Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - PRES Office Building B - PA2007-213 - 4300 Von KarmanCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 12 Agenda Item No. February 22, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department, Planning Division Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner 949- 644 -3236, jbrown(ccDnewportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) 4300 Von Karman Avenue • General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 (County TMP No. 2008 -123) APPLICANT: Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES, Inc.) ISSUE The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, and a Tentative Parcel Map to accommodate development of a new 11,960- gross- square -foot commercial office building. A waiver. of the requirement for a development agreement is also requested. 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. CC 1) documenting the following City Council actions: a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009; and c. Approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No, PD2007 -006; and d. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -006, subject to findings and conditions; and -0 v 3F- X F�gKucK g 5 �� ' �. k w � ?�Y 11 �t� �'P �i� ?• i L PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 3 DISCUSSION Project Overview The project site is located within the Koll Center Planned Community near the southeast intersection of Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. The 1.28 -acre site is currently developed with a 6,850- gross- square -foot (GSF) single -story office building, and an 84 -stall parking lot. The applicant proposes to develop an 11,960 -GSF office building comprised of two levels of office space over a ground -level parking structure. The new office building would be located east of the existing building within an area of the existing parking lot. The following approvals are requested in order to implement the project: 1. A General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit for Anomaly Location #2 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element by 11,544 GSF. 2. An amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet (NSF). 3. A tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing single parcel of land into two separate parcels comprised of approximately 32,395 GSF (Parcel 1), and approximately 23,383 GSF (Parcel 2). The proposed new office building would be located on Parcel 2. 4. An exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 NSF to one space for each 250 NSF. 5. A waiver of the requirement for a development agreement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15.45 (Development Agreements) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Please refer to the attached August 5 and August 19, 2010, Planning Commission Staff Reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project, application requests, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project (Attachment No. CC 3). Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the project and related application requests on August .5 and August 19, 2010, and voted (5 ayes, with 2 excused) to adopt Resolution 3 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 4 No. 1819 recommending that the City Council approve the project as proposed and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). At the August 5, 2010, Planning Commission hearing, comments were submitted in writing and presented orally in opposition of the project on behalf of the property owner of the adjacent property located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue. Concern was expressed about the Charter Section 423 analysis, the project's inconsistency with the General Plan, and the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project. Additional public comments were submitted in writing and presented at the August 19, 2010, meeting expressing similar concerns. Please refer to the Environmental Review section below for a discussion regarding the comments related to the environmental document. At the August 19, 2010, meeting, staff provided the Planning Commission with additional analysis regarding project consistency with General Plan policies, and clarification regarding Charter Section 423. The Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Charter Section 423 analysis to be correct and adequate. The Planning Commission determined that an amendment to the planned community text to increase the allowable building area, and to grant exceptions of the development standards with regard to minimum lot size and off - street parking requirements, would meet..the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development standards. The Planning Commission determined that the findings required per NBMC Section 19.12.070 are supported by facts to approve the proposed parcel map. The statement of facts, findings and facts in support of the findings are reflected in Resolution No. 1819 adopted by the Planning Commission on August 19, 2010 (Attachment No. CC 4). Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of any major General Plan Amendment. Council Policy A -18; which implements Charter Section 423, requires that proposed amendments to the General Plan be reviewed to determine if a vote of the Newport Beach electorate would be required. A major General Plan Amendment is one that significantly increases allowed intensity by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicles trips, or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. These thresholds apply to the total increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 80 percent of the increases resulting from other previously approved General Plan Amendments within the same Statistical Area adopted within the preceding ten years. The project site is located within Statistical Area L4, and if approved, the General Plan Amendment would result in an increase of 11,544 GSF of non - residential floor area. Based on the trip generation rates provided in Council Policy A -18 for a "General Office I PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 5 Building" use category, the proposed increase in non - residential floor area is forecast to generate an additional 17.89 a.m. peak hour trips and 17.20 p.m. peak hour trips. Since adoption of the 2006 General Plan there has been two prior amendments which were adopted on January 9, 2007, and January 11, 2011. These two prior General Plan Amendments are shown in Table 1 below. The increase attributable to this proposed General Plan Amendment, when added to 80 percent of the two prior General Plan Amendments, does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold of 40,000 square feet, does not add any residential dwelling units, and does not exceed the a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips threshold of more than 100 a.m. or 100 p.m. peak hour trips. Airport Land Use Commission The project site is within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Airport Planning Area. Projects that are located within the AELUP Airport Planning Area and that require a General Plan amendment are referred to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the AELUP prior to adoption by the City. At its October 21, 2010, meeting, the ALUC voted unanimously to find the project consistent with the AELUP for John Wayne Airport and with the AELUP for Heliports. Development Agreement Chapter 15.45 provides that development agreements shall be required in conjunction with City approval of a project that requires a General Plan Amendment or other legislative act, and includes non - residential development in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The proposed project meets these parameters. The applicant requests a waiver of the requirement for a development agreement pursuant to the provisions of NBMC Section 15.45.020.C. This section of the NBMC provides that the City Council may waive the requirement for a development agreement, except for one required by General Plan Policy, if it finds one of the following: • The legislative act is of a minor nature; or 5 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 6 • The project provides significant public benefits to the City; or • The nature of the project is such that neither the City nor the developer would benefit from a development agreement. The applicant has provided factors in support of each of the above findings that could justify a waiver of the requirement for a development agreement. Is the project a "minor legislative act ?" The applicant contends that the project is minor in nature because it consists of an 11,544 -GSF increase in floor area to the General Plan, does not involve a change to the site's land use designation, and does not involve any residential uses. Further, the project does not exceed the criteria for a major General Plan Amendment as defined in Charter Section 423. Does the project "provide significant public benefits to the City ?" The applicant asserts the project site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR', is underutilized and is unable to perform at its highest and best use under the existing provisions of the General Plan. Without an increase to the allowable development limits in the General Plan, the project site is limited to an addition to the existing building or replacement with a new building that would be 7,266 square feet in area. An office building of this size requires 33 parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of 51 parking spaces. The applicant states that with project approval, the project would provide the following significant benefits to the City: • The project site is adjacent to areas designated as "opportunity sites" on Figure LU 23 ( "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram ") of the General Plan Land Use Element, and identified as ideal areas for future housing opportunities. The project will provide employment opportunities in an area where existing office and /or industrial uses may be replaced with future mixed - use residential villages. • The project would provide short-term employment opportunities in construction and long -term employment opportunities for up to 53 individuals. Approval of the project could help to maintain the City's jobs -to- housing balance as commercial and /or industrial uses are replaced with mixed -use residential villages. There is no entitlement remaining in the General Plan. The existing building consists of 6,850 GSF in area; 416 square feet was demolished and removed during renovation and conversion of the building from a restaurant use to an office use in 2005. The change from a less intense use resulted in a surplus of parking spaces. In 2006 an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text resulted in a transfer of development rights and a restaurant use is no longer permitted on the project site. M. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 7 • The project would generate additional tax revenue for the City. The project would be subject to fair share traffic contribution fees in the approximate amount of $29,000. These fees would offset a portion of improvements to the circulation system necessary to accommodate traffic volume generated by the project. • The project would be adequately served by existing public facilities, infrastructure and services. The increased floor area as a result of the project would not exceed existing service levels for public services or facilities. Under what circumstances would neither the City nor the developer benefit from a development agreement due to the "nature of the project ?" A development agreement provides a developer a vested right to proceed and complete a project without the uncertainty of future changes in policies or regulations. This factor is important with larger or long -term projects. A development agreement also allows the City greater latitude to advance local planning policies and it provides flexibility in addressing project- related impacts that may occur in the future or those that might occur across jurisdictional boundaries. The applicant contends that this finding can be made given the nature of the project in, that it is small, no significant environmental impacts would be created, adequate infrastructure presently exists, there is no proposed change in land use, and that the proposed office building is compatible with the surrounding office /business park. The project is not a long -term project, and would be constructed in a single phase. Although the developer would technically receive the "benefit' of the vested right to proceed, the actual benefit is insignificant given that should the project be approved, the applicant would simply need to obtain a building permit. Staff believes that the City does not need a development, agreement to accomplish its objectives given that the area is largely built out, has public infrastructure necessary to accommodate the proposed project, and the project does not present any environmental or compatibility issues. Staff acknowledges that if the applicant were willing to agree to provide additional public benefit through a negotiation process, the City could derive a benefit. Environmental Review The City Council must first review, consider and adopt the MND prior to taking action on the requested General Plan and Planned Community text amendments, the tentative parcel map, and the request for an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards. The MND was circulated for a 20 -day public review period from May 19 through June 7, 2010. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 8 During the public review period, comment letters were received from four agencies, and a law firm representing the property owner of the adjacent property (4320 Von Karman Avenue). These five comment letters are attached to the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. PC 6 of the report). Three additional comment letters were submitted to the Planning Commission on August 5 and August 19, 2010 (Attachment No. CC 5). The letters submitted on behalf of the adjacent property owner raised a variety of issues regarding the adequacy of the MND related to the following topics: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Transportation and Traffic. An Errata to the MND was prepared to address modifications to the CEQA document related to the issues raised in the comment letters. The new information in the Errata was provided to clarify and augment the evaluation provided in the draft MND. Based on the additional evaluation, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and the conclusions in the MND remained unchanged. The comment letters submitted on behalf of the adjacent property owner assert that the PRES Office Building B project is "part of a larger project affecting the Koll Center' (in reference to the Koll /Conexant residential project, and the Newport Business Plaza project), and that the three projects "must be analyzed together in a single EIR." While each of the three projects are located within the same general vicinity of the City, neither project is dependent upon the other project approval in order for one or all of the proposed projects to be implemented. The comment letters also assert there is a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental impacts and that an EIR must be prepared for the project. Staff disagrees with this assertion. The commenter has not provided a fair argument, but rather unsubstantiated opinions. As identified in the MND and Errata, the proposed project does not result in significant impacts to the environment. Substantial evidence is provided in the MND and Errata that the environmental 'impacts associated with the project would result in no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The applicant has met with the owner of the adjacent property to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed project and the adequacy of the MND. Staff has been informed that the two parties have reached an agreement, whereby the adjacent property owner has agreed to withdraw its challenge and objections to the project and the MND. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process was also noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California L] PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) February 22, 2011 Page 9 Environmental Quality Act were given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Conclusion Staff recommends that the City Council waive the requirement for a development agreement based upon facts in support of the three considerations of Section 15.45.020.0 as discussed previously in this report. As proposed, the project is consistent with the General Plan policies, and does not exceed the thresholds of Charter Section 423 to require a vote of the Newport Beach electorate. An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area and to grant exceptions to the development standards would meet the intent of the planned community development considerations, and the required findings to approve the requested parcel map to support the proposed building are supported by facts. Project approval also does not present any environmental or compatibility issues. Alternative If you do not wish to follow staffs recommendation, we request your direction, and that the project be continued to allow staff sufficient time to address your direction. Prepared by: J et goWson Brown A =W Planner Attachments: Submitted by: rk k(4 a es W. Campb II Acting Planning Director CC 1: Draft City Council Resolution CC 2: Draft City Council Ordinance CC 3: Planning Commission Staff Reports dated August 5 and August 19, 2010 CC 4: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 CC 5: Comment Letters dated August 5 and August 19, 2010 .1 Eas r � A,,- s i "e 51go L t� 'Feet {aL�a f"d 4Wx4 ite 0 A ®5960Tf Use Avery Template 5160 Feed paper expose op -up EdgeTM j 44512205 MAKAR VDV LLC 41QO MAC RITIUR HIND 20) NEWPORT BI -,ACIL CA 92600 3451:3103 CONFXAN ' SYS rEms INC 4000 MACAWFF -RIR BI..Vn NEWPORT BEACH CA 92060 44513111 PRES4340 VON KARM,AN L P 4300 VON KAR vfAN AVE NEWPORT AFACEI. CA 92560 44513127 4200 VON KARMAN LLC 1401 QUAIL ST 100 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 -4451221116 M11AN LLC. (W50 NEWPOR I C1*91TR DR 650 tiEWPORT IMACH, CA 924x)1) 44713105 PRES -LA1 ,',SIDE I. P 4300 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT l3PAC(L CA 42660 44513116 MBC HOLDINGS 4320 VON KAPAAN AVE NEWPORT HEACH, CA 92060 44513128 KCN A MANAGEMENT LLC 4343 VON KARMANAVE 11EWXW1X)R 1" BEACH, CA 92660 44513162 CONI,XAN 1 SYISJT;MS INC 4000 MACARJIKIR BLVI:) NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 44513110 4350 VON KA.R.N"NI L {.0 r 4350 VON KARMAN A VE 4. N1_WiPOR r REACH. CA 92660 44513123 1220 VK LLC 1421 N IWANDA RD 166 ORANGE, CA 92867 445131 13 44613118 44612217 TST MacArthur LLC Cornerstone Partners IV LLC Pacific Club 1600 Dove St#480 1.0866 Wilshire Blvd #800 4110 MacArthur Blvd Newport Beach, CA 9266;0 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Brook Morris Newport Hills Association 1939 Port Laurent Newport Beach, CA 92660 Richard s. Zeilenga, Esq., Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & TreigerLLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Ste 330 Westlake Village, CA 91361 445 - 131 -18 445- 122-95 Cornerstone Partners IV LLC Craig Fealty Group- MacArthur 18818 Teller Avenue #277 4100 MacArthur Blvd #200 Irvine, CA 92612 Newport Heath, CA 92660 Ht3A — NIA ¢ ,,yy,��y�yAL 6 �_ Repliez 6 fa hachure afin de Q Sens d.0154 a ent .6v61a In roF....l Ow.�11.TM 1. Mr. Tim Gehrich, AICP Manager of Planning & Development Svcs. City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 -9575 PA2007 -213 - Notice of Intent to adopt Ill - PR E$ Office Building B Project Consurtex is feV&VW.ave?"WaerY.WM r t$'aAe$rrarffSn+L onn r_., ieiL�aGCi.kVF�?'V I. Easy Peel® labels Use Avery® Template 51600 445 12205 RESIDENT 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 122 17 RESIDENT 4110 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 131 05 RESIDENT 4300 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 131 16 RESIDENT 4320 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 A Rend along line to I Q AVERY® sgisci ' i Feed Paper expose Pop•Up EdgeT°' } } j 445 122 06 445 122 17 RESIDENT RESIDENT 4343 VON KARMAN AVE 4112 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 131 02 RESIDENT 4321 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 131 10 RESIDENT 4350 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 13123 RESIDENT 4220 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 13103 RESIDENT 4311 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 131 11 RESIDENT 4340 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 13127 RESIDENT 4200 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 445 13128 KCN Mgt I: I, i ttiquettes faciles h peler A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom Utlllsez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ­Sens de rcv3�w. �e .ai....d o....u.am +_vnn_cn_nucov q is 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: PRIES Office Building B - A request for a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit for Anomaly Location #2 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet to accommodate the development of a new three -story office building. Also requested is an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) text to increase the Allowable Building Area for Professional and Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet (NSF). A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the existing 55,770- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. The applicant also requests an exception to the planned community general development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet per parcel, and a change in the off - street parking requirement from one space per 225 square feet NSF to one space per 250 square feet of NSF. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the requirement for a development agreement. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the project noted above. The MND states that the proposed subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject applications. The MND was circulated for a 20-day public review and comment period that began on May 19, 2010 and concluded on June 7, 2010. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. if you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the City Council meeting (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at or prior to, the review. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office ,(Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Thursday prior to the hearing. For more information please call 949 - 644 -3204. For questions regarding details of the project, please contact Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner at (949) 644 -3236 or ibrownCa2newportbeachca.gov. Activity No.: General Plan Amendment No. 2007- ;Project File No.: PA2007 -213 009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -006, and Parcel Map No. 2010 -005 Zone: PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned General Plan: Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2) Community) 'Location: 4300 Von Karman Avenue Applicant: Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRE,,Stt, ,Inc.) Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Tmplt 11 /23/09 - PROOF OF PUBLICATION RECD /ED 2011 FS 23 Ali 11: 00 OFFICE OF THE CITY COK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) CITY OF rJRTORT BEO ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH /COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): February 12, 2011 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 11, 2011 at Costa Mesa, California i' 1,2 , ocl/X --­f Signatur NOii(E OF PUBLIC RMNO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 7:90 P.m., a public hearing will be conduct- ed In the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach, The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the folfaw- 17 - A request for a Gen - enl Plan Amendment to Increase the maximum allowable development limit for Anomaly Loca: tion 92 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet to accommodate the development of a new three -story office building. Also requested is an amendment to the Kell Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) teat to increase the Allowable Building Area for Professional and Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet (NSF). A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the exist- parcel of land onto two separate parcels. The applicant also requests an exception to the planned community general development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet per parcel, and a change in the off - street parking: re- quirement from one space per 225 square feet NSF to one space per 250 square feet of NSF. The applicant is also requesting waiver It the requirement for a de v e l a pm a n proposed subject devel- opment will not resuit in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting doc- uments- This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject applications. The MIND was circulated for a 20 -day public review and comment period that began on May 19, 2010 and concluded on June d, 2010. All Interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the City Council meeting (described in this no. tice) or in written car. respondence delivered to the City, at or prior to, the review. The agenda, staff report, and dearmonts may be reviewed at the Cfry Clerk's Office or grow an rho rnorsday prlm to the hearing. For more intarmation please call 949.644- 3204. For questions regarding details of the project, please contact Janet Johnson Brown, Associ- ate Planner at (949) 644 -3236 or Lbrewn@newport eoncca.ggov. Frolect File No.: 2001 -006, and Parcel Map No. 2010 -005 Zones: PC -15 (Kali Can- Horizontal 2 4300 Von Inc. (PRIES , Inc.) Lenient Attachment No. CC 1 Draft City Council Resolution 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007 -009, APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006,. APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005, AND APPROVING EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2007 -213) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect to. property located at 4300 Von Karmen Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55;779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and 4) an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet. 2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross - square -foot commercial office building. 3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center . Newport (PC -15) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed- Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 5, and August 19; 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 13 City Council Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 2 of 12 6. At the August 29, 2010, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5 ayes with 2 excused to recommend that the City Council approve the project application as proposed, subject to findings and conditions of approval. At its regular meeting of October 21, 2010, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County considered the project and voted to find the project consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. 8. The applicant filed a request for a waiver of the requirement of a development agreement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15.45 of the NBMC. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on February 2011, 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 NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The .draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. An Errata to the MND, dated August 13, 2010, was prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft MND. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the MND is not required when new information is added to the document which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. 4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The MND and MMRP attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby. adopted by the City Council. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision City Council Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pace 3 of 12 for recommendation was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 6. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is identified as Anomaly Location #2. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU- 1­12). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial office building is consistent with this designation. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infiil with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values'that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: • The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface parking lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted it to office use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text in 2006, a restaurant is no longer a permitted use. As a result, there is now a surplus of unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is no entitlement remaining, future development on this site is limited to replacement of the existing j5 City Council Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) building, with a new 7,266- square -foot building. The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was originally used as a restaurant site with the required off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the project site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its highest and best use. The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the project site which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities for approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal location for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits would provide employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses are replaced with the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the Airport Area. • The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs - to- housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the Airport Area. • The increased development limit would allow for development and in811 with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. • The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. • As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. 'The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and. 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6. 15.1 provides for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is consistent with this policy as follows: 1 The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use. I(� City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 5 of 12 The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. 4. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling unit thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment, with the increased development limit of 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trip threshold, and does not create any new dwelling units. 5. The General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies. 6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,863 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments. 7. The granting of the exception to subdivide land into two separate parcels, comprised approximately 23,383 square feet can be following findings: A. Finding: the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of of approximately 32,395 square feet, and made subject to the facts in support of That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. A.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because: Fr, City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 6 of 12 The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MIND). • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. • The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than other lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karman: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karman: 23,065 square feet; and 4040 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). B. Finding: That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. BA Facts in Support of Finding: The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center. The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shall include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials 2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and /or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit. i City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 7 of 12 B.2. Facts in Support of Finding: If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: • A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B. • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the site. • The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. • The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. 8. The granting of the exception to the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet can be made because this parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66 of the NBMC, and adequate off - street parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided. 9. A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development of the new office building has been prepared in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: A. Finding: That the proposed map and the design.or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding_ A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed - project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the iq City Council Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 8 of 12 General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and the MU -1-12 land use designation. B. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site. C. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Facts in SuDDort of Findina: C -1. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, . and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Errata to the MND dated August 13, 2010, was prepared in order to clarify data in the MND, and support the conclusions reached in the draft MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the MND is not required as a result of the Errata because in consists of new information added to the MND that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. D. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 20 City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 9 of 12 Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire. Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public. health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. E. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: EA The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the, proposed development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map. F. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California land Conservation Act of 9965 (tMlllamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. 2l City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 10 of 12 G. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding_ GA The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located within a specific plan area. . H. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, Facts in Support of Findina: H.1 The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding_ 1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. 22 City Council Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -21 J. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB'). Facts in Support of Finding: J.1 The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. K. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Findina: K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone, SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit W. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3, The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and approve a 23 City Council Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 12 of 12 change in the off - street parking requirement of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "D". . 5. The City Council of the City. of Newport Beach does hereby waive the requirement for a development agreement 6. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve the PRIES Office Building B Project subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth herein in Exhibit "D." Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 22nd of February, 2011, by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 24° EXHIBIT "N' Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measure, Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation& Monitoring Lritials Date Remarks MonitoringA enc Brologrc113esources _ - - - - - _ _ BIO -1 The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not During construction Project be scheduled during the avian nesting season construction (approximately February 1 through August 31) contractor to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February I and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area. _= . CulturalRe sources - CR -I Project plans shall specify that that a qualified During construction Project paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that construction potential paleontological resources are contractor discovered. During construction, the contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall he curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be 25 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation& Monitoring Initials Date Remarks Monitorifla Agency prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. - - - Geology.afld Soils .. '.: .._ - _ GEO -i Prior to approval of grading permits, soil Prior to issuance of City ofNewport preparation measures to minimize expansion grading permits Beach Building potential shall be identified by the applicant in Department construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re-used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture- conditioned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTK standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field inspections. GEO -2 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of grading permits Beach Building non - expansive materials, moisture- conditioned Department to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that wail backfill soils shall grading permits Beach Building consist of granular, cohesionless backfill with Department sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index less than 20. The characteristics of the fill . soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading.plan specifications. ... Hydrology aiid Watei, Qgaltty WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance of City of Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved by the grading permits Beach Public City a SWPPP to be impletnented during Works . construction, which shall include BMPs to Department prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater 7> No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Com liance 'Initials Date Remarks Implementation& Monitoring Monitoring Agency protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Diversion of off -site runoff away from the construction site. • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities. • Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -site transport of sediment. • Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. • Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. Norse 7 - = – — _ N -1 All noise - producing project equipment and During final design City ofNewport vehicles using internal combustion engines shall and prior to plan Beach Code be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers check approval Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing features in good City of Newport operating condition that meet or exceed original Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" Department equipment(e.g., an welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment During grading, site City of Newport used on the proposed project that is regulated for preparation, and Beach Code noise output by a local, state, or federal agency construction Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used During final design City of Newport instead ofpneumatic or internal combustion– and prior to plan Beach Code powered equipment, where feasible. check approval Enforcement During grading, site City of Newport preparation, and Beach Building construction Department N -4 Mobile noise - generating equipment and During, grading, site City of Newport machinery shall be shut off when not in use. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department 27 No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation& Monitoring Monitoring Agency N -5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, site City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be preparation, and Beach Code located as far as practical from noise - sensitive construction Enforcement receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -6 Construction site and access road speed limits During, grading, site City of Newport shall be established and enforced during the preparation, and Beach Code construction period. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -7 The use of noise- producing signals, including During, grading, site City of Newport horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for preparation, and Beach Code safety warning purposes only, construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -8 No project - related public address or music During, grading, site City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -9 The onsito construction supervisor shall have the During final design City of Newport responsibility and authority to receive and and prior to plan Beach Code resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process check approval Enforcement to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall During grading, site City of Newport allow for resolution of noise problems that preparation, and Beach Building cannot be immediately solved by the site construction Department supervisor. REVISED TABLE LU2 ANOMALY LOCATIONS 29 30 .. - 11.11 Anomoly Number Anomaly�16cations Statistical Area land Use Designation Development Limit (39 Development Umff Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included In total square footage) 2 L4 MU -1-12 4,880,4461.052.880 2a L4 MU-1-12 18 810 11,544 sf restricted to general office use oniv (included in total square kota e 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 34,500 7 L4 MU -H2 81,372 8 L4 MU -1-12 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -1-12 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -H2 457,880 13 L4 MG 288,264 14 L4 CO- GIMU -H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -1-12 33,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not fndaded In total square footage) 18 L4 CG 1 225,280 19 U CG 228,530 21 J6 COG 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO -G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 16,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 Pt 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 Pl 34,000 3! 32 EXHIBIT "C" REVISED FIGURE LU11 FOR STATISTICAL AREAS J6, L4 33 31 un�vrnonmsd Lanuew2cca 'f f CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERALPLAN Figure LU11 STATISTICAL AREAS J6, L4 Reeldelldel Helg[bmhooda nsa' 5nglaU,d Rasl4Mnel oa&dwi 1n•+ 5minUna RegdarnelAWClled Twuunit R.I�d -Munp! unll RniWW m[bb!eonn Rai I; ca had Ca ,Id Dlebkle nd M.. a_f N&ghbq dCmm[ dd �eJ Gdmmr Dam -Geneld Owmadd _ Y b, Serving C.. .i9 -RKmd!de0l vnd Mw me GRnMw - RBdefd Cmrna[ul Como AOldad Diemsle -G..1l mmerdalG m M"!cd Cenma[Id mg ® ROOad C[mmeclW CRC& II�IYDlstrine Indrsniel Nlpeet dnppabn9 Dl wd p�ylC " -a mdSUp,:Ming;,gaS MM&d A1fe Dohldls rN� uvee use vemca• LY 11 nlxod UOO R�IpUnk M1 M'MxaG US&VYe[erIXNe[ed RMft. SmdReblk.m Insdlla a firbl[fetllll!ec �Fnv�elrwWtlans �PaMS and Rxmefion k7ow Soew is MWaa"SUd WdLSnds iyp CCYMNawpWl ch 9 ,My Z,z' "I' L4 �, land L'sa Deinaela Line . Refeno encma'y kGa tip 36 X'6 37 �N EXHIBIT "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRES Office Building B 4300 Von Karman Avenue General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the PRES Office Building B Project including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. G132007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007- 006, and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations; the certification of the mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 2. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County. Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior, to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337' of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 3. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner, unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 39 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval Paae 2 of 4 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes. 5. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the property, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department, 8. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 9. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. 11. If required, prior to site plan approval and issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA (FAA Form 7460 -1) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The City shall refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission for consistency analysis. The Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, if required, prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel. 12. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by the private work, public works improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and alley /street reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non- standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right-of-way fronting the development site. 15. Arrangements shall be made with'the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel . map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. WE PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval Pace 3 of 4 16. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 17. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first plan check. The study recommendation(s) shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading the existing City sewer lateral shall be borne by the applicant. 18. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer lines along the southerly property lines. (Note: The new easements do not appear to impact the proposed development.) 19. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 20. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 21. The parking layout and circulation is subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD- 805 -L -B. 22. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so it does not impact the overall circulation of the site. 23. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 24. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 25. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 26. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible �1 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval Paae 4 of 4 materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 27. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures 28. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project. Attachment No., CC 2 Draft City Council Ordinance 43. M. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006 (PA2007 -213) WHEREAS, an application was filed for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, a Tentative Parcel Map, and exceptions to the Koil Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect to property located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcet Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Orange County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the project includes a General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, and Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a new 11,960- gross - square -foot commercial business building. The General Plan Amendment would increase the maximum allowable development limit of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only. The Planned Community Development Plan Amendment would amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Site B by 9,917 net square feet, and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2010, and August 19, 2010, 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; and WHEREAS, at the August 5, 2010, and August 19, 2010, public hearings, the Planning Commission received public comments, and at the August 19, 2010 meeting, voted (5 ayes and 2 absent) to recommend approval of the proposed Planned Community Development Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on February 22, 2011, 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 and State Law. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan is a legislative act. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments; and WHEREAS, the General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards IN for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet, would meet the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period that began on May 19, 2010, and concluded on June 7, 2010. The contents of the MND and comments on document the were considered by the Planning Commission at the August 5, 2010, and August 19, 2010, public hearings; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was completed to implement all mitigation measures required by the MND; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Koll Center Newport Planned Community text shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "A ", with all other provisions of the existing Planned Community District Regulations remaining unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 22, 2011, and adopted on March 8, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS 1 0 ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 2-11511i 47 49 Exhibit "A" Planned Community Development Plan Amendment EXHIBIT - A 50 PART lI Section 1. Group I COMMERCIAL Site Area and Building Area PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) FA Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Building Site (4) Total Acreage 30.939 acres * (29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres ($) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) Allowable Building Area Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5,317 acres (8) 122.574 acres 8)(10)(11) 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) 967,803 square f (1-6)E200} 977.720 square feet (13)(16)(28)(31) 674,800 square feet (10)(15) 240,149 square feet (8)(13) 32,500 square feet (4) 42,646 square feet (4) (30) 45,000 square feet (8) 2,350,699 square feet (15)(*) *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) S1 C. 2. Site B Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. Allowable Building Area Site Area a. IM C. Building height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parking 9,2263259 cars ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30) ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) Landscaped Open Space (11) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Land Coverage (16,28,30) ............... 4 -1-1 -1 -11.22 acres ......:........ 8447.48 acres ............... 3335.61 acres ............... 4-044.49 acres ............... 393.74 acres ............... 3473.21 acres ............... 2:782.81, acres ............... 2:452.49 acres ............... 2252.24 acres ............... 2:852.04 acres ............... 4431.87 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) ............... 26.8827.16 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) .............. 3:715.32 acres 9-119.06 acres ............... 41 2710_93 acres ............... 43812.05 acres ............... 1212.80 acres ............... 43:6513.33 acres ............... 44:8413.73 acres 411:3514.05 acres ............... 446814.30 acres ............... 445014_50 acres. ............... 449714.67 acres 52 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRIES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments Prepared far: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658 Contact: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner 949/644 -3236 Prepared by: JCF Jones & Stokes 1 Ada, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Nicole Williams 949/333 -6600 July 2010 ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration For PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. July. (ICF J &S 00873.09.) Irvine, CA. Prepared for City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. Newport Beach CA. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................1 -1 Overview..................................................................... ............................1 -1 Authority...................................................................... ............................1 -1 Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ... .................. 1 -2 ImpactTerminology .................................................... ............................1 -2 Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Cultural Resources .................................................... Declaration.................................................................. ............................1 -3 Chapter 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting .... ............................2 -1 Overview.................................................................. ............................... 2 -1 Objectives................................................................... ............................2 -1 Location...................................................................... ............................2 -1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ... ............................2 -2 RegulatorySetting ...................................................... ............................2 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan .................... ............................2 -2 City of Newport Beach Zoning Code .................... ............................2 -3 Koll Center Newport Planned Community ............ ............................2 -3 Airport Land Use Plan ........................................... ............................2 -4 Description............................................................... ............................... 2 -4 General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community Amendment ......................... ............................2 -4 Office Building Development .................................................. .......... 2 -5 Construction Activities .......................................... ............................2 -6 Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist .................... ............................3 -1 Aesthetics................................................................ ............................... 3 -5 Agriculture and Forest Resources .............................. ............................3 -7 AirQuality ................................................................... ............................3 -9 Biological Resources ................................................. ...........................3 -16 Cultural Resources .................................................... ...........................3 -19 Geologyand Soils ...................................................... ...........................3 -22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................... ...........................3 -27 Hazards and Hazardous Materials . ...................................................... 3-32 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................... ...........................3 -37 Land Use and Planning ...... .................................................................. 3 -44 Mineral Resources ............................................. ................................... 3 -46 Noise............................................................ ........................................ 3 -47 Population and Housing ............................................. ...........................3 -54 PRES Office Building B July 2010 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Table of Contents Land Use Consistency Analysis PublicServices .......................................................... ...........................3 -56 Recreation................................................................. ...........................3 -58 Traffic Calculations Transportation and Traffic .......................................... ...........................3 -59 Appendix G Utilities and Service Systems .................................... ...........................3 -66 Preliminary Hydrology Report Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................... ...........................3 -73 Chapter 4 Errata to the Draft IS/ MND ............................................................... ..... 4 -1 Introduction................................................................. ............................4 -1 Changes to the Draft IS/ MND ..................................... ............................4 -1 Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist .. ............................4 -1 Chapter 4. References ................ .............................................. ..... 4 -19 Chapter 5 References ................................................................ ............................5 -1 Printed References ..................................................... ............................5 -1 Personal Communications .......................................... ............................5 -4 Chapter 6 List of Preparers ....................................................... ............................6 -1 City of Newport Beach ................................................ ............................6 -1 ICFJones & Stokes .................................................... ............................6 -1 Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Appendix B Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix C Land Use Consistency Analysis Appendix D Noise: Terminology, Field Sheets, and General Plan Land Use Compatibility Matrix Appendix E Traffic Calculations Appendix F Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Appendix G Biological Memorandum Appendix H Preliminary Hydrology Report PRES Office Building B July 2010 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration icF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Tables Table Page 2 -1 Proposed General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text Amendments ................................... ............................2 -5 2 -2 Construction Activities ................................................ ............................2 -6 3 -1 Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions ........... ...........................3 -11 3 -2 Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions .......... ...........................3 -12 3 -3 Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions ............. ...........................3 -13 3 -4 Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions ............ ...........................3 -14 3 -5 Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................3 -28 3 -6 Estimate of Project Conformity to AB 32 ................... ...........................3 -31 3 -7 Short -Term Sound Level Measurement Data ............ ...........................3 -48 3 -8 Typical Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors from Construction Activities .......................... ............... ................ ................. 3 -50 3 -9 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................. .... .................. ......... 3 -52 3 -10 Roads in the Vicinity of the Project Site ..................... ...........................3 -60 3 -11 Volume -to- Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Ranges ......................3 -61 3 -12 Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees . ...........................3 -62 3 -13 Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program Intersections ................................................ ...........................3 -63 3 -14 Irvine Ranch Water District Current and Planned Water Supplies..................................................................... ...........................3 -69 3 -15 Past, Current, and Future Water Uses ...................... ...........................3 -70 PRES Office Building B July 2010 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents 3 -16 Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Capacity ....................... ...........................3 -72 PRES Office Building B July 2010 IV Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Figures Figure Follows Page 2 -1 Regional Location .............. ................ ... ......... ... ............... ................... .... 2 -2 2 -2 Local Vicinity Map ....................................................... ............................2 -2 2 -3 Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Use ......... ............................2 -2 2 -4 General Plan Land Use Designation and Statistical Area Location...................................................................... ............................2 -4 2 -5 Proposed Project Plan ....................................................... ..................... 2 -4 2 -6 Proposed Project Elevations ....................................... ............................2 -6 2 -7 Proposed Project Rendering ....................................... ............................2 -6 3 -1 Designated Public Viewpoints .................................... ............................3 -6 3 -2 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas ...... ...........................3 -24 3 -3 Noise Measurement Locations .................................. ...........................3 -48 3 -4 Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas . ..................................... 3 -68 3 -5 Water Infrastructure and Service Areas ..................... ...........................3 -68 PRES Office Building B July 2010 v Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration icF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ADT average daily trip AELUP Airport Environment Land Use Plan AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Basin South Coast Air Basin BMPs best management practices CaIEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane City City of Newport Beach CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalent DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dBA A- weighted decibels EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FTA Federal Transit Administration GHGs greenhouse gases HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IPS inch per second PRES Office Building B July 2010 vi Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Content IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District IS /MND Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Leq. equivalent continuous noise level LOS level of service LST Localized Significance Threshold MMT million metric tons MRZ Mineral Resource Zones MU -H2 Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 N20 nitrous oxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 ozone OCSD Orange County Sanitation District PC -15 Planned Community Koll Center PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in size PM2.5 particulate matter 10 microns or less in size PPV peak particle velocity PRES Professional Real Estate Services proposed project PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planning Community text amendments ROCS reactive organic compounds RTP Regional Transportation Plan SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District sox sulfur oxides SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan TPO Traffic Phase Ordinance USGS U.S. Geological Survey V/C volume -to- capacity ratios VMT vehicle miles traveled WQMP Water Quality Management Plan PRES Office Building B July 2010 Vii Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Chapter 1 Introduction Overview Authority Chapter 1 Introduction The City of Newport Beach (City) has prepared this Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the Professional Real Estate Services (PRES) Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (proposed project). The project site is located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach. As part of the permitting process for the City, and prior to consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The preparation of this IS /MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). One of the main objectives of CEQA is to disclose to the public and decision makers the potential environmental impacts of proposed activities. CEQA requires that the lead agency determine whether a project is subject to CEQA review or exempt under statutory exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 18, Sections 15260 et seq.) or categorical exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15300 et seq.). The City determined that the proposed project is not exempt from CEQA and therefore proceeded to the preparation of an IS to determine whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or an MND is appropriate. The City is the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA. The preparation of an IS is guided by Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and Sections 15070 -15075 of Article 6 guide the process for the preparation of an MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made to the statute, the State CEQA Guidelines, or appropriate case law. PRES Office Building B July 2010 1 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 1. Introduction This IS /MND meets CEQA content requirements by including a project description; a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for any significant impacts; discussion of consistency with plans and policies; and names of preparers. Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration This 1S /MND evaluates the proposed project's impacts on the following resource topics: is Aesthetics ■ Agriculture and Forest Resources In Air Quality is Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources is Geology and Soils ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials is Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Terminology is Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise is Population and Housing ■ Public Services is Recreation ■ Transportation and Traffic in Utilities and Service Systems The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts. ■ A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the proposed project would not affect the particular resource in any way. ■ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. in An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant. ■ An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. PRES Office Building B July 2010 1 -2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 1. Introduction Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections. ■ Chapter 1, "Introduction," identifies the purpose and scope of this IS/MND and the terminology used in the report. is Chapter 2, "Project Description and Environmental Setting," identifies the location, setting description, background, and planning objectives of the proposed project and describes the proposed project in detail. ■ Chapter 3, "Initial Study Environmental Checklist," presents the CEQA environmental checklist and responses for each resource topic in the checklist. This section includes a brief setting section for each resource topic and identifies the impacts of implementing the proposed project. is Chapter 4, "References," identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this IS /MND. is Chapter 5, "List of Preparers," identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their roles in the proposed project. PRES Office Building B July 2010 1 -3 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF 00873.09 Chapter 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting Overview Objectives Location Chapter 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, as well as development of an 1 1,960- gross - square -foot single- tenant office building proposed for construction in the City of Newport Beach, California. Details regarding the project objectives, location, environmental setting, and construction and operation of the proposed project are included in this chapter. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15124[b]) require that the project description contain a statement of objectives, including the underlying purpose of the proposed project. The objectives for the proposed project include: ■ accommodating the expanding departments of Professional Real Estate Services (PRES) and its affiliates, and ■ locating in proximity to the existing PRES Office Building A. The project site is located in the northernmost portion of the City of Newport Beach. The boundary between the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine is approximately 0.5 mile to the west and 1 mile to the north of the project site. Interstate 405 is located approximately 1.3 miles to the north, State Route 73 is located approximately 0.6 mile to the south, and San Diego Creek is located approximately 1 mile to the east/southeast of the project site. Figure 2 -1, Regional Location, depicts the regional location of the project area. The project site is located along Von Karman Avenue on Assessor's Parcel Number 445 -131- 05 in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The closest intersection to PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Project Description and Environmental Setting the project site is Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, less than 0.2 [Wile southwest of the site. Other land uses in the general vicinity of the project site include John Wayne Airport to the west and the San Joaquin Marsh and University of California, Irvine campus to the east and southeast. Figure 2 -2, Local Vicinity Map, shows the surrounding area of the project site. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project would be located on a currently developed lot. The lot is approximately 55,779 square feet and is currently occupied by surface parking spaces and the existing PRES Office Building A (PRES Investment). There are a total of 84 surface parking spaces and the existing PRES Office Building A is 6,850 gross square feet. The proposed project would be located between the PRES Office Building A and the neighboring office building to the east. The project site is currently surface parking spaces. It is generally void of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping. The surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial, office, and light industrial. Also adjacent to the site is a large retarding basin used to retain urban stormwater runoff (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Other commercial buildings are the Meyer Properties building located to the east and the Manly and Stewart building located to the west. Light industrial buildings occupied by Jazz Technologies, Bit Shield, Inc., and Conexant are located to the south/southwest. Figure 2 -3, Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Use, provides context for the project site. Regulatory Setting City of Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach (City) approved a comprehensive update to the General Plan in July 2006 (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The General Plan consists of eleven elements, including Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreational, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. The General Plan and each of these elements present a vision for the City's future and goals and policies to implement that vision. The project site is located in the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach. The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of John Wayne Airport and is in proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and the University of California, Irvine. This area includes a mixture of low -, medium -, and high -rise office uses as well as research and development and higher technology businesses (City of Newport Beach 2006a). PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Costa Ana Project Location N A a os t 2 M® 1 City of Newport Beach Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2008) ICF Stok s �^ , 1 F9 ❑ 2 Pa ci lic Ocean USA MEXICO Figure 2 -1 Regional Location PRES Office Building B R1 j Irvine �br 1 ♦�� 1 1 %y." ♦ % Newport Beach % San Joaquin Hi Is f_ � No part Coast 1 1 N A a os t 2 M® 1 City of Newport Beach Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2008) ICF Stok s �^ , 1 F9 ❑ 2 Pa ci lic Ocean USA MEXICO Figure 2 -1 Regional Location PRES Office Building B ICF� es& Figure 2 -2 Stokes Local Vicinity Map PRIES Office Building B 'CFJones& Figure 2 -3 Stokes Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Use PRES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Project Description and Environmental Setting The project site is designated as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU412) per the General Plan Land Use Element. The MU -112 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The properties surrounding the project site also have land use designations of MU -112 (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The development limit for the project site is identified in Table LU2 of the General Plan Land Use Element as Anomaly Number 2. Table LU2 provides precise development limits for each of the anomaly locations identified on each of the land use maps. The development limit for Anomaly Number 2 is 1,060,146 gross square feet as identified in Table LU2 (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Figure 2 -4, General Plan Land Use Designation and Statistical Area Location, shows the existing General Plan land use designations for the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4), including the project site. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The City of Newport Beach zoning code is intended to carry out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2009a). It is the intent of the zoning code to promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social and economic vitality of the neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City. The project site is currently zoned PC -15, Koll Center Newport Planned Community). The PC -15 text provides property development regulations for property located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Koll Center Newport Planned Community The Koll Center Newport is a 180 -acre planned community in the City of Newport Beach, adopted by the City on August 14, 1972 (Ordinance No. 1449). The Koll Center Newport was developed as a master planned campus office park. The planned community development standards provide comprehensive zoning for the area and limit the development of parcels by defining Allowable Building Areas for nine development sites (Office Sites A through F, Industrial Site 1, Retail and Service Site 1, and the Court House). The project site is located within a development site identified as Professional and Business Office Site B in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Allowable Building Area for Office Site B is 967,803 square feet as defined by the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text. PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -3 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Airport Land Use Plan Description Chapter 2. Project Description and Environmental Setting The project site is located in the Orange County Airport Environment Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, which is administered by the Airport Land Use Commission. The project site is within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any construction or alteration to buildings meeting specific criteria, including heights greater than 200 feet above ground level. The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which would accommodate the development of a new office building. Additionally, the proposed project includes a division of the existing parcel into two separate parcels and the preparation of a parcel map. Parcel one would include the existing office building and surface parking spaces, and parcel two would include the proposed office building and surface parking spaces. Figure 2 -5, Proposed Project Plan, identifies the proposed property line and the individual parcels. Discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include: ■ General Plan amendment ■ Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment ■ Tentative parcel map The proposed amendments and the proposed office building development plan are discussed separately below. General Plan Amendment and Koll Center Newport Planned Community Amendment The proposed project would increase the allowable development square footage on the project site. The General Plan amendment would increase the development limit in General Plan Anomaly Location 2 by 11,544 gross square feet, and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would increase the allowable building area in Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet. Table 2 -1 below summarizes the existing square footage limits, the proposed changes, and the net increase. PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -4 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2-4 General Plan Land Use Designation and Statistical Area Location PRES Office Building Site B CITYof NEWPORTBEACH %°` say G ENERAL PLAN Figure LLI1 I STATISTIC A L A REA S o '00A D as MU- H-22 0 0 J 6, L4 Residential Neighborhoods D Single-Unit Residential Detached %F Single -Unit Reside mia I Ana shed IT Two -Unit Reside nba I wj Mu kip le-Unit Reside ntia I XM o 14YM 0 Muftlple-Un it Reside ntla I Deu c hed PIP r sr Commercial Districts and Corridors Neighborhood Commercial AM cc_] Corridor Commercial =Genera icommercial visim,serving com,nercial 0; -Recmationaland Marine Co m mercial AM RegionalCommercial IT ... .. AMD CS - G- 1 Commercial Office Districts Pro'ect Site I Gene ralCommercial Office MedicalCommercial Office co R. Regiona I C ornmercla I Office Industrial Districts w Koll Center Industrial Airport Supporting Districts J 5 °O 11 Airport Office and Supporting Uses a, Mixed -Use Districts hlu V Mixed Use Vertical N" Mixed Use Ho&o.ta I -UR-7 Mixed Use Water Rela red Public, Semi-Public and Institutional IF Public Facilities M Private institutions =Parksand Recreation as OpenSpace Tidelands and Submerged Lands 0OOO Is, 40 City ofNewport Beach Boundary 8; NN StatisticalArea L4 WA ------------ --------- -- ----- -- -- Land Use DelineatorLine Refe r to a norna ly to ble 0 we 1A00 Feet uv L ---- L --- 1Lj VE Xh� -E4P ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2-4 General Plan Land Use Designation and Statistical Area Location PRES Office Building Site B ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -5 Proposed Project Plan PRIES Office Building B � 0 1. C) - °.; 6 ���■� Ipiii': .Iwo�'�.� II.��!�����I�II�� I �i IIII�IIIjpIVII�III�I�IIIIII i ■11�I�11�1111�VN I I�i�a :..� PIN 11 ilriii�u�ii�ii�ii�il�lii�iil�i�■ ��� ir.. ® .« (P)Property ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -5 Proposed Project Plan PRIES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Project Description and Environmental Setting Table 2 -1. Proposed General Plan and Kell Center Newport Planned Community Text Amendments Development] General Plan — Statistical Area 1_4 /Anomaly Koll Center Newport Planned Community Location 2 Text Office Site B (gross square feet) (net square feet)' Existing 1,060,146 967,803 Proposed project 1,071,690 977,720 Increase 11,544 9,917 I The General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text define square feet differently; thus, the numbers in the table for the proposed development are different. 2 The General Plan uses the term gross square footage to calculate development limits. Chapter 20.63 of the zoning code defines gross floor area, which is the same as applicable gross square footage, as "the area of a building or portion thereof including the surrounding exterior walls, except that outdoor dining areas utilized in conjunction with an eating and drinking establishment shall also be included. Any finished portion of the building which measures more than 4 feet from finished floor to ceiling and is accessible shall be included in calculations of gross floor area. Areas utilized for stairwells and elevator shafts shall be counted towards gross floor area only on the first level." 3 The Kell Center Newport Planned Community Text uses the term net square footage to calculate allowable building area. Chapter 20.03 of the zoning code defines net floor area as "the area included within the surrounding walls of a building, exclusive of vent shafts, elevator shafts, stairways, exterior corridors or balconies, rooms containing only mechanical and electrical equipment used for service of the building, utility shafts and parking." Office Building Development As discussed above, the proposed amendments would increase the allowable square footage to accommodate the development of a new 11,960 - gross- square - foot office building on the site that is currently occupied by a 6,850- gross - square- foot office building and 84 surface parking spaces. Approximately 25 stalls of the existing 84 stalls of surface parking and some existing landscaping would be demolished for the development of the proposed office building. The proposed office building would be a total of three levels: two levels of office space and a ground -level parking structure. The proposed building may be occupied by a single tenant, PRES, or it may have multiple tenants. An average of 53 employees would work at the proposed building. The parking structure would provide 12 parking spaces, and the exterior surface of project site would provide 30 parking spaces for a total of 42 parking spaces on the proposed parcel two. Primary access to the proposed project would remain from Von Karman Avenue. Figure 2 -5, Proposed Project Plan, illustrates the project site plan. The maximum height of the office building would be approximately 50 feet above the original grade. Figure 2 -6, Proposed Project Elevations, shows the side elevations of the proposed building. The architectural style of the office building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition of the PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -5 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Project Description and Environmental Setting building. The office buildings would incorporate a mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. Figure 2 -7, Proposed Project Rendering, shows an architectural rendering of the proposed building. Mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, would be screened from the public view by the height of the buildings. All equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of the equipment. Construction Activities Construction of the proposed office building is expected to begin in fall 2010 and end in summer 2011. Construction would last approximately 8 months and would include some overlap of construction activities. The activities and the durations are described in Table 2 -2 below. Table 2 -2. Construction Activities Activity Duration Demolition I week Grading and site preparation I month Building construction 6 months Asphalting 3 week Architectural finishing 3 months The construction staging area would be located along the southwest property line adjacent to the Conexant property. Access from the project site to the office buildings to the east may be temporarily unavailable during construction, but employees and visitors to these offices could use the other access road off Von Karmen Avenue. Since the site is already developed and the topography is flat, it is assumed there would be minimal soil disturbance during construction. No import or export of soil would be needed. Soil would be disturbed to an approximate depth of 5 feet to prepare for the building foundations. All buildings would comply with all applicable codes, including those related to seismic activity. Construction crews would work no more than 8 hours per day and would restrict their activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on non- federal- holiday weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. PRES Office Building B July 2010 2 -6 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Jones & I F Stokes Figure 2 -6 Proposed Project Elevations FIRES Office Building B PoxM CaP Smx1Y RW imM Mm9M �b. waeM. $mzN Rwl Tm" bIWM SVamlm SbY ikq�ple Ia. —MIV T q I mx p stone w�.r — saamn sw rrow mMya Cabr wa.M. orb w A �;S83 T +71 Sro , . imw m1agM = a�an CaP buwn _ _ _ _ _ AA T �� ..� ^^. Smxl� S1eY iroM MIyM Cab. %aslw UaMW IFw Omobe Glalkq Pace West t]evst m $ saamn sw rrow mMBa ` Cab. Nwlw at Yerhankvl Scorn Slalnbn SbN {bpede O 61aak 1cp tSbm�Vergev�J� ilw. +88.10' Y TA RnW 1x1 T - Smx1Y Sbtl imW MiNM br Ww er Z YMI lauwn 7 fin. 1W.6 90 k Gp > Sbrw Kma Sbm Krcv G rRw rWo Fw Y 3 A Y ------------ &ad PavE.r -C StM inoro Falvbr P. NmMr PIaiW ' oov we o .w iXa v South BeYetlon r+++•K V S Jones & I F Stokes Figure 2 -6 Proposed Project Elevations FIRES Office Building B SOURCE: LS Architects ICF Jones Figure 2 -7 Proposed Project Rendering PRIES Office Building B Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner 949/644 -3236 The project site is located on Assessor's Parcel Number 445 - 131 -05, at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach. The site is occupied by the PRES Office Building, in the Kell Center Newport Planned Community. Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES) Michael Tong 4300 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach CA 92660 Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2) PC -15, Koll Center Newport Planned Community See Chapter 2, Project Description. See Chapter 2, Project Description, John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission: although the proposed project is exempt from filing the Form 7460 -1 notice, a referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review is required due to the location of the proposal within the AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b), PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Cheddlst Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by this project (i.e., the project would involve at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ I. Aesthetics ❑ IV. Biological Resources ❑ VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ X. Land Use and Planning ❑ XIII. Population and Housing ❑ XVI. Transportation and Traffic Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: E] Agriculture and Forest Resources Resources ❑ V. Cultural Resources ❑ Vill. Hazards and Hazardous ❑ Materials ❑ XI. Mineral Resources ❑ XIV. Public Services El Utilities and Service Systems Systems ❑ III. Air Quality ❑ VI. Geology and Soils ❑ IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ XII. Noise ❑ XV. Recreation ❑ XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or ® agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an El ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has El been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to ❑ applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. ign Date PRIES Office Building B April 2010 Administrative Draft $_2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration icr• ass twers.os City of Newport Beach Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained if it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less - than - Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less- than - Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less - than- significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following. (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less- than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -3 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -4 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact 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 along a 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. Figure 3 -1, which represents Designated Public Viewpoints in the City of Newport Beach's (City's) General Plan, identifies the existing public view points throughout the City. The project site is not identified as a public viewpoint (City of Newport Beach 2OO6a), nor would the proposed three -level building obstruct views from any public viewpoints. The project site is located in a fully developed planned office complex, currently occupied by surface parking spaces, landscaping, and the existing PRES office Building A (PRES Investment). Therefore, as there are no scenic vistas in the general proximity of the project site, no impacts would occur. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? No Impact. The project site does not consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality. There are no historic buildings on site or in the project area that would be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (California Department of Transportation 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would not damage a scenic resource, and no impacts would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is located in a fully developed planned community and would not damage any scenic resources. The proposed project would blend PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -5 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist in with the existing character of the area and surrounding land uses. Approximately 25 % of the project site would be landscaped, and approximately 75% of the site would be paved. The maximum height of the office building would be approximately 50 feet above the original grade. The proposed architectural style of the building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition of the building. The proposed office building would incorporate a mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. Equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAQ units, would be screened from the public view by the height of the building. All equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of the equipment. Therefore, as the proposed project would be located in a fully developed planned community and the architectural components would blend in with the existing office- complex character of the area, impacts would be less than significant. d. Create anew source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area that is developed with a mixture of low -, medium -, and high -rise office uses as well as research and development and technology businesses. The existing parking lot is lighted for nighttime parking for safety purposes. Any lighting associated with the proposed project would be similar to the existing lighting in the area, and would not add substantial amounts of lighting to the area. Impacts would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -6 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Source: City of Newport Beach, 2005 ICFJones& Figure 3 -1 Stokes Designated Public Viewpoints PRES Office Building B N wP. IRVINE eav i •1 � a Y TNN•, 'Irere reE J °4 x fi Legend oEa J� J! - • Public View Point PACIFIC OCEAN ' _ Coastal View Road .mw E_ 4E 4 Shoreline Height vewao cos. Limitation Zone ^/ City Boundary OCounty - snve anae 0 o as Source: City of Newport Beach, 2005 ICFJones& Figure 3 -1 Stokes Designated Public Viewpoints PRES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No II. RESOURCES Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ conflict with a Williamson Act contract? C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ ❑ ❑ of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non - forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -7 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Discussion 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not convert any farmland to a non - agricultural use. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (California Department of Conservation 2009). The project site and the surrounding land are identified as "urban and built -up land" by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore, the project site is located in an existing developed commercial setting with no agricultural uses on or surrounding the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or agriculture use. The project site is currently zoned PC -15, Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which does not allow agricultural uses. The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of farmland not designated as Prime Farmland. The project site is not located within a Prime Farmland designation, nor does it consist of more than 40 acres of farmland. Therefore, the site is not eligible to be placed under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 511040)? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land. The project site is located in an urban area far from any forest lands. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The project site is located in an urban area far from any forest lands. Therefore, no impacts would occur. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use, nor result in the conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The project site is not currently used for agriculture and is not located in any forest. The project site is not located near or adjacent to any areas that are actively fanned or used for forest land. Therefore, the proposed project would not disrupt or damage the operation or productivity of any areas designated as farmland or forest land, and no farmland or forest land would be affected by the proposed project. No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -8 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8s 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? Discussion Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone [03], particulate matter 10 microns or less in size [PMto], and particulate matter 10 microns or less in size [PM2.5]). As such, the proposed project would be subject to SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -9 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment.' A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in its development. The most recent AQMP adopted by SCAQMD incorporates SCAG's 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. SCAG locates the project site within the City of Newport Beach Subregion. The 2008 RTP projects that employment in this subregion will grow by about 879 jobs between the years 2010 and 2020. The proposed project's addition of approximately 53 net new jobs would represent 6% of the total employment growth projected for the subregion (Southern California Association of Governments 2001). Such levels of employment growth are consistent with the forecasts for the subregion as adopted by SCAG, and as such are consistent with the AQMP. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less -than- Significant Impact. As discussed in Response III(a), the project site is located in the Basin. State and federal air quality standards often are exceeded in many parts of the Basin. The proposed project would contribute to air pollutant emissions during construction (short-term) and operations (long- term). A discussion of the proposed project's potential construction -period and operations - period air quality impacts are provided below. Regional Construction Impacts SCAQMD has established methods to quantify air emissions associated with construction activities such as air pollutant emissions generated by operation of on -site construction equipment, fugitive dust emissions related to grading and site work activities, and mobile (tailpipe) emissions from construction worker vehicles and haul/delivery truck trips. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. With respect to the proposed project, construction activities are expected to extend over a period of approximately 8 months. Major construction activities include demolition, grading and site preparation, and building construction. Building construction would involve activities such as asphalting and architectural finishing. There would be some schedule overlap of asphalting and architectural finishing during building construction. A mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled based on an estimate of construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing assumptions. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account: ■ combustion emissions from operating on -site construction equipment, ■ fugitive dust emissions from moving soil on site, and ■ mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel. For the purpose of estimating emissions associated with the construction activities, a project time frame of October 2010 through June 2011 was assumed. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The quantity, duration, and the intensity of construction 1 SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the Southern California region. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -10 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist activity have an effect on the amount of construction emissions, and related pollutant concentrations, occurring at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction would occur in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner- burning construction equipment fleet mix, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval). A conservative estimate of the proposed project's regional mass emissions during construction is presented in Table 3 -1 (Appendix A includes detailed results from the URBEMIS model). As shown in Table 3 -1, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain well below their respective thresholds. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Table 3 -1. Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Construction Phase ROG NO, CO SOX PMI0 PM2.5 Demolition 2.6 24.2 12.1 <0.1 10.2 3.0 Grading/Excavation 3.1 25.7 14.3 <0.1 2.6 1.4 Construction 6.2 10.9 8.2 <0.1 0.8 0.7 Maximum Regional Project 6 26 14 <1 10 3 Emissions SCAQMD Regional Emissions 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold (pounds per day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gas NOx = oxides of nitrogen CO = carbon monoxide SOX = .sudlfur oxides PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns PMrs = particulate matter less than 1.5 microns .Source: Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 outputs. Localized Construction Impacts SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology guidelines are used to determine potential impacts on sensitive receptors that are located in the immediate vicinity of the activity emitting emissions, in this case residential receptors adjacent to the construction site. When quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on site are considered. As shown in Table 3 -2, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LST significance thresholds (Appendix A includes detailed results from the LST analysis). As such, localized impacts that may result from air pollutant emissions during the construction phases would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -11 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions Construction Phase Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOx CO Sox PMta Pm,., Demolition 1.7 12.8 7.0 <0.1 9.6 2.6 Grading/Excavation 3.1 25.7 13.3 <0.1 2.6 1.4 Construction 6.1 10.3 6.3 <0.1 0.7 0.7 Worst Case On -Site Total 6 26 13 <1 10 3 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (lbs /day)' 219 6,841 -- 135 76 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No 'These localized thresholds were taken firom tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology guidance document based on the following: 1) The project site is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area No. 20, 2) sensitive receptors located within 500 meters of construction activity, and 3) the maximum site area disturbed is I acre. ROG = reactive organic gas NOx = oxides of nitrogen CO = carbon monoxide SO,x = sulfur oxides PMia = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns PMzs = particulate matter less (ban 1.5 microns Source: Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 outputs. Regional Operations Impacts SCAQMD also has established significance thresholds to evaluate the potential impacts associated with long -term project operations. Regional air pollutant emissions associated with project operations would be generated by the consumption of electricity and natural gas and the operation of on -road vehicles. Pollutant emissions associated with energy demand (i.e., electricity generation and natural gas consumption) are classified by the SCAQMD as regional stationary - source emissions. Electricity is considered an area source because it is produced at various locations in and outside the Basin. Because it is not possible to isolate where electricity is produced, these emissions conservatively are considered to occur in the Basin and be regional in nature. Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the production and consumption of energy were calculated using emission factors from SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (South Coast Air Quality Management District 1993; Appendix to Chapter 9). Mobile- source emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by applicable EWAC2007 emissions factors. The URBEMIS2007 model output and worksheets for calculating regional operational daily emissions are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 -3, the proposed project's net regional emissions would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), reactive organic compounds (ROCS), 2 Daily VMT estimate derived by applying URBEMIS2007 default trip generation and length estimates (per land use) to the proposed project land uses. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -12 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist PMIo, or PM2.5. Therefore, regional operations emissions would not result in a significant long -term regional air quality impact. Table 3 -3. Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) PRES ROG NO, CO SOX PMIo PMz.e Mobiles 1.2 1.9 13.9 <0.1 2.5 0.5 Area 0.2 0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Stationary b <0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Total Operational Emissions 1.4 2.6 15.6 0.1 2.5 0.5 SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 (pounds /day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No `Mobile emissions calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model. Model output sheens are provided in the Air Quality Appendix. 'Emissions attributable to project - related electricity generation calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix. ROG = reactive organic gas NOx= oxides ofnitrogen CO = carbon monoxide SO, = sulfur oxides PX, = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns PM, s = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. Source: Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 outputs. Local Operational Emissions In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a conservative worst -case impact analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested intersection locations. If impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less than significant at more distant sensitive - receptor locations. SCAQMD recommends a hot spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when volume to capacity ratios are increased by 2% or more at intersections with a Level of Service (LOS) C or worse. Project traffic during the operational phase of the proposed project would not have the potential to create local area CO impacts; as discussed in Response XVI(a) under Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project would not significantly affect peak -hour traffic volumes. Thus, local intersections would not be affected by the proposed project, and there would be no impacts resulting from CO hot spots. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -13 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist With respect to the proposed project's on -site mass emissions, Table 3 -4 shows that operations - period emissions would be below SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Impacts from emissions of these criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Table 3-4. Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) PRES ROG NOx CO Sox PMta PMz.5 On -Site Area Source Emissions' 0.2 0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 219 6,841 -- 33 19 (pounds /day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No 'Emissions attributable to project - related electricity generation, calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix. 'These localized thresholds were taken from tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology guidance document based on thefollowing: 1) The project site is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area No. 20, 2) sensitive receptors are located within 500 meters of the project, and 3) the maximum site are disturbed is 1 acre. ROG = reactive organic gas NOx= oxides pfnitrogen CO = carbon monoxide SOx = sulfur oxides PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns PM2 5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. Source: Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 outputs. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less - than - Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.3 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region, and 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -14 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist therefore inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less -than- Significant Impact. As described in Response 1I1(b) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial localized or regional air pollution impacts and therefore would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less -than- Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of an office building. Therefore, the proposed project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odors and would not produce objectionable odors during the operations period. Potential sources of odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust, paving, and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the project site. The proposed project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites. Additionally, the odors would be temporary, occurring when equipment is operating and during paving and painting activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 on nuisances. Additionally, SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from cutback asphalt and architectural coatings and solvents, respectively. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors. As such, potential impacts during short-term construction would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -15 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact 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, or 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, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion 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? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -16 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist No Impact. Although the proposed project would remove existing ornamental trees and landscaping, it would not have a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special- status species. The project site currently consists of surface parking spaces or ornamental landscaping, and is located in a fully urbanized setting. According to Figure NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located within an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Additionally, field surveys of the site confirmed that the project site is void of any native vegetation or wildlife habitat. Therefore, the proposed project would not modify habitat or adversely affect sensitive biological resources, and no impacts would occur. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According Figure NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located within an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Additionally, field surveys of the site confirmed that the project site is fully developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community and no impacts would occur. 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, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site is fully developed and there are no federal wetlands present on site or in the general vicinity. Furthermore, the project site is completely lacking any jurisdictional waters. The Koll Center Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not alter or use the existing retarding basin in any manner. The proposed project would use the existing gutters and catchment basin at the entrance of the project site to control stormwater runoff (see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding the proposed project's storm drain system and the retarding basin). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce the flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized, downstream stormwater facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new development areas upstream (City of Newport Beach 2000). The retarding basin is an engineered storm runoff concrete basin that is part of the storm drainage control system for the City (City of Newport Beach 2000). The City's existing storm drainage control system discharges into a number of receiving waters, including San Diego Creek. The retarding basin does not connect directly to receiving waters and it is not used to sustain flows in any receiving waters (Tong pers. comm. band Brown pers. comm. a). Therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less - than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other undeveloped lands. According to Figures NRl and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not identified as a biological resources area, nor is it located in an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 20O6a) and the site is not connected to any wildlife corridors. Therefore, the project site is not PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -17 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist considered a part of a regional wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species from one area to another. The project site does not support daily movement of species. Although the existing ornamental trees on site are not anticipated to provide important habitat, the removal of ornamental trees on site could reduce the number of stopover locations or nesting sites for migratory birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BI0-1 is proposed to reduce the impact on migratory birds should the trees be removed during migration season. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 13I0-1: The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not be scheduled during the avian nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31) to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located in an area where sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources occur (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Furthermore, according the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the project site is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan (County of Orange 2005). For additional details regarding local policies or ordinances refer to Section X, Land Use and Planning. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, no impacts would occur. 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? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is a signatory to a Natural Resource Community Conservation Plan agreement. However, according to Figure VI -5 of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan, the project site is not located within a designated Natural Communities Conservation Plan area (City of Newport Beach 2006a, County of Orange 2005). Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to the provisions of any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan area, and no impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -18 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ E ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The project site is occupied by a parking lot and a modern office building. The project site is depicted as vacant land on the 1965 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Tustin 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic map. The existing office building and surface parking lot is depicted on the 1981 photograph- revised version of the same map. This change correlates in time with the approval in August 1972 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community by the City, which includes the project site and subsequent construction of new buildings. Thus, the existing structure at the project site is 38 years old at most. Built environment resources constructed after 1960, unless extraordinarily important, are not considered of sufficient age to warrant listing as significant historic structures or resources in the California Register of Historic Places. A record search conducted on March 16, 2010, determined that no historical structures have been recorded at the project site and that no historical structures are located within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project site. There are no historical structures in the project site listed on any local, state, or national historical registers, nor any determined to be eligible for listing as a significant historical resource, according to the Historical Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Because there are no historical structures on the project site, no impacts would occur. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -19 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - Than - Significant Impact. The project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A record search conducted on March 16, 2010, determined that no prehistoric or historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the project area. One prehistoric archaeological site, CA- Ora -115 (King 1963), is recorded within a 0.5 -mile radius. This site is approximately 1,000 feet to the east of the project site. No historical structures are depicted at the project site on the 1896 and 1901 USGS Santa Ana 30 minute topographic quadrangles, or on the 1965 USGS Tustin 7.5 minute quadrangle, indicating there is no potential for historical archaeological resources associated with early settlement. Because there is no surface exposure in the project site, no archaeological resources survey was performed for this project. The project site has undergone grading for construction of the existing surface parking lot and office building, and for development of other adjacent buildings and the stormwater system and retarding basin. Ground disturbances from these previous developments likely would have inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources present. The proposed project would involve limited surface soil disturbance and grading to an approximate depth of 5 feet to prepare for the building foundations. A geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project indicated that the site is underlain by approximately 5 feet of fill (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less -Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is situated on late Pleistocene marine deposits that have been cut to form a marine terrace commonly known as Newport Mesa (Morton and Miller 1981, California Division of Mines and Geology 1997). These deposits can be highly fossiliferous, containing vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil specimens (Stadum 2010). The proposed project would involve limited grading, to a depth of approximately 5 feet to prepare for the building foundations. A geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project indicated that the site is underlain by approximately 5 feet of fill (TGR Geotechnica12008). Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any paleontological resources within the Pleistocene marine deposits. However, if excavations should extend into Pleistocene marine deposits, significant fossil resources may be encountered. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure CR -1: Project plans shall specify that that a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that potential paleontological resources are discovered. During construction, the contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -20 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? Less - Than - Significant Impact. The project site is not a formal cemetery and is not adjacent to a formal cemetery. The project site is not known to contain human remains interred outside formal cemeteries, nor is it known to be located on a burial ground. The record search for the proposed project indicated that prehistoric archaeological site CA- Ora -115 (King 1963) had been recorded within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project site. This site is not reported to have yielded human remains. The proposed project would involve limited grading to a depth of approximately 5 feet to prepare for the building foundations. A geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project indicated that the site is underlain by approximately 5 feet of fill (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that construction of the proposed project would disturb any human remains. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction shall halt in the area of the discovery, the area shall be protected, and consultation and treatment shall occur as prescribed by law. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall appoint the Most Likely Descendent. Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan shall be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects, and the plan shall be implemented under the direction of the Most Likely Descendent. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -21 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 3. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? 4. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on -site or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -22 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist al. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division ofMines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The State Mining and Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault that has been active during the Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1.6 million years). These definitions are used in delineating earthquake fault zones as mandated by the Alquist -Priolo Geologic Hazards Act of 1972 and revised in 1994 as the Alquist - Priolo Geologic Hazard Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Impacts from surface rupture are generally limited to areas in the immediate vicinity of a fault that could result in offset of the earth at the fault line. The project site is not included in any earthquake fault zones as delineated by the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. Furthermore, no evidence of active or potentially active faulting was observed or encountered in any of the geotechnical investigations of the project site. The nearest fault to the project site is the San Joaquin Hills Fault located approximately 1.8 miles away (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Therefore, no impacts on the project would result from fault rupture. a2. Strong seismic groundshaking? Less - than - Significant Impact. All of southern California, including the City of Newport Beach, is located in a seismically active area and is subject to strong seismic groundshaking (TGR Geotechnical 2OO8). The City is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport- Inglewood Fault, the Whittier Fault, the San Joaquin Hills Fault, and the Elysian Park Fault, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Implementation of policies contained in the Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2OO6a) would minimize adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic groundshaking. For example, Policy 54.1 requires regular updates to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design, and Policies 54.4 and 54.5 restrict new development from locating in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code for construction of new buildings and /or structures, and specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts (City of Newport Beach 2OO6b). The proposed project includes amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Kell Center Newport Planned Community text, demolition and removal of approximately 25 stalls of the existing 84 -stall surface parking lot, and construction of a three -level office building and new surface parking spaces. All demolition and construction would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City. The proposed building would be constructed in compliance with the latest earthquake- resistant design available and relevant codes. All proposed project components would be in compliance with the most up -to -date building codes and plans would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading and building permits and construction activities. Furthermore, the office building would be evaluated prior to occupation to ensure that the construction has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and applicable codes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a3. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -23 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less -than- Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes ground failure and typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition (City of Newport Beach 2006a). It is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine - grained soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high - intensity ground shaking (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Figure 3 -2, Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas, identifies areas of potential liquefaction in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is not located in an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subject to a seismic event (City of Newport Beach 2006a, TGR Geotechnical 2008). Regionally, the project site is situated between the southeastern borders of the Los Angeles Basin, the south borders of the Tustin Plain, and the northwestern borders of the lower slopes of the San Joaquin Hills. This area is within the southwestern portion of the Tustin 7.5- Minute Quadrangle. The subsurface geology in this area consists of Quaternary deposits of older alluvium (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008). The project site is underlain by approximately 5 feet of fill, which is underlain by native soil that is silty to sandy clay. The consistency of the subsurface soils is generally stiff to very stiff. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum boring depth on site, which was approximately 26.5 feet; therefore, it is assumed groundwater exists below 26 feet below ground surface. Groundwater seepage was observed in soil borings at depths of 10 feet below ground surface. Generally, seasonal and long -term fluctuations in the groundwater may occur as a result of subsurface conditions, rainfall, and other factors (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008). Because of the cohesive nature of the subsurface soils at the project site, the potential for liquefaction is considered very low (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Therefore, impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. a4. Landslides? No Impact. The proposed project would have no impact related to landslides. Figure 3 -2, Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas, identifies areas with landslide potential. The project site is not located in any area with landslide potential (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The project site is generally flat and implementation of the proposed project would not require slope cuts that could result in landslides. There are no steep natural slopes on the project site, and the hazard from seismically induced landslides is considered negligible (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008). Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. b. Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site does not contain substantial amounts of topsoil. The project site is currently a parking lot and some landscaped areas. Small amounts of exposed on -site soils would be prone to soil erosion during the construction phase of the proposed project. As required by the City's Municipal Code, the project applicant would obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control standards that would be applied to the corresponding construction activity (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The project applicant would implement standard erosion control measures and construction best management practices (BMPs) that would minimize impacts. Furthermore, as discussed in Section IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 would assist with the control of soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -24 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants f2003) rigure 'CFExisting Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas INTERNATIONAL PRES Office Building B S Legend City Boundary _Areas with liquefaction potential Areas with landslide potential Fault Disclosure Zone for -real - estate disclosure purposes 1 rvs wea Fault Line BAY Major fault traces as mapped by Morton, - 1 7999. Presumed active, I O+A except where shown otherwise based on o \ ^ geological studies r Southward Projection of active fault traces based - �.. 11e on a subsurface study on t of the Santa to Ana Ana River Highway Local Road �� 1 ° °• O County _ 'a -p a` Y C 1♦ P rl �y Ain - PACIFIC O EAN x f s i Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants f2003) rigure 'CFExisting Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas INTERNATIONAL PRES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site has been developed and is not located in an area identified by the City of Newport Beach General Plan as having a potential for soil liquefaction. All proposed project components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards. Furthermore, as discussed in Response VI(a4), no impacts on people or structures would occur as a result of landslide. Impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction (as discussed in Response VI(a3)), lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse would be less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See Responses VI(a3) and VI(c) for additional details regarding soils at the project site. Subsurface soils consisting of low plastic sandy clay have a medium expansion potential. An expansion index of 63 was determined for selected substrate material from the project site. This expansion index indicates a medium expansion potential (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008). The medium expansive soils on site could potentially damage the foundation of the proposed building or create a risk to employees that could result in potentially significant impacts if not properly accounted for in project design and construction. Mitigation Measures GEO -1, GEO -2, and GEO -3, as discussed below, include geotechnical requirements to ensure the appropriate use of fill and to reduce the existing expansive potential on site. Therefore, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO -1: Prior to approval of grading permits, soil preparation measures to minimize expansion potential shall be identified by the applicant in construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture- conditioned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field inspections by the City. Mitigation Measure GEO -2: Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of non - expansive materials, moisture- conditioned to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. Mitigation Measure GEO -3: Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading plans shall stipulate that wall backfill soils shall consist of granular, cohesionless backfill with sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index less than 20. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -25 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included as part of the proposed project. The project site would tie into the existing sewer line. Impacts would not occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -26 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Potentially Significant Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant with Less -than- Mitigation Significant No VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact Incorporated Impact Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, ❑ or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of Discussion Would the project: ❑ ® ❑ a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less - than - Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change or global warming. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide (COA methane (CHA nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (03), and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately 50% of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about 25% of total emissions. Some GHGs such as CO2 occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other GHGs (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. For purposes of analysis the global warming potential of each gas is equated to CO2 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is identified in metric tons for each GHG. The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research June 2008 Technical Advisory is to (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance. Neither the CEQA Statute nor Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions (California Air Resources Board 2008). That guidance, while still in draft form, does provide some assistance to the City in evaluating whether projects would impede the PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -27 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist State's mandatory requirements under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Until more guidance is provided from the expert agencies (GARB and/or SCAQMD), the City intends to consider emissions of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e or less per year and per project to be a less -than- significant contribution to GHGs, thereby not requiring further analysis. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year, the City will consider projects to have significant impacts if they (1) are not substantially consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce GHGs, or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons Of CO2e per year. Projects that do not meet these thresholds would be considered to have significant impacts, and thus could be expected to impede the State's mandatory requirement under AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A conservative estimate of the proposed project's CO2e emissions during construction and operation is presented in Table 3 -5. As shown, emissions would remain well below the City's screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Table 3 -5. Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (metric tons per year) California Statewide Emissions (year 2006) 479,800,000 Project Emissions Construction- Period Emissions 2010 42 2011 28 Operations- Period Emissions Mobile sources 241 Stationary sources 62 Area sources 18 Total operations - period emissions 321 Total Project Emissions' 323 City of Newport Beach screening level 1,600 threshold Exceed Threshold? No ' Value includes total annual operational emissions plus total construction emissions amortized over 30 years. Source: Appendix A, URBEMIS 2007 outputs. The amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City. As such, the proposed PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -28 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist project would be consistent with the State's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative climate change and worldwide GHG emissions would be less than significant. b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? Less -than- Significant Impact. AB 32 identified the acceptable level of GHG emissions in California in 2020 as 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2C (which is the same as the 1990 GHG emissions level) approximately 12% less than the current level (480 MMT COZe in 2004), and approximately 28.5% less than 2020 business as usual conditions (596 MMT CO2c) (California Air Resources Board 2008). To achieve these GHG reductions, there will have to be widespread reductions of GHG emissions across California. Some of those reductions will need to come in the form of changes in vehicle emissions and mileage, changes in the sources of electricity, and increases in energy efficiency by existing facilities, as well as other measures. The remainder of the necessary GHG reductions will need to come from requiring new facility development to have lower carbon intensity than business as usual conditions. Therefore, this analysis uses a threshold of significance that is in conformance with the State's goals. As such, the significance determination is independent of the quantity of GHG emissions produced; it is based on the ratio, or percent reduction of emissions produced by the proposed project in 2020 under two conditions: 1) business as usual conditions, and 2) with the incorporation of the reductions measures mentioned. If a project results in a decrease equal to or greater than 28.5% with the incorporation of GHG reduction measures, that project is said to not conflict with the reduction goals set forth by AB 32 and therefore would be in compliance with said policy. Operation of the proposed project is expected to result in emissions of GHGs as a result of energy consumption. Increased emissions of GHGs would contribute to global warming and adverse global environmental effects. Increased GHG emissions could also potentially conflict with the requirement of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Motor vehicle GHG emissions result from gasoline and diesel fuel combustion. Increased energy and water consumption result in increased GHG emissions associated with the burning of fossils fuels for energy production, and the conveyance of water throughout the state. On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan, (California Air Resources Board 2008), which contains emission reduction measures targeting sources of GHG emissions called for in AB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non - monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market -based mechanisms such as a cap- and -trade system, and an AB 32 `cost of implementation fee' to fund the program. In the AB 32 Scoping Plan, CARB has set in place several measures aimed at reducing emissions from these sources and more. Examples of GHG emissions reduction measures from the AB 32 Scoping Plan include the following: Transportation: ■ Vehicle Emissions Standards /Improved Fuel Economy: Adopted by the Legislature in 2002, AB 1493, known as the Pavley Standards, requires GHG emission reduction from passenger cars and light -duty trucks. CARB estimates that the Pavley Standards will result in a reduction of nearly PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -29 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist 20% of GHGs associated with motor vehicle use statewide. The AB 32 Scoping Plan also recommends additional strategies to reduce GHG emissions associated with passenger vehicles, including the Zero - Emission Vehicle Program and the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. ■ Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Executive Order S -01 -07 requires a 10% or greater reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by CARB. ■ Vehicle Efficiency Measures: Additional measures identified in the AB 32 Seeping Plan that would reduce light -duty vehicle GHG emissions include implementing a tire pressure program, imposing tire tread standards, reducing engine load via lower friction oil use, and requiring solar reflective automotive paint and window glazing. Electricity and Natural Gas: ■ Energy Efficiency: This measure sets new targets for statewide annual energy demand reduction of 32,000 gigawatt hours from business as usual. This strategy requires increased utility energy efficiency programs, more stringent building and appliance standards, and additional efficiency and conservation programs. ■ Increased Combined Heat and Power Use: This measure sets a target of an additional 4,000 megawatts of installed combined heat and power capacity by 2020. Development of efficient combined heat and power systems would help displace the need to develop new or expand existing power plants. ■ Renewable Portfolio Standard: In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order 5 -14- 08 to streamline California's renewable energy approval process and increase the State's renewable energy standard to 33% by 2020, meaning that a third of California's energy will be produced from renewable resources rather than fossil fuels. As shown in Table 3 -6, assuming conformity with CARB measures, GHG emissions in 2020 associated with operation of the proposed project are expected to be 29.5% less than under business as usual conditions. As such, the proposed project would result in a less- than - significant impact. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -30 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -6. Estimate of Project Conformity to AB 32 Year 2020 AB 32 Scoping Year 2020 Percent Business as Plan Reductions Emissions Reduction Usual (metric tons per (metric tons per (metric tons per (metric tons per 16 year) ) year) year) (26) 53 33.0 Emission Source Mobile source 266 (79) 187 29.8 Natural gas combustion 17 (2) 16 9.0 Electricity demand related 79 (26) 53 33.0 Water consumption related <1 (<1) <1 33.0 Total Project 362 (107) 255 29.5 AB 32 Threshold 28.5 Impact? No Source: Appendix A: emissions estimates. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -31 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous materials sites that 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 use plan or, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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 private ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? It. 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? Discussion Would the project: PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -32 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Development of the proposed project would require the demolition of an existing parking lot. It is likely that most of the asphalt, which is not considered a hazardous material, would be recycled. The proposed project would operate as a professional real estate and development services office building and would not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less- than - Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the reasonably foreseeable upset or release of any hazardous materials. Construction equipment that would be used to build the proposed project has the potential to release oils, greases, solvents, and other finishing materials through accidental spills. Spill or upset of these materials would have the potential to affect surrounding land uses. However, the consequences of construction - related spills are generally reduced in comparison to other accidental spills and releases because the amount of hazardous material released during a construction- related spill is small as the volume in any single piece of construction equipment is generally less than 50 gallons. Construction- related spills of hazardous materials are not uncommon, but the enforcement of construction and demolition standards, including BMPs by appropriate local and state agencies, would minimize the potential for an accidental release of petroleum products and /or hazardous materials or explosions during construction. Federal, state, and local controls have been enacted to reduce the effects of potential hazardous materials spills. The Newport Beach Fire Department is an all -risk fire department and enforces City, state, and federal hazardous materials regulations for Newport Beach. It has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies, including fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding, and disaster (City of Newport Beach 2OO9b). City regulations include Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, Chapter 9.04 of the City's Municipal Code, and implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (City of Newport Beach 2OO6b). Elements of these programs include spill mitigation and containment and securing of hazardous materials containers to prevent spills. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory as standard permitting conditions, and would minimize the potential for the accidental release or upset of hazardous materials, helping to ensure public safety. The occupancy of office buildings is not associated with the use or storage of large amounts of hazardous substances. The proposed project would not use or store large amounts of hazardous substances and an upset of those types of materials would not be reasonably foreseeable. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of an office building for professional real estate services. The nearest school is the University of California Irvine Child PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -33 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Development Center located at 19262 Jamboree Road in the City of Irvine, located within 0.25 mile of the project site. However, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or require handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of a school. No impacts would occur. