/Clubhouse Drive and East Coast Highway in the Newport Center area of the City of Newport Beach. The project consists of 42,012 square feet of general office space. This office space is proposed in exchange for 45,119 square feet of entitled regional retail space in Fashion Island. Figure I illustrates the location of the project. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed project consists of 42,012 square feet of general office space. The increase in traffic generated by the proposed office space was added to the surrounding circulation system, and the traffic generated by the entitled regional retail space was subtracted from the circulation system. Trip generation for the proposed project were determined from current Newport Beach Traffic Model trip rates. The regional retail trips are based on the original Fashion Island expansion entitlement in 1994. These rates and the resulting trips are summarized in Table 1. As this table indicates, the proposed project results in a net decrease of 294 trips daily. During the AM peak hour there is a net increase of 71 trips generated compared with the trip generation of the entitled regional retail use. During the PM peak hour the proposed project generates 14 new trips compared with the trip generation of the entitled regional retail use. Not only is there a difference in the amount of trips generated by the proposed project and the entitled retail use, there is also a difference in the directionality of the trips. The office trips are heavily oriented inbound during the AM peak hour and outbound during the PM peak hour, whereas the retail trips are relatively balanced between inbound and outbound trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Trip distribution of project- generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO I Austin -Foust Asswiates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017076riuAce I z O H U ;? O W ti O a w u^ N b O r Q'to 7 w° c Q N 0 C O C N 3 w� u q q u O q j i v �f . / N _ y O F U J N .J {1a� N [-� U N W [L N ar P. s „ r o ti c Q I O r U I� General Office 42.01 TSF 71 9 80 13 65 78 589 Entitled Use Regional Retail 45.12 TSF 6 3 9 28 36 64 883 NET NEW TR I PS 65 6 71 -15 29 14 -294 • Rates in effect at time of entitlement (1994) Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0 1 7076rpt.doc 1� Table 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES (NBTAM) General Office TSF 1.69 21 1.90 .32 L55 1.87 14.03 Regional Retail- TSF .14 .07 .21 .62 .80 1.42 19.56 TRIP GENERATION Proposed Project General Office 42.01 TSF 71 9 80 13 65 78 589 Entitled Use Regional Retail 45.12 TSF 6 3 9 28 36 64 883 NET NEW TR I PS 65 6 71 -15 29 14 -294 • Rates in effect at time of entitlement (1994) Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 0 1 7076rpt.doc 1� levels of development in relation to the subject property. The general distribution for the proposed office development is illustrated in Figure 3. Project - generated trips Were distributed to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour trips for the proposed office development, respectively. The trip distribution for the retail trips is based upon the original entitlement traffic study completed for the Fashion Island Expansion in 1994 and is illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 7 illustrates AM peak hour trips based on the entitled regional retail use, and Figure S illustrates PM peak hour trips based on the entitled use. The net .peak hour trips for the proposed project (including the reduction for the entitled regional retail trips) are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. TPO TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed general office development. These intersections are: Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road and Coast Highway Irvine Terrace/Clubhouse Drive and Coast Highway Newport Center Drive and Corporate Plaza Entry Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway Existing (2003 and 2004) peak hour intersection volumes were provided by City Staff. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes on Jamboree Road, Coast Highway, and MacArthur Boulevard. Construction of the project is assumed to be complete in 2006; therefore, the study year is 2007. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area, obtained from City Staff, were added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain year 2007 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project- generated traffic. Table 2 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. Background -plus- project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project- generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing -plus- Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc ,[ Traffic Analysis 017076rpt.doc J 0 a 0 i n��ry Ln ` NbS O = r, h MpOPRiHVR N 'AVOCADO r a ti v o U wQO�1 LLJ tF- RRPGf. �` rd U ;moo W s ch d N JAMBOREE Nd O J ci ci z 0 E W N M ❑ ll� m .. w U o0 a a C7 u 3 -G. d e ¢o � P O LL 9 Q �o G O �?NR� W Y 3 N Y G o� u v 1�p 1m a e ° a a m a o �xy a �d s AP �e `J� O �o 0 w c I 0 c 0 c A V 3 s� V Y yr ��1 a u O � GG w p 5 0. 0. �e �s 0 a 00 O 0. F' c 0 C n u 3 a. �c u I N VVV E (n� z _o W m �¢ u. z i w U ti 3 .G. 4 x.� � b Q O «r o° w 5 6 T O O G N a v 3 o. A � G 1G w J �4 a� Q r Z O '6o C� ti a J O 5 6 W a. �� u m n iL b ., r �o IL 7 Q 0 O c 0 Qm {+�1 u 3 � ._ �� Q pq w Q {�pp.�.V OF �� .-1 F.. w z v o m � a a 0 x w w a s b O 7 O O w c y 0 0 u 3 a b u VF 6I e5 a G 0 a P P. u a � o w x w a s R� as �s 0 9 N C O KNry W V 3 A� a A yu� OF n '"1 a O v � m p w u� w a a µH z �o �kJ Qo nr 00 5 Q m O e 0 m u 3 A o. A s� �U C4 Nc O� Table 2 APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY LOCATION PERCENT COh1PLETE Fashion Island Expansion 36 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 Ford Redevelopment 95 Cannery lofts Village 0 Hoag Hospital Phase II 0 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 1401 Dove Street 0 Newport Auto Center Expansion 0 Olsen Townhome Project 0 Bayview Landing Senior Housing (I Birch Bayview Plaza 1) 0 494/496 Old Newpon Blvd 0 401 Old Newpon Blvd 0 Newpon Technology Center 0 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center 1 0 Newport Lexus 0 Birch Medical Office 0 Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 14 Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 017076rpt.doc n� regional growth -plus- approved projects peak hour volumes. A credit type adjustment for the entitled but yet to be constructed retail trips that are being exchanged for the proposed new office use is included in the background- plus - project volumes. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for the intersection which fails to pass the one percent test. Table 3 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis (the one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix)- As this table indicates, the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis at five study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required for the intersections of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive, Irvine Terrace /Clubhouse Drive and Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive and Corporate Plaza Entry, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. An ICU analysis was performed for the five intersections which did not pass the one percent test. Existing Lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized. Table 4 summarizes the existing, background, and background- plus - project ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in the appendix). As the ICU summary table indicates, the project will have no marginal impact on the intersections of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive, Irvine Terrace /Clubhouse Drive and Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive and Corporate Plaza Entry, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive which will operate at level of service (LOS) "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no mitigation is required. Corporate Plata West Expansion TPO 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017076rprdoc Ch Table 3 SUMMARY OFONE PERCENT ANALYSIS - - -- AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - -- INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB LESS THAN Igo OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 1 17 0 0 Yes 2. 3amboree & Santa Barbara 0 17 0 1 No 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 0 16 2 Yes 4. Irvine Terrace/Clubbouse & Coast Hwy 0 4 16 6 No S. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -1 45 S 0 No 6, Newport Center & Coast Hwy 0 -1 .1 6 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 6 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 2 24 0 0 Yes 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 0 18 2 2 No 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy - 0 0 1 6 Yes -- PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - -- LESS THAN 1 No OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 7 -4 0 0 Yes 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara -1 -4 0 6 Yes 3. 3amboree & Coast Hwy 0 -3 -3 10 Yes 4. Irvine Terrace /Clubbouse & Coast Hwy 0 23 -2 .4 No 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -8 -2 42 0 No 6. Newport Center & Coast Hwy 0 -11 1 -2 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes 8. MacAnbur &San Joaquin Hills 17 -1 -2 0 No 9. MacAnllur & San Miguel 0 4 18 -1 No 10. MacAnbur & Coast Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes Corporate Plaza West Expansion 7-PO 16 Austin -Foust Associatcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017076rpt.doc c5 1' Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 17 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. �r Traffic Analysis 017076rpt.doc J Table 4 ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING BACKGROUND BACKGROUND + PROJECT IN'JERSFCTION AM PM AM PM AM PM 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 447 .494 .473 .522 .474 ,521 4. brine Terrace & Coast Hwy .492 .566 .509 .565 .510 .601 5. Newport Center & Corp Plata .133 .250 .134 .257 .137 .282 S. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .609 777 .615 .791 .615 .793 9. MacMhur & San Miguel .549 .534 .550 .545 .562 .549 Level of service ranges: WO. .600A .601 - 700 B .701 - 800C .801 - .900 D .901 - 1,000 E Above 1.000 F Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 17 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. �r Traffic Analysis 017076rpt.doc J PROJECT Table 5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY LAND USE AMOUNT Saint Mark Presbyterian Church _ Church 34.80 TSF Day Care 4.72 TSF Saint Andrews Church Church 33.00 TSF Newpon Coast TAZ I - 4 Single Family Detached 954 DU Condominium/Townhouse 389 DU Multi- Family Anached 175 DU Newpon Ridge TAZ I - 3 Single Family Detached 632 DU Multi- Family Attached 384 DU Commercial 102.96 TSF Mormon Temple Temple 11.46 TSF South Coast Shipyard Multi Family Attached 28 DU Commercial 19.60 TSF Office 10.40 TSF Our Lady Queen of Angels Church 20.00 TSF Classrooms 250 Stu TSF - thousand square feet DU - dwelling units Stu - students Corporate Playa West Expansion TPO is Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 017076rpt.doc CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS City Staff provided a list of seven known but not approved projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 5. Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative project was also provided by City Staff. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the background volumes presented earlier, then project - generated traffic was compared to one percent of the background - plus - cumulative traffic. The results of the cumulative one percent analysis are summarized in Table 6. The proposed project does not pass the one percent test at the five study intersections identified above; therefore. an ICU analysis is required at these study intersections. The results of the cumulative ICU analysis are summarized in Table 7 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in the appendix). As the cumulative ICU table indicates, the proposed project will have no significant impact on the study intersections which operate at LOS "D" or better, and no mitigation is required. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, consisting of 42,012 square feet of general office space in exchange for 45,119 square feet of entitled regional retail space in Fashion Island, will generate 294 fewer daily trips than currently entitled, and 71 more AM peak hour trips and 14 more PM peak hour trips than the entitled uses. The marginal impact of project traffic on the street system was determined at 10 intersections in the vicinity. Five of the 10 intersections did not pass the City's one percent analysis; however, the project had no marginal impact on the ICU values at these five intersections, which will continue to operate at level of service (LOS) "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Consequently, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no additional intersection improvements are required. The impact of traffic from known but not approved projects was included in a cumulative conditions analysis. Under cumulative conditions, the project passed the City's one percent test at all but five study intersections. However, the project had no marginal impact on the ICU values at any of these five intersections during the AM or PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections under cumulative conditions, and no intersection mitigation measures are required. Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 19 Austin -Foust Associates, lnc.`' Traffic Analysis 017076rpt.dm Table 6 SUMMARY OF CUM ULATIVE ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS - - -- AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - - -- INTERSECTION NB SB EB WD LFSSTHAN P% OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 1 17 U 0 Yes 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 0 17 0 1 No 1 Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 0 16 2 Yes 4. Irvine Terrace /Clubhouse & Coast Hwy 0 4 16 6 No 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -1 45 5 0 No & Newport Center &Coast Hwy 0 1 -1 6 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 6 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 2 24 0 0 Yes 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 0 18 2 2 No 10. htaCArthur & Coast Hwy 0 0 1 6 Yes - - -- PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT VOLUMES - -- LESS THAN I% OF INTERSECTION NB SR ED WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES J. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 7 -4 0 0 Yes 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara -1 -4 0 6 Yes 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 0 -1 -3 10 Yes 4, Irvine Terrace / Clubhouse & Coast Hwy 0 23 -2 -4 No 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza -8 -2 42 0 No 6. Newport Center & Coast Hwy 0 -11 1 -2 Yes 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes 8. MacArthur& San Joaquin Hills 17 -1 -2 0 No 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 0 4 18 -1 No 10. MacArthur & Coasl Hwy 0 0 2 -2 Yes Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 20 Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 017076rpt.doc I Table 7 CUMULATIVE ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY BACKGROUND+ BACKGROUND+ CUMULATIVE+ EXISTING BACKGROUND CUMULATIVE PROJECF INTERSECTION AM Ph9 AM PM AM PM AM PAI 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .447 .494 .473 .522 .500 .540 .502 .539 4. Irvine Terrace & Coast Hwy .492 .566 .509 .585 .539 .647 .539 .664 5. Newport Center & Corp Plaza .133 .250 .134 .257 .135 .258 .138 .283 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .609 .777 .615 .791 .660 .851 .660 .855 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .549 .534 .550 .545 .561 .587 .573 .591 Level of service ranges: .000 - .600A .601 - .700 B .701 - .800 C .801 - .900 D .901 - 1.000 E Above 1.000 F Corporate Plaza West Expansion TPO 21 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. C� Traffic Analysis 0170769A.doc q� APPENDIX DEFINITIONS Certain lernis used throughout Ibis report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total Iwo - directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. DU Dwelling Unit. Used in quantifying residential land use. ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume /capacity ratios of arterial segments. Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. TSF Thousand Square Feet. Used in quantifying non - residential land uses, and refers to building floor area. V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or intersection. VPH Vehicles Per Hour. Used for roadway volumes (counts or forecasts) and trip generation estimates. Measures the number of vehicles in a one hour period, typically the AM or PM peak hour. Corporate Playa west Expansion Traffic Analysis A -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 017076rpt.doc 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis -I Intersection, 1. Jamboree 8 San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1402 42 83 0 1527 15 1 Southbound 2018 61 107 0 2186 22 17 Eastbound 391 0 0 0 391 4 0 Westbound 151 0 10 0 161 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD _ Northbound 1321 40 97 0 1458 15 7 Southbound 1957 59 105 0 2121 21 - -4 Eastbound 186 0 5 0 191 2 0 Westbound 298 0 30 0 326 3 0 Project PM Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak / Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 -I 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Q� Intersection: 1. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterfSpring 2003 . Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1402 42 83 140 1667 17 1 Southbound 2018 61 107 58 2244 22 17 Eastbound 391 0 0 0 391 4 0 Westbound i 151 0 10 15 176 2 0 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1321 40 97 86 1544 15 7 Southbound 1957 59 105 141 2262 23 -4 Eastbound 186 0 5 0 191 2 0 Westbound 298 0 30 9 337 3 0 _> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 Q� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis q5 Intersection: 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak t Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak i Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak i Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1724 52 75 0 1851 19 0 Southbound 1388 42 114 0 1544 15 17 Eastbound 28 0 6 0 34 0 0 Westbound 125 0 6 0 131 1 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. => Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1051 32 94 0 1177 12 .1 Southbound 1685 51 93 0 1829 18 -4 Eastbound 4D 0 3 0 43 0 0 Westbound 771 0 4 0 775 8 6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. —> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 q5 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Jamboree 8 Santa Barbara 0 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 125 0 6 0 131 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak -I Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1724 52 75 140 1991 Southbound 1388 42 114 51 1595 I 20 0 16 17 Eastbound 28 0 6 0 34 0 0 Westbound i 125 0 6 0 131 1 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. ProjectAM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 5 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound I 1051 32 94 86 1263 13 -1 Southbound 1685 51 93 140 1969 20 -4 Eastbound 40 0 3 0 43 0 0 Westbound 771 0 4 0 _ 775 8 6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected PM Peak t Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 r� 2. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing LANES CAPACITY NBL 1 1600 NBT 3 4600 NBR 500 SBL 2 3200 SET 3 4800 SBR 1 1600 EEL 1 1600 EBT 1 1600 F 6 0 0 WBL 1.5 WET 0.5 3200 WBR 1 1600 Right Turn Adjustment TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZA Ali PK HOUR VOL V/C 9 .006* 943 .196 99 .062 217 .087 1348 .281* 60 .038 25 .016* 11 .009 4 406 26 .135* 339 .212 WBR 009* PION 447 Poi PK HOUR Vol, V 1 3 .002 1358 .283* 363 .227 579 .181* 780 .163 29 .018 21 .013* 2 .004 S 50 4 .017* 71 .044 .494 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 9 .006* 3 .002 NBT 3 4800 1034 .215 1477 .308* NBR 1 1600 102 .064 364 .228 SBL 2 3200 295 .092 579 .181* SBT 3 4800 1487 .310* 879 .183 SBR 1 1600 61 .038 35 .022 EBL 1 1600 31 .019* 23 .014* EBT 1 1600 11 .009 3 .005 EBPI 0 0 4 5 WBL 1.5 408 51 WBT 0.5 3200 26 .136* 5 .018* WBR 1 1600 344 .215 79 .049 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .003* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .474 .521 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Projects All PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 9 .006* 3 .002 NBT 3 4800 1034 .215 1477 .308* NBR 1 1600 102 .064 365 .228 581 2. 3200 278 .087 583 .182* SBT 3 4800 1487 .310* 879 .183 SBR 1 1600 61 .038 35 .022 EBL 1 1600 31 .019* 23 .014* EBT 1 1600 11 .009 3 .005 EBT 0 0 4 5 WBL 1.5 408 52 WBT 0.5 3200 26 .136* 5 .018* WBR 1 1600 343 .214 72 .045 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .002* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .473 .522 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Projects AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 9 .006 3 .002 NBT 3 4800 1174 .245* 1563 .326* NBR 1 1600 102 .064 365 .228 SBL 2 3200 278 .087* 583 .182* SBT 3 4800 1538 .320 1019 .212 SBR 1 1600 61 .038 35 .022 EBL 1 1600 31 .019* 23 .014* EBT 1 1600 11 .009 3 .005 EBR 0 0 4 5 ! WBL 1.5 408 52 WBT 0.5 3200 26 .136* 5 .018* REP 1 1600 343 .214 72 .045 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .013* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .500 .540 c�1 -s6� 2. Jamboree 8 Santa Barbara Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumula AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 9 .006 NET 3 4800 1174 .245* NBR 1 1600 102 .064 SBL 2 3200 295 .092* S8T 3 4800 1538 .320 SBR 1 1600 61 .038 EBL 1 1600 31 .019* EBT 1 1600 11 .009 EBR 0 0 4 WBL 1.5 408 WET 0.5 3200 26 .136* WBR 1 1600 344 .215 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .010* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .502 ive + Project PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 3 .002 1563 .326* 364 .228 579 .161* 1019 .212 35 .022 23 .014* 3 .005 5 51 5 .018* 79 .049 .539 IY "V 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 3. Jamboree 8 Coast Hwy 512 10 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 523 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 0 Southbound Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak i Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak i Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 512 10 AM 1 PEAK PERIOD 0 523 5 0 Southbound 974 19 118 0 1111 11 0 Eastbound 2896 58 81 0 3035 30 16 Westbound 1159 23 44 0 1226 12 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 415 8 3 0 426 Southbound 2134 43 79 0 2256 4 0 23 -1 .. Eastbound 1999 40 128 0 2167 22 .3 Westbound 2174 43 61 0 2278 23 10 -�> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. . Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 9� 1 %Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 3. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 512 10 1 0 523 5 0 Southbound 974 19 118 51 1162 12 0 Eastbound 2896 58 81 123 3158 32 16 Westbound 1159 23 44 450 1676 17 2 => Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound _ 415 8 3 0 426 4 0 Southbound 2134 43 79 140 2396 24 -1 Eastbound 1999 40 128 353 2520 25 -3 Westbound 2174 43 61 299 2577 26 10 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak i Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 lay 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 Ip Intersection: 4.Irvine Terrace /Country Club & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring _ 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak -I Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 100 0 0 0 100 1 0 Southbound 15 0 0 0 15 0 4 Eastbound 2028 61 44 0 2133 21 16 Westbound 1273 3B 41 0 1352 14 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Tragic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (1CU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 78 0 0 0 78 1 0 Southbound 101 0 0 0 101 1 23 Eastbound 1756 53 61 - - 0 1870 19 -2 Westbound 2247 67 50 0 2364 24 -6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 Ip 1° %Traffic Volume Analysis PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 Intersection: 4.Irvine Terrace /Country Club & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 100 0 0 0 100 1 0 Southbound 15 0 0 0 15 0 4 Eastbound 2028 61 44 143 2276 23 16 Westbound 1273 38 41 450 1802 18 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 78 0 0 0 78 1 0 Southbound 101 0 0 0 101 1 23 Eastbound 1756 53 61 457 2327 23 -2 Westbound 2247 67 50 299 2663 27 -6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. -_> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 4. Irvine Terrace /Country Club & Existing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project Projects All PK HOUR PH PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC. VOL V/C NBL 0 0 34 0 35 {.022)* NBT 1 1600 "c .063* 2 .049 HER 0 0 64 0 41 64 S8L 0 0 2 {.001)* 28 3 SET 1 1600 0 .009 5 .063* SBR 0 0 13 0 68 16 EEL 1 1600 41 .026 35 .022* EST 3 4800 1962 .409* 1683 .351 ESP 1 1600 25 .016 38 .024 WBL 1 1600 31 .019* 46 .029 WET 3 4800 1229 .259 2185 .459* WBR 0 0 13 0 16 20 16 17 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .492 .566 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project Projects { AM PK All PK HOUR P11 PK I HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I NBL 0 0 34 35 35 (.022)* I 1 NET 1 1600 2 .063* 2 .049 NBR 0 0 64 41 41 SBL I SBL 0 0 3 {.002)* 34 I SET 1 1600 0 .012 5 .078* SBR 0 0 16 68 85 EEL I EEL 1 1600 59 .037 38 I .024* EST 3 4800 2043 .426* 1773 .369 EBR 1 1600 25 .016 38 .024 { WBL 1 1600 31 .019* 46 I .029 WET 3 4800 1294 .274 2274 .477* WBR I 0 0 20 16 17 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .510 .601 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Projects AM PK AM PK HOUR. PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY 'VOL Vic VOL WC MEL 0 0 34 35 35 (.022)* HOT NET 1 1600 2 -063* 2 .049 HER 0 0 64 41 41 SBL SRI 0 0 2 {.001)* 28 SET SRI 1 1600 0 .009 5 .063* SBR 0 0 13 68 68 EEL EEL 1 1600 =11 .026 35 .022* EST 3 4800 2045 .426* 1778 .370 CEP 1 1600 25 .0161 38 .024 W8L 1 1600 31 .019* 46 .029 WET 3 4800 1295 .273 2279 .478* WBR 0 0 13 16 16 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .509 .585 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Projects AM PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 34 35 (.022)* HOT 1 1600 2 .063* 2 .049 NBR 0 0 64 41 i SBL 0 0 2 {.001)* 28 SET 1 1600 0 .009 5 .063* SOP 0 0 13 68 EEL 1 1600 41 .026 35 .022* EST 3 4800 2188 .456* 2235 .466 ESP 1 1600 25 .016 38 .024 WBL 1 1600 31 .019* 46 .029 WBT 3 4800 1745 .366 2578 .540* WBR 0 0 13 16 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .539 .647 i�� 4. Irvine Terrace /Country Club B Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .539 .664 it 4 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 34 35 (.022 )* NET 1 1600 2 .063* 2 .049 NCR 0 0 64 41 SEL 0 0 3 1.002 }* 34 SET 1 1600 0 .012 5 .078* SBR 0 0 16 85 ELL 1 1600 59 .037 38 .024" EBT 3 4800 2186 .455* 2230 .465 CUP 1 1600 25 .016 38 .024 WBL 1 1600 31 .019* 46 .029 WET 3 4800 1144 .368 2573 .540* WBR 0 0 20 17 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .539 .664 it 4 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 624 0 6 0 630 6 -3 Southbound 231 0 9 0 240 2 45 Eastbound 16 0 0 0 16 Westbound 11 0 0 0 11 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 / of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Interseclion Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 314 0 19 0 333 0 5 0 0 3 -8 Southbound 739 0 34 0 773 8 -2 Eastbound 162 0 0 0 162 2 42 Westbound 103 0 0 0 103 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. _> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza Wesl Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 `D Intersection: 5. Newport Center & Corporate Plaza/Entry Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume - Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 624 0 6 0 630 6 -3 Southbound 231 0 9 0 240 2 45 Eastbound 16 0 0 0 16 Westbound 11 0 0 0 11 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 / of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Interseclion Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 314 0 19 0 333 0 5 0 0 3 -8 Southbound 739 0 34 0 773 8 -2 Eastbound 162 0 0 0 162 2 42 Westbound 103 0 0 0 103 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. _> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza Wesl Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 `D 1% Traffic Volume Analysis I�Y Intersection: 5. Newport Center 8 Corporate Plaza Entry Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 624 0 6 2 632 6 -3 Southbound 231 0 9 2 242 2 45 Easibound 16 0 0 0 16 0 5 Westbound 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 I Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. - Intersection Capacity Utilizalion (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 314 0 19 2 335 3 .8 - Southbound 739 0 34 4 777 8 -2 Eastbound 162 0 0 0 162 2 42 Westbound 103 0 0 0 103 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% Of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 I�Y 5. Newport Center & Corporate PI Existing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C V01. Vic NBL 1 1600 81 .051 24 _015* N67 1 4800 524 .109* 266 _055 N8R 1 i600 19 .012 24 _015 SBL 1 1600 19 .012* 35 .022 SBT .012* 4800 137 .043 6B9 _747* SBR 0 0 75 _047 15 0 EBL 1 1600 10 .066* 81 .051* EBT 1 1600 0 .004 21 _051 EBR 0 0 6 EBR 60 0 WBL 1 1600 2 .001 44 .028 WBT 1 1600 4 .006* 20 .037* WAR 0 0 5 WBR 39 0 5 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .133 .25D Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL Vic VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 81 .051 24 .015* NBT 3 4800 529 .110* 277 .058 NBR 1 1600 19 .012 24 .015 SBL 1 1600 19 .012* 35 .022 SBT 3 4800 145 .045 712 .153* SBR 0 0 121 .076 24 EBL EBL 1 1600 15 .009* 123 .077* EBT 1 1600 0 .004 -21 .051 EBR 0 0 6 60 60 WEE W81- 1 1600 2 .001 44 .028 WBT 1 1600 4 .006* 20 .037* WBR 0 0 5 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .282 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Projects AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL Vic VOL Vic NBL 1 1600 81 .051 24 .015* NET 3 4800 530 .110" 285 -059 HER 1 1600 19 _012 24 _075 SHE 1 1600 19 .012* 35 .022 SBT 3 4800 146 .046 723 .154* SBR 0 0 75 _047 15 1 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 81 .051* EBT l 1600 0 _004 21 _051 EBR 0 0 6 60 1 WEE - 1 1600 2 .001 44 .028 WBT 1 1600 4 .006* 20 _037* WBR 0 0 5 39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .134 .257 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Projects AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 81 .051 24 .015* NBT 3 4800 532 .111* 287 .060 NBR 1 1600 19 .012 24 _015 SHE 1 1600 19 .012* 35 .022 SBT 3 4800 148 .046 727 .155* S8R 0 0 75 .047 15 EBL 1 1600 10 .006* 81 .051* EBT 1 1600 0 .004 21 .051 EBR 0 0 6 60 W8L 1 1600 2 .001 44 .028 WET 1 1600 4 .006* 20 .037* WBR 0 0 5 39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION - .135 .258 ��1 5. Newport Center 8 Corporate PI Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project "I " AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 81 .051 24 .015* NBT 3 4800 531 .111* 219 053 NER 1 1600 19 .012 24 .015 SBL 1 1600 19 .012* 35 .022 SBT 3 4800 147 .046 716 .154* SBR 0 0 121 .076 24 [BE 1 1600 15 .009* 123 .077* EBT 1 1600 0 .004 21 .051 EBR 0 0 6 60 .WB1- 1 1600 2 .001 44 .028 WBT 1 1600 4 .006* 20 .037* WBR U 0 5 39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .138 .283 "I " 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Newport Center 8 Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 06 of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 115 0 9 0 124 1 -1 Eastbound 1660 50 26 0 1736 17 -1 Westbound 1287 39 32 0 1358 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 796 0 34 0 830 14 6 0 0 8 -11 Eastbound 1967 59 46 0 2072 21 1 Westbound 1843 55 23 0 1921 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 19 -2 PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1% Traffic Volume Analysis PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 � �a Intersection: 6. Newport Center 8 Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 115 0 9 2 126 1 -1 Eastbound 1660 50 26 143 1879 19 -1 Westbound 1287 39 32 448 1806 18 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak / Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 11% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 7% 0 34 4 834 8 -11 Eastbound 1967 59 46 457 2529 25 1 Westbound 1843 55 23 295 2216 22 -2 =_> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1° %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 � �a 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Westbound 1152 23 33 0 1208 Intersection: 7. Avocado & Coast Hwy 6 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative PM PEAK PERIOD Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 °6 of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 223 0 0 0 223 2 0 Southbound 185 0 0 0 185 2 0 Eastbound 1591 32 26 0 1649 16 1 Westbound 1152 23 33 0 1208 12 6 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 228 0 0 0 228 2 0 Southbound 524 0 1 0 525 5 0 Eastbound 1435 29 35 0 1499 15 2 Westbound 1485 30 20 0 1535 15 -2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1% Traffic Volume Analysis PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 In Intersection: 7. Avocado & Coast Hvvy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 190 of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 223 0 0 0 223 2 0 Southbound 185 0 0 0 185 2 0 Eastbound 1591 32 26 141 1790 18 1 Westbound 1152 23 33 448 1656 17 6 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume.. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 10% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 228 _ 0 0 0 228 2 0 Southbound 524 0 1 0 525 5 0 Eastbound 1435 29 35 455 1954 20 2 Westbound 1485 30 20 295 1830 18 -2 => Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 In 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 0 Intersection: 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 101 of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1526 46 0 0 1572 16 2 Southbound 2815 84 4 0 2903 29 24 Eastbound 351 0 1 0 352 4 0 Westbound 1188 0 1 0 1189 12 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1625 49 3 0 1677 17 17 Southbound 1999 60 15 0 2074 21 -1 Eastbound 1119 0 19 0 1138 11 -2 Westbound 707 0 1 0 708 7 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak i Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 8. MacArthur 8 San Joaquin Hills AM PEAK PERIOD Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 17 2 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 2815 84 4 136 3039 30 24 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I AM PEAK PERIOD 1 Northbound 1526 46 0 144 1716 17 2 Southbound 2815 84 4 136 3039 30 24 Eastbound 351 0 1 22 374 4 0 Westbound 1188 0 1 88 1277 13 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1625 49 3 163 1840 18 17 Southbound 1999 60 15 235 2309 23 -1 Eastbound 1119 0 19 28 1166 12 .2 Westbound 707 0 1 53 761 _ => Project PM Traffic is estimated to b6 less than t'e of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 8 0 PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK. HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL U!C VOL VIC 14BL 2 3200 67 .021 44 '.014 NBC NBT 3 4800 1453 .303* 1567 .326* NOR 1 1600 6 .004 14 .009 SBL 2 3200 408 .128* 570 .176* SET 3 4800 1420 .296 1209 .252 SBR f 1469 987 1240 220 SBR EBL 2 3200 107 .033* 588 .184* EBT 3 4800 199 .051 403 .111 EBR 0 0 45 403 128 EBR WBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 WBT 2 3200 464 .145* 285 .089* WBR f 465 705 286 395 WBR f 434 705 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .609 .777 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR. LANES CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBC 2 3200 67 .021 44 .014 NBT 3 4800 1484 .309* 1618 .337* NBR 1 1600 6 .004 14 .009 SBL 2 3200 408 .128* 570 .178* SBT 3 4800 1469 .306 1240 .258 SBR f 232 994 EBL 227 2 EBl 2 3200 107 .033* 605 .189* EBT 3 4800 200 .051 403 .111 EBR 0 0 4S WBL 128 1 WBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 WBT 2 3200 465 .145* 286 .089* WBR f 434 705 395 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .615 .793 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Projects AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 67 .021 44 .014 NBT 3 4800 1462 .309* 1601 .334* NOR 1 1600 6 .004 14 .009 SR 2 3200 40B .128* 570 .178* SGT 3 4800 1451 .302 1236 .258 SER f 988 988 232 232 EBL E81 2 3200 107 .033* 607 .190' EBT 3 4800 200 .051 403 .111 C8P 0 0 45 128 128 WBL WBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 WET 2 3200 465 .145* 286 .089* WBR f 767 705 434 395 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .615 _791 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Projects AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBC 2 3200 73 .023 50 .016 NBT 3 4800 1620 .338* 1758 .366* NOR 1 1600 6 .004 14 .009 SBL 2 3200 427 .133* 636 .199* SET 3 4800 1568 .327 1405 .293 SBR f 988 232 EBL 2 3200 115 .036* 615 .192* EBT 3 4800 214 ,054 423 .115 EBR 0 0 45 128 WBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 WBT 2 3200 491 .153* 300 .094* NBR f 767 434 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .660 .851 8. MacArthur 8 San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V!C NBL 2 3200 73 .023 50 .016 NET 3 4800 1622 .338* 1775 .370* NBR 1 1600 6 .004 14 .009 SBL 2 3200 427 .133* 636 .199* SBT 3 4800 1586 .330 1409 .294 SBR f 994 227 EBL 2 3200 115 .036* 613 .192* EBT 3 4800 214 .054 423 .115 EBR 0 0 45 128 WBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 WBT 2 3200 491 .153* 300 .094* WBR f 767 434 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .660 .855 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 9. MacArthur 8 San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 - Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 48 0 0 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projecled Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growlh Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume . Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 17 0 14 18 Eastbound 303 0 1 0 304 3 2 Westbound 516 0 1 0 517 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1235 37 2 0 1274 5 2 13 0 Soulhbound 1355 41 3 0 1399 14 4 Eastbound 1098 0 24 0 1122 11 18 Wesibound 458 0 12 0 470 5 .1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 / of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 / of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 `I� AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1606 48 0 0 1654 Southbound 1380 41 2 0 1423 17 0 14 18 Eastbound 303 0 1 0 304 3 2 Westbound 516 0 1 0 517 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1235 37 2 0 1274 5 2 13 0 Soulhbound 1355 41 3 0 1399 14 4 Eastbound 1098 0 24 0 1122 11 18 Wesibound 458 0 12 0 470 5 .1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 / of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 / of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 `I� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 1380 41 2 122 1545 Intersection: 9. MacArthur 8 San Miguel 18 Eastbound 303 0 1 10 314 3 2 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2003 5 2 Northbound Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD 1235 37 2 184 1458 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 0 Southbound 1355 41 3 175 1574 16 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1606 48 0 179 1833 18 0 Southbound 1380 41 2 122 1545 15 18 Eastbound 303 0 1 10 314 3 2 Westbound 516 0 1 2 519 5 2 Northbound Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD 1235 37 2 184 1458 15 0 Southbound 1355 41 3 175 1574 16 4 Eastbound 1098 0 24 35 1157 12 18 Westbound 458 0 12 4 474 5 -1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 I� 0/ 9. MacArthur 8 San Miguel Existing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LAI ^,ES CAPACITY PM PK VOL VIC VOL VdC f0. 2 3200 142 .044 74 .023* II Ell T 3 4800 1245 .259* 911 ,190 118R 1 1600 219 .137 250 .156 SBL 2 3200 1 .000 8 .003 S81 3 4800 749 .156 1034 .215* SBR 1 1600 630 .394 313 .196 ELL 2 3200 204 .064* 687 .215* EBT 2 3200 78 .031 362 .128 EBR 0 0 21 EBR 49 0 WBL 2 3200 212 .066 199 ,062 WBT 2 3200 297 .095* 239 .081* WBR 0 0 7 WBR 20 0 Right Turn Adjustment 20 SBR .131* Turn Adjustment SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION TOTAL .549 UTILIZATION .534 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAtJES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NET. 2 3200 142 .044 76 .024* NET 3 4800 1270 .265* 929 .194 NOR 1 1600 219 .137 250 .156 SET. 2 3200 1 .000 8 .003 SET 3 4800 764 .159 1055 .220* SBR 1 1600 650 .406 320 .200 EBL 2 3200 206 .064* 707 .221* LET 2 3200 79 .031 373 .135 EBR 0 0 21 59 59 WBL WBL 2 3200 212 .066 199 .062 WET 2 3200 300 .056* 250 .084* WBR 0 0 7 20 20 Right Right Turn Adjustment SBR SBR .137* CAPACITY UTILIZATION TOTAL TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .562 .549 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Projects AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LAtJES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL V1C NBL 2 3200 142 .044 76 ,024* NET 3 4800 1270 .265* 929 .194 NBR 1 1600 219 .137 250 .156 SBL 2 3200 1 ,000 8 .003 SET 3 4800 764 .159 1055 .220* SBR 1 1600 632 ,395 316 .198 EBL 2 3200 204 .064* 690 .216* EBT 2 3200 79 .031 372 ,135 EBR 0 0 21 94 59 WBL WBL 2 3200 212 .066 199 .062 WET 2 3200 298 .095* 251 .085* WBR 0 0 7 20 20 Right Right Turn Adjustment .107* SBR .126* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .587 ,550 .545 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Projects AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NET. 2 3200 177 .055 97 .030* NBT 3 4800 1414 .295* 1092 .228 NBR 1 1600 219 .137 250 .156 SBL 2 3200 1 .000 6 .003 SBT 3 4800 886 .185 1230 .256* SBR 1 1600 632 .395 316 .198 EBL 2 3200 204 .064* 690 .216* EBT 2 3200 79 .034 372 .146 EBR, 0 0 31 94 WBL 2 3200 214 .067 203 .063 WBT 2 3200 298 .095* 251 .085* WBR 0 0 7 20 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .107* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .561 .587 1l`'1 A 9. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project 1�� AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V7c VOL V7C N81- 2 3200 177 .055 97 .0.0* NET 3 *00 1414 .295* 1092 228 NBP 1 1600 219 .137 2SO .156 SBL 2 3200 1 .000 8 .003 SET 3 4800 886 .185 1230 .256* SBR 1 1600 650 .406 320 .200 EBL 2 3200 206 .064* 707 .221* EBT 2 3200 r9 .034 373 .146 EBR 0 0 31 94 WBL 2 3200 214 .067 203 063 WBT 2 3200 300 .096* 250 .084* WBR 0 6 7 20 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .118* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .573 .591 1�� I% Traffic Volume Analysis Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 �a� Intersection: 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 776 16 13 0 805 8 0 - Eastbound 1241 25 29 0 1295 13 1 Westbound 2085 42 22 0 2149 21 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. - PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Southbound 1264 25 6 0 1295 13 0 Eastbound 2141 43 38 0 2222 22 2 Westbound 2193 44 15 0 2252 23 -2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 �a� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 1264 25 6 214 1509 15 0 Eastbound 2141 43 38 455 2677 27 2 Westbound 2193 44 15 324 2576 26 .2 _> .Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than I of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 IAa Intersection: 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2004 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 776 16 13 134 939 9 0 Eastbound 1241 25 29 141 1436 14 1 Westbound 2085 42 22 511 2660 27 6 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. , PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1264 25 6 214 1509 15 0 Eastbound 2141 43 38 455 2677 27 2 Westbound 2193 44 15 324 2576 26 .2 _> .Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than I of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Corporate Plaza West Expansion FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 IAa EXHIBIT 5 Project Plans JA3 ATTACHMENT G PROJECT PLANS ia5 91 -- ,•;. VINWOiINJ "1ND INOO N 009 3 ANV WO D 3 IA3 1W AN OSS g j ANVdWOJ 3JNi0 3NIAW1 3 ' VM0111VD'HJV38 MdM3N Z aseyd asaM ezeId ajejodio:) h o f 1�� D. I :-4'i -I is jWfi -I _eNo _.O �M m _.H�j \'e%� / /_w a I a ( . / . m q CIE < ; [ ;j6 \\ 20 G w � - i � It ], {� 1)'y VINNOJI1 'HDY39 IAOdM N 3110S SO ShNn ISOdM N OSS �z M4:71U ANVJWOD 3DH30 3NASI T I VINSOJIIVD 'HDV3@ ISOdM3N ZAPW • lsz)/" ezeld ajejodJOD \3L5 cl, (wO ID Nli e 32 10 g Ir 03 3P 6 ol 6 L - e O:D c r G 1) � CD (DI 0 (D .0 \3L5 V"NNOAI� HDM INOd�N Z 009 311% NG MUND IMOdM3N OSS A N VJWOZ) D1330 3NIAVI V1NNOJ11VD'HDVH INOdM3N zi I I I 0 C\1 Z OSL'qd - ISOM ULU ajejodjo:) C"j G LJ �D fr 0, xep j, 0: QD (i) 0 (a) G (i) c) UQ`J G) 03 Ca 0 (i) (D0 C1, (D VINUOd13V3 IWM9 laodWN Z '�?A p oo9 3llns'Un a31N33 INW N oss o e•�I d ANVdWO3 331330 3NNUI _ VINSOJIIVJ'HJV39ISOdM3N _ C, z aseyd • isaM ezeld amodJOD >a 8m •�9 \. d \9 rl j6 % \J i E j f — ........ 'S a k 1 D o c e;oc 0�rsl)0 o To0o00 0 e �3r Yif NSOJIIVD 'HD"g INOdWN ON 31ins xo AUND INOdN N OSS ANVJWOD DIO I 3NIAXI 0 VINSO3IIVD'HDV30 AOdM3N y .... .. . OF Z aseqd M ISOM EzEld O odjo:) asp ri r� lim uii u ie4 : OT iL 71 011 'o 0 0 JE�- �1- EDE 13 I L z 0 I P, z 0 (01 z 0 A-if =LE 5 z P: > W I > j; o P < W, 0 F Cl) w F Cl) z 0) w VINMO3INJ 'HDV g 1MOdWN O09 3➢f15 b0 M31ND 1MOdM N O55 ANVdWOJ 3JHd0 3NIAMI ' ` E < o VINNO111V7 'H7 f V39 1NOdMIN s 1' �< - r Z aseyd - 1saM eze ale�od�o`- w ° Id J Wa a vI -�'z 7 C 4 f t Se 117 f a � L sr l J: 3 i r< ao \ 101A , ? 3 3�yl ill. a 2 553O P H,9 ' I 3tl SM ? 3 3�yl ill. a 2 553O P H,9 ' I 3tl bu a p� 2 a `'\ ' v b ✓\ i N ' YZ� j 0 j m I Y Pa +l R� 4x 3 4g - gg$?a N p'. J35 log A � © � ^^ �$ 4HR : \)\ jig, 40 W i; .� � \ �$ . y 4 \ log A � © � ^^ �$ 4HR : \)\ jig, 40 W i; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 on property located at 1200- 1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443225. A copy of the MND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 10, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. p A J. P. \ 2 .a. g am! 11 w a - � p � � � � � .a$ • �� 5 LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk ` City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 on property located at 1200- 1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30 -day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3225. A copy of the MND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 10, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. tit LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 on property located at 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443225. A copy of the MND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 10, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005-001 and Traffic Study No. 2005-004 on property located at 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mifigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443225. A copy of the MND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005 -042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 on property located at 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42,012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mifigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 926588915, (949) 6443225. A copy of the MND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on January 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For Information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Corporate Plaza West, Phase 2 (PA2005-042) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Planned Community Amendment No. 2005 -001 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -004 on property located at 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive Corporate Plaza West and 101 -1199 Newport Center Road (Fashion Island). The properties are located in the Corporate Plaza West Planned Community and Fashion Island Planned Community, and are designated for commercial office and commercial retail respectively. The Irvine Company proposes to transfer approximately 45,120 square feet of un -built retail commercial floor area from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza West in order to construct a new 42.012 square -foot, two -story office building. The requested transfer of floor area is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan subject to findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The project requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MIND states that the subject development with recommended mitigation measures will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during a 30-day review period from October 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92656 -6915, (949) 6443225. A copy of the MIND remains available for review in the offices of the Planning Department NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on Januanr 10-M6, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, 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 corespondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. ,�./C �-✓� (� ,��Z n —' "— A " ) - `i-� t.aVonne M. Harkless, 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 aatIab 3 Donald I Schmidt Donald I Schmidt Boras,Tr 19 Corporate Plaza Dr 1900 Mission Ridge Rd 2100 Main St Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7904 Santa Barbara Ca 93103 -1731 hvine Ca 92614 -6237 442 - 271 -23 442- 271 -24 442- 271 -25 Irvine Company Granville Community Assn Deerwood Associates Lp 550 Newport Center Dr PO Box 19703 3 Deerwood Ln Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7011 Irvine Ca 92623 -9703 Newport Beach Ca 92660 442 - 271 -30 442- 421 -09 442- 421 -10 Granville Community Assn privacy James Cavanaugh PO Box 19703 1001 Granville Dr 554 Dorset Rd Irvine Ca 92623 -9703 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 -6205 Devon Pa 19333 -1845 442 - 421 -11 442 - 421 -13 939 -63 -729 Oral C Roberts Gordon W Cook Sabatasso,Tr 1005 Granville Dr 2 1007 Granville Dr 1009 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -730 939 -63 -731 939 -63 -732 Steven C Kissen Hitzelberger,Tr Harry T Martindale 1011 Granville Dr 5 4848 Highland Dr 604 1015 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Salt Lake City Ut 84117 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -733 939 -63 -734 939 -63 -735 John C Warner Eugene R Dorsey Ring,Tr 1017 Granville Dr 1019 Granville Dr 1021 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -736 939 -63 -737 939 -63 -738 John L Curci Leonard Jaffe Rene R Woolcott 717 Lido Park Dr 1025 Granville Dr 1027 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92663 -4461 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -739 939 -63 -740 939 -63 -741 Hobart Smith Drucilla D Finkle Frank E Legrand 1029 Granville Dr 1031 Granville Dr 15 1033 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -742 939 -63 -743 939 -63 -744 Beth C Kraus Elmore,Tr Fairchild,Tr 1035 Granville Dr 1037 Granville Dr 500 Neptune Center Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92663 939 -63 -745 939 -63 -746 939 -63 -747 Loesel,Tr Douglas A Newcomb Tappe,Tr 1041 Granville Dr 1043 Granville Dr 1045 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -748 939 -63 -749 939 -63 -750 PA2006 -042 for GP2005 -001 & PD2005 -001 1200 -1400 Newport Center Drive Mark Susson Vincent C Kanowsky Lillian Fluor 1047 Granville Dr 23 1049 Granville Dr 24 1051 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -751 939 -63 -752 939 -63 -753 Frank J Mc Geoy 1053 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -754 Diorio,Tr 1059 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -757 Ralph Ozorkiewicz 1065 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -760 Kathleen Chapman 1071 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -763 Leslie S Cotton 1101 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6251 939 -63 -766 Ralph J Uri 1107 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -769 Jesse W Spears 1113 Granville Dr 44 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -772 Clifford R Hostetler 12244 N Rivard Rd Hayden Lake Id 83835 -9000 939 -63 -775 William N Eddy 1055 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -755 Jack S Leider 1061 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -758 O Chami 1067 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -761 David W Cross 10 Lindworth Dr Saint Louis Mo 63124 -1475 939 -63 -764 John E Stoneman 1103 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6251 939 -63 -767 Albert C Hansen 1109 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -770 Phyllis S Baugh 1115 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -773 Michael B Fix 14800 Ashworth Ave N Seattle Wa 98133 939 -63 -776 Schielein,Tr 1057 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -756 Cecelia B Woodman 1063 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6205 939 -63 -759 Brent F Clem 455 Cypress Dr Laguna Beach Ca 92651 -1601 939 -63 -762 Meyer,Tr 49511 Canyon View Dr Palm Desert Ca 92260 -6783 939 -63 -765 Charles H Loos 1105 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -768 Marion C Buie 1111 Granville Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -771 Blatter,Tr 11117 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 939 -63 -774 Robert D Fracchia 1123 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -777 Robert H Grant William P Ficker Shapiro,Tr 1125 Granville Dr 1127 Granville Dr 1129 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -778 939 -63 -779 939 -63 -780 Richard T Howard John K Agamalian Myerson,Tr 1131 Granville Dr 1133 Granville Dr 47111 Vintage Dr E 104 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 Indian Wells Ca 92210 939 -63 -781 939 -63 -782 939 -63 -783 Linda G Krolop 1137 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -784 Christ Trust PO Box 9757 Newport Beach Ca 92658 -9757 939 -63 -787 William M Shattuck 1130 Granville Dr Newport Beach, Ca 92660 -6227 939 -63 -790 Daniel D Darrow 1100 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6227 939 -63 -793 James Klingaman 1060 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6249 939 -63 -796 P Rowe 5100 Campus Dr 100 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -2101 939 -63 -785 Doolin,Tr 1145 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -788 Davenport,Tr 4407 Colony Plz Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6227 939 -63 -791 D Robin 1080 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6204 939 -63 -794 George L Sarantos 1141 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6226 939 -63 -786 Granville Investment L P 270 Newport Center Dr 100 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7540 939 -63 -789 Charles N Steckly 1110 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6227 939 -63 -792 Alma Cherian 1070 Granville Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6204 939 -63 -795 Wayne Ltyle 1530 Santanella Ter Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625 -1745 050- 284 -08 Lawrence Quan 3857 Birch St Newport Beach Ca 92660 -2616 050- 284 -11 Brian Stapleton 642 Ramona Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1738 050- 291 -11 Jerry Damaschino 627 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1838 050- 292 -01 Richard Passaglia 707 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1840 050- 292 -04 Gay A Garringer 1607 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1719 050- 292 -07 Robert F Painter 730 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -07 Fleetwood B Joiner PO Box 10296 Newport Beach Ca 92658 -0296 050- 293 -13 Mark A Murray 718 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -24 Scot B Mac Innes 1536 Santanella Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1745 050- 284 -09 Jan L Greenberg 1537 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1718 050- 284 -12 Inga De Jounge 627 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1838 050- 291 -12 Anton M Chiapuzio 1606 Santanella Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1747 050- 292 -02 Roy De Vaney 1619 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1720 050- 292 -05 Eileen M Rhodes 1601 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1719 050- 292 -08 Dougherty,Tr 700 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -09 R Menold 610 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1837 050- 293 -17 Robert F Painter 730 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -25 George Romero 711 Ramona Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1740 050- 284 -10 Daniel C Tibbetts 1531 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1718 050- 284 -13 George M Winder 621 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1838 050- 291 -13 Peter Moms 1614 Santanella Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1747 050- 292 -03 Hugh H Bradley 1615 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1719 050- 292 -06 Jeffrey Adelson 724 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -06 Lawrence Siegel 628 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1837 050- 293 -11 Bea Anderson 712 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -18 Jeffrey Adelson 724 Malabar Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1839 050- 293 -27 City Of Newport Beach Michael Mcmullen Irvine Company 3300 Newport Blvd 1901 Chubasco Dr 1907 Chubasco Dr Newport Beach Ca 92663 -3816 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1942 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1942 050- 293 -28 050- 321 -01 050- 321 -02 Gary Fudge Gary D Barnhill Bobbie W Williamson 711 W 17Th St D12 1912 Seadrift Dr 1906 Seadrift Dr Costa Mesa Ca 92627 -4335 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1844 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625-1844 050- 321 -03 050- 321 -12 050- 321 -13 Hibbard,Tr Seadrift LLC, Ambh,Tr 1900 Seadrift Dr 1809 Seadrift Dr 1837 Seadrift Dr Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1844 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 -1845 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 050- 321 -14 050- 361 -02 050- 361 -06 August J. Napolitano Lo, William W TR Scott T Burnham 1843 Seadrift Dr 1849 Seadrift Dr 270 Newport Center Dr 100 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7540 050- 361 -07 050- 361 -08 442 - 011 -24 O Hill Properties O Hill Properties O Hill Properties 1221 W Coast Hwy 1 Upper Newport Plz 1 Upper Newport Plz Newport Beach Ca 92663 -5026 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -2630 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -2630 442- 011 -35 442- 011 -52 442- 011 -53 Cy Irvine Co Mesa Shopping Center East Llc 550 Newport Center Dr 550 Newport Center Dr 1221 W Coast Hwy Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7011 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7011 Newport Beach Ca 92663 -5026 442 - 011 -54 442 - 011 -60 442 - 011 -61 Mesa Shopping Center East Llc Mesa Shopping Center East Llc Co W Irvine 1221 W Coast Hwy 1221 W Coast Hwy 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach Ca 92663 -5026 Newport Beach Ca 92663 -5026 Newport Beach Ca 92660-7011 442- 011 -62 442 - 011 -63 442 - 231 -03 Southwest Investors Co W Irvine John W Hamilton PO Box 1960 550 Newport Center Dr 100 Newport Center Dr 200 Newport Beach Ca 92658 -8932 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7011 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6989 442- 231 -09 442- 231 -11 442- 231 -13 Co W Irvine Pacific Development Group Ocrc Capital Corp 550 Newport Center Dr PO Box 3060 7 Corporate Plaza Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7011 Newport Beach Ca 92658 -9023 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7904 442 - 231 -14 442- 271 -01 442 - 271 -02 Corp Of The Presiding Bishop Chu Heritage One Llc Marguerite Parkway PO Box 511196 15 Corporate Plaza Dr 130 100 Newport Center Dr Salt Lake City Ut 84151 -1196 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7918 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -6989 442- 271 -05 442 - 271 -15 442 - 271 -16 17 Corporate Plaza Assoc Llc Eric D Smith Irvine Co 17 Corporate Plaza Dr 22 Corporate Plaza Dr 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7902 Newport Beach Ca 92660 -7901 Newport Beach Ca 92660-7011 442- 271 -17 442- 271 -19 442- 271 -21 00 - 1-lo -w Authorized to Publish .Advertisements of all kinds inc Iudin_ public notices by Decree of the Sunc,;cr G?ert ^f Ora -^ ^c Ccuc[:. Cali for. ^.in. ; °:[ ?: A Suter,., e^ l..rc - _ -'$_: Tune ! PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a NManWs to Corporate Plaza West' Iin order to construct a resident of the County aforesaid; I CA (KP.,,�. (IIp/d81�Mr 'new 42,012 square - foot. ) mss,- two -story office building. over the age of eighteen years, and not a i� The requested transfer IS HEREBY of floor area is permit- parry to or interested in the below entitled NOT? ted by the Land Use GIVEN_l that e City of Elan subject Me Commas Council of the City of plan subject to findings matter. I am a principal clerk of the Newport Beach will hold that Me transfer is a public hearing on the consistent with the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA application of The Irvine intent of tire' General Company for Planned Plan and will not result DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general Community Amendment in any adverse traffic No. 2DD5-001 and Traffic' impacts. The project Study No. 2005 -004 on requires a Traffic Study circulation printed and published in the p p poDerty located at 1200- pursuant to the Traffic 1400 Newport Center Orange, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange Phasing ffrdinance' West Corporate 101 -1199 (7POTI NOTICE IS HEREBY State of California, and that attached Newport Center Road FURTHER GIVEN that a '(Fashion Island). The Mitigated Negatlre.Dec- properties are located in Iaration (MND) has been Notice is a true and complete copy as the Corporate Plaza prepared by the City of West Planned Commu- Newport Beach in con= was printed and published on the nity and Fashion Island nection with the appli- Planned Community, and following dates. cation noted above. The are designated for MND states that the commercial office and subject development co mmercial retail re-, with recommended mit. spectively. igation measures will not The frvine Company result in a significant proposes to transfer effect on the environ- aDDroximately 45,12C moot It is the present square feet of un-buill intention of the City to retail commercial floor accept the MND and DECEMBER 31.2005 supporting documents. This Is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the application. Copies of the MND and supporting documents I declare under penalty of perjury, hat p y p ry were available to ilablerpubl review and i during day (.., the foregoing is true and correct. y r"i w: review: f m period from 0cfabxr 14 through November 14, 2005 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Executed on DECEMBER 31.2005 Newport Boulevard. Newport, Beach. Cali- at Costa Mesa, California. fornia, 92658.8915, Sh644-3225. of ND remains available for review in r the offices of the Planning Department. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN , that said public hearing will Signature be held on January 10,! 2006. at the hour of 7:00 p.m. the Council Chambers of the New- port Beach City Nall, 330 3300 Newport Boule- vard, ��wDprt� each, CahTorma, 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 corre- spondence delivered to the City at. or prior to. the Public hearing. For information call (949) 644.3200. Cathy Malkemus, Deputy City Clerk, for LaVonne M. Narkless. City Clark City of Newport each Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot Pecember 31, 2005 Sa963