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (AES Due Diligence 2004). An environmental records database search report completed on September 9, 2004 by Environmental Data Resources (AES Due Diligence 2004) yielded no results for the project site. Furthermore, there are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for hazardous materials /facilities at the project site (California Environmental Protection Agency 2009a). The database search did identify 20 leaking underground storage tank sites within 0.5 mile of the project site, but none were on site or an adjacent property. Additionally, 11 CORTESE (Government Code Section 65962.5) sites were found within 0.5 mile of the project site, but none were on site or an adjacent property (AES Due Diligence 2004). A CORTESE site is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) as a site where a hazardous materials release has occurred (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2007). The Newport Beach General Plan EIR, Section 4.6 Hazards does identify the adjacent Newport Fab, LLC (also known as Jazz Semiconductor) and Conexant Systems Incorporated as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- registered large - quantity generators of hazardous materials (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Newport Fab is located adjacent to the project site and Conexant is south of Newport Fab within the same area. Large - quantity generators simply indicate that the company generates a certain volume of hazardous waste. These generators must follow appropriate state and federal hazardous materials handling and disposal laws, one of which is a reporting to state and federal authorities of the amount of hazardous waste generated. The Newport Beach General Plan FIR identifies Newport Fab as having a recorded release; however, there are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for hazardous materials /facilities at this site (California Environmental Protection Agency 2009a). Since the project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less - than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project is within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -34 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any construction or alteration which: ■ Exceeds 200 feet in height about the ground level at its site. ■ Exceeds a height greater than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at specific slope characteristics at 20,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the airport runway. ■ Is a highway with specific characteristics. ■ Is occurring at an airport. The proposed project includes construction of a three -level office building with a maximum height of 50 feet. The project site is approximately 42 feet above mean sea level (AES Due Diligence, 2004). The proposed project does not require notification to the FAA in accordance with Section 77.13 of the FAR because the proposed project would not be more than 200 feet above ground level and not more than 206 feet above mean sea level; the proposed project would not exceed a height greater than the imaginary surface planes identified in Section 77.13 (Federal Aviation Administration 2010); the proposed project is not a highway; and the proposed project is not a modification to an existing airport. Therefore, the filing of Form 7460 -1 with the FAA is not required. Although the proposed project is exempt from filing the Form 7460 -1 notice, a referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review is required due to the location of the proposal within the AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. general plan amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). The proposed project would comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land use Commission's John Wayne AELUP (Airport Land Use Commission 2008). The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. Although the proposed project is located within an airport land use plan, it would comply with all established standards, requirements, and plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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. As described above in (e), the John Wayne Airport is located approximately 1 mile north of the project site. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area from operations of a private airstrip. No impacts would occur. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically affect any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of the City's Emergency Response Plan. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards to promote the safety of persons on the ground while reducing risks of serious harm to aircraft crews and passengers that may need to make emergency landings in the immediate airport vicinity. The proposed project would not require the PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -35 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist closure of any public or private streets or roadways and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the project site or any surrounding areas in the event of an aviation emergency or other emergency. Finally, the proposed project would provide all required emergency access in accordance with the requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department during plan review by the Fire Department. No impacts on emergency response would occur. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands, and is surrounded by office buildings. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (City of Newport Beach 2OO6a) identifies the project site as Low/None Fire Susceptibility. Therefore, people or structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the proposed project. No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -36 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Lessthan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ delineation map? discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? would drop to a level that would not support ❑ ❑ existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -37 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Discussion Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land within the City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Each of these watersheds is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ( SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMP requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The project site is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed. San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin (City of Newport Beach 2003). The EPA and Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board have identified San Diego Creek as an impaired water body. Impairments are identified for nutrients, sediments and toxics (see Appendix B, Preliminary WQMP). The main tributary of the San Diego Creek Watershed, San Diego Creek, drains directly into Upper Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Furthermore, a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit is provided to the City by SARWQCB under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the amount of stormwater contaminants that are delivered into the City's waterways (City of Newport Beach 2009a). MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain City facilities like the MS4, and use of BMPs in many residential, commercial, and development- related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of 1 acre or more, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale, must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (2009- 0009 -DWQ Permit effective July 2010) (State Water Resources Control Board 2010a). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP). The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (State Water Resources Control Board 2010b). The proposed building footprint is approximately 5,800 square feet; therefore, the amount of disturbed area during construction would be less than 1 acre and would not be part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not require the preparation or implementation of a formal SWPPP. However, since the project site is adjacent to a retarding basin, and is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed, which is impaired for PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -38 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist sedimentation, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 described below would minimize the potential for construction activities to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels. The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. However, the proposed project would remove landscaped area, which would be replaced with surface parking and the proposed office building; therefore, slightly increasing the impermeable surface of the project site (see Appendix B for additional details). The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading and building permits and would be finalized at that time. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) identifies the following non - structural BMPs that are recommended to manage post - construction stormwater runoff from the proposed project site: • Educate property owners, tenants and occupants regarding the management of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in landscaping and gardening practices, and the impacts of littering and improper water disposal. • Common area landscape management, including fertilizer /pesticide usage consistent with Management Guidelines for the Use of Fertilizers per DAMP. • Spill contingency plan. • Common area litter control. • Prohibit the discharges of fertilizers, pesticides, and wastes to streets or storm drains. • Prohibit blowing or sweeping of debris into street or storm drains. • Prohibit hosing down any paved surfaces where the result would be the flow of non- stormwater into the street or storm drains. • Prohibit vehicle washing, maintenance, or repair on site by employees, customers, or the public. • Provide regular dry sweeping of debris and grass clippings instead of using blowers or hosing. • Inspect and maintain catch basins. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) identifies additional BMPs to control the volume of stormwater generated and maintain water quality. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, pavement detention through the use of porous pavement, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff - minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter (see Figure 1 of 2 in Appendix B for the location of all the BMPs proposed). These additional BMPs are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff. Operation of the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP by preparing the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP, which is required for approval as part of the issuance of building and grading permits, will demonstrate that the BMPs discussed above and in Appendix B will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure WQ -1. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall prepare and have approved by the City a SWPPP to be implemented during construction, which shall include BMPs to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -39 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist storm drains or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Diversion of off -site runoff away from the construction site. • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities. • Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -site transport of sediment. • Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. • Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less- than - Significant Impact. The project site is located generally in the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which provides groundwater for much of central and north Orange County (City of Newport Beach 2006b). It is divided into upper, middle, and lower aquifers (Department of Water Resources 2004). Generally, the upper aquifer system has an average thickness of about 800 feet and contains a lower percentage of water - bearing strata in the northwest and coastal portions of the area (Department of Water Resources 2004). Furthermore, recharge to the upper aquifer system occurs primarily in the northeastern portions of the basin (Department of Water Resources 2004). The project site is located in the northwest /coastal portion of the basin and this area is not a primary contributor to the recharge of the basin. Furthermore, the project site is currently developed and is not considered a location for groundwater recharge (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The proposed project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces on the site thereby interfering substantially with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the proposed project would not directly withdraw groundwater from beneath the site, thereby substantially depleting groundwater supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact. The existing project area is in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The existing landscaped areas surrounding and located on the project site drain predominately into the retarding basin to the northwest of the project site (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008) (Appendix B). The existing parking areas drain via sheet flow to concrete ribbon gutter within the existing parking lot. Stormwater generally travels westerly along the gutter and is discharged into an existing catchment basin in the southwest corner located in the main entrance into the project site, along the west side of the site (Appendix B). No streams or rivers are currently located on or around the project site and the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The proposed project would involve some grading and minor soil disturbance during construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would comply with the DAMP (described above in Section IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality). PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-40 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Once operational, the proposed project would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site as the existing site is already largely paved with surface parking. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of exposed soil thereby contributing to siltation or erosion. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) provides BMPs such as pavement detention, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff - minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter to control the volume and quality of runoff generated by the slight increase in impervious surface on site. As described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B), flow would continue to drain in a westerly direction into the existing catchment basin. Therefore, the operation of the project site as an office building would not result in a substantial change to the existing drainage. Impacts associated with erosion during operation and construction, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. Substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil because of the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site is 84 surface parking spaces. During construction, runoff quantities and velocity from the project site would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), operation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), BMPs would be used to capture stormwater volumes. These BMPs are included to improve treatment and storage capacity for the proposed project, which is an improvement over the existing site conditions. Any changes in hydrology are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff, providing partial flood relief to receiving waters. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Overall, urban street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2003). As described above in Section IX(d), the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site as 84 stalls of surface parking would not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area as discussed in Section IX(a), (c), and (d) above. The Koll Center Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site. Koll Center Newport Planned Community maintains the retarding basin (Tong pers. comm. a). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce the flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new development areas upstream (City of Newport Beach 2000). The proposed project would not drain into the PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-41 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist retarding basin; therefore, it would not interfere with the ability of the basin to reduce the flow rate generated by upstream development. The proposed project would comply with the policies outlined in the General Plan to minimize runoff - related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.11, NR 3.20 and NR 4.4 and implementation would reduce the volume of runoff generated and potential for flooding. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) for the proposed project discusses operational BMPs, inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality. Stormwater drainage flows from the proposed project would be accommodated by the capacity of the existing catchment basin (Tong. pers. comm. b). The Preliminary WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. At that time it would be finalized and would demonstrate that the BMPs discussed in the Preliminary WQMP will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Furthermore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during construction. Increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems or generate polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts on stormwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. As outlined under Response IX(a) and (e), the proposed project would not substantially increase surface runoff, would not drain into the Koll Center Newport retarding basin, would comply with all General Plan policies minimizing flooding impacts, and would otherwise have less- than - significant impacts on water quality with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1 and BMPs described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B). Impacts on water quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. g. Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located in a flood zone area (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Furthermore, the proposed project does include the construction of housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, and no impacts would occur. h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As discussed in Section IX(g), the proposed project is not located in a flood zone area (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect 100 - year floodflow, and no impacts would occur. 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? No Impact. As discussed in Section IX(g), the proposed project is not located in a flood zone area (City of Newport Beach 2006b). No impacts would occur. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-42 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase exposure to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project site is not located in a 100- or 500 -year zone for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide (City of Newport Beach 2006x). Furthermore, due to the elevation of the site and absence of nearby waterfront, impacts from a tsunami would be negligible. Finally, seiches result from the rhythmic movement of water within a lake or other enclosed or semi- enclosed body of water, generally caused by earthquakes. Since the Koll Center Newport retarding basin is too small to cause seiche waves, and since no big lakes or other bodies of water lie on or near the project site, the hazard from seiches is very low at the project site (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008). No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-43 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of an office building within an existing office complex in the City of Newport Beach. There are no residential uses surrounding the complex. The proposed project would be constructed on an existing surface parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or Zoning ordinance) adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is designated as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2) per the General Plan Land Use Element. The development limit for the project site is identified in Table LU2 of the General Plan Land Use Element as Anomaly Number 2. The development limit for Anomaly Number 2 is 1,060,146 gross square feet, as identified in Table LU2. The project site is currently zoned PC-15, Koll Center Newport Planned Community). The project site is located in a development site identified as Professional and Business Office Site B in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The Allowable Building Area for Site B is 967,803 square feet as defined by the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The provision of a new office building would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning of the site and the surrounding area, and would be consistent with all General Plan policies. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment to increase the allowable development square footage on the project site. The General Plan Amendment would increase the development limit in General Plan Anomaly PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-44 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Location 2 by 11,544 gross square feet, and the Kell Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would increase the allowable building area in Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet. The General Plan Amendment and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would accommodate the development of the proposed office building that is consistent with the land use designation, zoning, and community plan use designation. See Appendix C for additional details regarding land use consistency analysis with applicable General Plan policies. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized setting, and no locally designated species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The project site is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. See Response IV(f). No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-45 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. According to the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2006a), other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Newport Beach area. The Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) in the City are classified as either containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ -1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ -3). The proposed project is located in an area designated as MRZ -3 (California Department of Conservation 1994 and U.S. Geological Survey 2009). The project site is surrounded by land uses that are not compatible with pit mining (office buildings, industrial, and roads), which would preclude the site from being developed as a mine, even if there is an extractable mineral resource present. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of a mineral resource would occur. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The site is not delineated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan as containing a locally important mineral resource (City of Newport Beach 2006a). No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -46 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XII. NOISE Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome 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 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ■ — ■ —■ —III Prior to addressing the checklist questions, the discussion below provides an overview of the existing conditions and regulations relative to noise impacts. A detailed discussion of noise terminology is included in Appendix D. Existing Conditions at Project Site Noise- sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include high - density residences approximately 2,500 feet to the east at the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Other noise - sensitive land uses include the University of California Irvine Child Development Center located at 19262 Jamboree Road in the City of Irvine, approximately 1,300 feet (0.25 mile) to the east, and land planned for future mixed uses immediately to the south of the project site. Short-term attended sound level measurements were conducted on March 10th, 2010, with a Larson Davis Type 812 sound level meter, which is classified as a Type 1 (precision grade) instrument. Noise was PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-47 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist measured at three representative noise - sensitive locations near the project site. Figure 3 -3, Noise Measurement Locations, identifies the measurement locations. During the field measurements, physical observations of the predominant noise sources were noted. The noise sources in the project area typically included traffic along Jamboree Road and Campus Drive, HVAC units, aircraft departing out of John Wayne Airport, and ambient noise sources such as birds and rustling leaves. The results of the attended short-term sound level measurements are summarized in Table 3 -7. As shown in Table 3 -7, measured noise levels during daytime hours in and around the project site ranged from 60 to 63A- weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). Table 3 -7. Short-Term Sound Level Measurement Data ST -2 4311 Jamboree 3 -10 -10 10:28 15:00 Road; Jazz Semiconductor ST -3 19262 Jamboree Road; Jamboree Child Development Center 3 -10 -10 10:53 15:00 Traffic along Campus Avenue and Jamboree Road, Aircraft out of John Wayne Airport, HVAC towers Traffic along Campus Avenue and Jamboree Road, Aircraft out of John Wayne Airport, Birds 60.2 71.5 56.2 57.4 58.7 61.8 63.4 72.8 54.7 57.3 62.1 66.4 'The 15- minute duration, energy- averaged noise level Leq is commonly accepted as being representative of a 1 -hour average. It is used as the basis for community noise equivalent level calculations. Regulatory Background: Noise Standards and Thresholds of Significance The proposed project is subject to the policies and standards contained in the Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Noise Ordinance incorporated therein. The Noise Element establishes standards for exterior sound levels based on land use categories. The City also has established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could adversely affect its citizens and noise - sensitive land uses. The noise element states that an outdoor noise exposure level of 60 to 65 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-48 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Measurement Period Noise Measurement Results (dBA) Site Measurement Start Duration ID Location Date Time (mm:ss) Noise Sources Leqt L.., Lmi„ L90 L50 Lre ST -1 3000 Jamboree 3 -10 -10 9:40 15:00 Traffic along 60.4 67.7 54.8 56.3 59.7 63.1 Road; Plaza Campus Avenue and Condos Jamboree Road, Aircraft out of John Wayne Airport, leaves rustling ST -2 4311 Jamboree 3 -10 -10 10:28 15:00 Road; Jazz Semiconductor ST -3 19262 Jamboree Road; Jamboree Child Development Center 3 -10 -10 10:53 15:00 Traffic along Campus Avenue and Jamboree Road, Aircraft out of John Wayne Airport, HVAC towers Traffic along Campus Avenue and Jamboree Road, Aircraft out of John Wayne Airport, Birds 60.2 71.5 56.2 57.4 58.7 61.8 63.4 72.8 54.7 57.3 62.1 66.4 'The 15- minute duration, energy- averaged noise level Leq is commonly accepted as being representative of a 1 -hour average. It is used as the basis for community noise equivalent level calculations. Regulatory Background: Noise Standards and Thresholds of Significance The proposed project is subject to the policies and standards contained in the Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Noise Ordinance incorporated therein. The Noise Element establishes standards for exterior sound levels based on land use categories. The City also has established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could adversely affect its citizens and noise - sensitive land uses. The noise element states that an outdoor noise exposure level of 60 to 65 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-48 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 'CFJones& Figure 3 -3 Stokes Noise Measurement Locations PRIES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist considered "normally compatiblei4 for single - family and multifamily residential development (see Table N2 in Appendix D). The General Plan Noise Element also sets interior and exterior thresholds of 45 and 55 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 40 and 50 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., respectively, for single - family and multifamily residential units (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The noise element also states that an outdoor noise exposure level of 60 to 65 dBA CNEL) is considered "clearly compatiblei' for commercial development, such as retail, banks, restaurants, and movie theaters (see Table N2 in Appendix D). The General Plan Noise Element also sets exterior thresholds of 65 and 60 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., respectively, for commercial (Zone II) commercial land uses (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Title 10 Chapter 10.26 Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code specifies exterior noise standards for single - family and multi - family residential units from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at 55 dBA Lett and from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at 50 dBA Leq. It also specifies exterior noise standards of 65 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA Legfrom 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for commercial land uses. Construction noise is exempt from the above noise standard, pursuant to Title 10 Chapter 10.26 Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. Title 10, Chapter 10.28, Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code specifies permitted hours for construction activities. Construction or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m, on Saturdays. No construction that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity may occur on Sundays or federal holidays. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although sensitive receptors in the area would be exposed to temporary increases in noise from construction activities, City noise standards would not be exceeded. The construction and operational noise impacts and required mitigation measures are discussed below. Construction Noise Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in October 2010 and continue through June 2011, and to last for approximately 8 months. Noise from construction activity is generated by the use of a broad array of powered mechanical equipment. In order to assess the potential noise effects of construction, this noise analysis used a list of construction equipment provided for the proposed project to assess noise levels during construction phases. Noise levels at sensitive receptor locations associated with various construction phases were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model and were based on the type of construction equipment used during each phase, percent of time that the equipment was in use, and distance from Normally compatible is defined in the land use noise compatibility matrix in the City's General Plan and is included as Appendix D to this document. ' Clearly compatible is defined in the land use noise compatibility matrix in the City's General Plan and is included as Appendix D to this document. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3-49 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist source to receiver. Results from the calculations are shown in Table 3 -8. This information indicates that the overall noisiest phase of construction would be the demolition phase. During the demolition phase of construction, noise levels are estimated to be approximately 92 dBA Leq at the project site. Construction noise levels of this magnitude would attenuate at the closest sensitive receptor (ST -3) to approximately 59 dBA Leq.6 Because existing noise levels at the closest sensitive receptor were measured at approximately 63 dBA Leq, the noise levels would be marginally higher at this location during the loudest phase of construction. Therefore, construction noise would likely be perceptible, but would not dominate the noise environment at the sensitive receptor. Table 3 -8. Typical Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors from Construction Activities' Construction Predicted Sound Level at Predicted Sound Level at Activity ST -1 (dBA Leta ST -3 (dBA Leq)a Demolition 52 59 Grading 50 57 Construction 46 53 Paving 47 53 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006 'Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. ST -1 would likely not experience significant noise increases (less than 3 dBA) because construction noise levels are below the ambient measured noise levels. The City's Municipal Code exempts construction from the noise restrictions discussed above as long as it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; and between 8:00 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays and does not occur at any time on federal holidays or on Sundays. In addition to the City's construction restrictions, the following mitigation measures would ensure construction noise results in a less -than- significant impact: Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure N -1. All noise - producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise- reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. Mitigation Measure N -2. All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment used on the proposed project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. Mitigation Measure N -3. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion — powered equipment, where feasible. 6 Noise attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling distance. ST -2 was not used in this evaluation. During construction of the proposed project, sensitive receptors associated with the residential development of the conceptual site plan of the Conexant/Koll development at ST -2 would not exist and the existing industrial land use would still be in place, which is not considered a sensitive receptor. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -50 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measure N -4. Mobile noise - generating equipment and machinery shall be shut off when not in use. Mitigation Measure N -5. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practical from noise- sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure N -6. Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period. Mitigation Measure N -7. The use of noise - producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. Mitigation Measure N -8. No project- related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor. Mitigation Measure N -9. The on -site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor. Operational Noise The proposed project would generate some operational noise through HVAC units; however, these units would be enclosed appropriately to minimize noise. Furthermore, office and commercial uses surround the project site and these uses are not considered sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, any slight increase in operational noise associated with the units would not represent a significant impact. The proposed project would generate vehicle trips on the surrounding roadways. Based on generation rates for specific land use types provided by the City, the proposed office building would generate as many as 132 total daily trips per day. To determine potential impacts from the increase in traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network, peak hour traffic volumess were calculated on surrounding roadway network. Analysis of the peak hour traffic volumes was based on peak hour traffic volumes from the Traffic Study for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan prepared in September 2009 (LSA 2009). The proposed project's traffic increase was added to the total. The analysis assumes that traffic accessing the project site would primarily use Jamboree Road, passing by all sensitive receptors. There are no sensitive receptors on other roads such as Von Karmen; therefore, these roads were not included in the noise analysis. PM peak hour traffic with and without the project are compared. PM peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Table 3 -9 below. " Peak hour traffic volumes are the AM or PM (whichever is a higher volume) traffic volumes, and are considered to have the highest noise levels due to the largest traffic volume. The PM peak hour trips were used for the analysis of the surrounding roadways because traffic volume is highest during these hours. Therefore, to be consistent, the PM peak hour trips generated by the proposedproject were also used in the analysis. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -51 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Table 3 -9. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Roadway Segment PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume' Jamboree south of Campus 4046 Jamboree north of Campus 4171 Campus east of Jamboree 1374 Campus west of Jamboree 1721 Source: LSA 2009 The proposed project is anticipated to add approximately 18 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding roadway network. Noise is not additive in a linear sense; doubling the noise energy of a source (for example, doubling the traffic volume on a roadway) does not result in a perceived doubling of the noise level, nor does it result in a doubling of the noise level as expressed in decibels. All other factors being held constant, a doubling of the power from a noise source results in an increase of 3 dBA in the noise level. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Policy N 1.8 states that an increase of 2 dBA would be considered significant in an area with where existing land uses are exposed to noise levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL. In the case of this proposed project, the addition of approximately 18 additional vehicle trips to the surrounding roadways would result in a very small increase in the traffic noise (less than 0.1 dB). Such a change in the noise level would be imperceptible. The proposed project's traffic would not significantly increase noise from the existing roadway network. Therefore, noise impacts would be less than significant. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with grading and excavation may result in minor levels of ground vibration. Construction of the proposed project would not involve special construction methods such as pile driving or blasting. Vibration from conventional construction activity is typically below a level of human perception and well under levels that would cause damage to existing buildings when the activity is more than approximately 50 feet from the receiver. For this proposed project, construction activities would take place at distances greater than 50 feet from sensitive receptors. Based on data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), small bulldozers (which are representative of the size of construction equipment that would be on site) produce vibration levels of 0.003 inch per second (IPS) peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet. This level is well below widely accepted levels of perception thresholds (for example, California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] has identified a PPV of between 0.0059 and 0.019 IPS PPV as the threshold of human perception.) The FTA maintains a 0.12 B'S PPV threshold for potential damage to "extremely fragile historic buildings" (U.S. Department of Transportation 2006). Additionally, vibration from these activities would be short-term and would end when construction is completed. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' PM peak hour volumes were used as they were the highest volumes and would represent the worst case scenario. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -52 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate some operational noise through HVAC units; however, these units would be enclosed appropriately to minimize noise. Furthermore, office and commercial uses surround the project site and these uses are not considered sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, any slight increase in operational noise associated with the units would not represent a significant impact. Noise associated with the operation of the proposed project would be generated primarily by traffic. The proposed project would increase traffic volumes marginally by adding 18 trips during the PM peak hour. As discussed above, the increase in noise from the proposed project would not be perceptible. Therefore, noise from traffic associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, the construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. These levels would be perceptible at the closest sensitive receptor (ST -3) but would not dominate the noise environment. The City exempts construction provided that it occurs only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on federal holidays or Sundays. Mitigation measures N0I -1 to N0I -9 included in Section XII(a) above would reduce construction impacts. These measures would reduce construction noise levels. Therefore, impacts from construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less- than - Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan shows the existing 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 shows that the project site is located approximately 0.25 to 0.5 mile outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, noise impacts related to air traffic would be less than significant. 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 located in the vicinity of an airstrip, private or public. No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -53 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow for the construction and operation of one three -level office building. Construction of the proposed project would provide short-term employment opportunities for a total of approximately 67 construction workers over all construction phases of the project. The supply of general construction labor in the local and regional vicinity of the project site is not constrained; the construction industry is in an economic downturn, suggesting an available labor pool. Therefore, it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to serve the proposed project (Employment Development Department 2009a). Because the existing labor pool could meet the construction needs of the proposed project, the proposed project would not be expected to induce substantial population growth or development through increased construction employment. The proposed project would also provide long -term employment opportunities. The average number of employees for an office building of this size would be approximately 53 persons. The employment would include professional real estate and development services. Orange County has a labor force of approximately 1.6 million with approximately 152,100 people unemployed (Employment Development Department 2009b). Although the November 2009 unemployment rate for Orange County was 9.4 %, down from a 9.7 % in October 2009, it is still above the 2008 estimate of 6.1 %. Furthermore, professional and business services posted the second largest decline in December 2009, declining by 1,200 jobs over the month (Employment Development Department 2009a). This suggests an available local and regional labor pool to serve the long -term employment opportunities. The proposed project has the potential to stimulate the economy by providing jobs in the region. As a result of the general availability in the local and regional labor market and the current unemployment PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -54 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist rates, there would be an opportunity to hire local residents to fill the proposed project's employment needs. It is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region. Therefore operation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. Population and housing impacts would be less than significant. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would amend and increase the allowable development square footage on the project site, which would allow for the construction and operation of a three -level office building on approximately 25 stalls of the existing 84 -stall surface parking lot. The proposed project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. c. Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As discussed in (b) above, the project site is currently developed with an 84 -stall surface parking lot and no people currently live on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing or people. No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -55 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. 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: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other public facilities? Discussion ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: al. Fireprotection? Less - than- Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, including possible additional demand on and use of fire equipment and medical supplies. However, the additional 53 employees resulting from the proposed project are expected to come from the local population, and are not likely to result in many more additional demands than the City average on fire and emergency services. The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. There are eight fire stations strategically located throughout the City so that a fire unit can respond to residents and businesses in less than 5 minutes. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered an all - risk Fire Department and provides services for all types of emergencies (City of Newport Beach 2009b). The project site is served by the nearest fire station, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7, which is located at 20401 Southwest Acacia Street at the intersection of Southwest Acacia Street and Mesa Drive, approximately 1.9 miles to the southwest of the project site. The proposed project would include all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers, and would be required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City, including compliance with applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations. Emergency vehicle access for the proposed project would be provided to the project site from Von Karman Avenue. . The proposed project would be PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -56 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist within the current capacity of the Newport Beach Fire Department and would not create the need for any new facilities or personnel (Bunting pers. comm.). Impacts would be less than significant. a2. Police protection? Less - than - Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately 3.5 miles from the project site. The project site is located in Newport Beach Police Department Area 2 (Newport Beach Police Department 2010). As discussed above in Response XIV(al), although the proposed project would increase the population at the project site by approximately 53 employees, these employees are expected to come from the local population and would not place a significant added burden on the Newport Beach Police Department. Additionally, the department is currently patrolling the project site and surrounding areas. The proposed project would not require new or additional police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. a3. Schools? Less- than - Significant Impact. School services in the City are provided by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The demand for new schools is generally associated with population increases or impacts on existing schools. The proposed project would increase the number of employees at the project site by an average of 53 employees; however, these employees are expected to come from the local population and would not require any persons to be relocated from out the region as described in Section XIII(a). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the number of school age children in the City and no additional school facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. a4. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would involve the demolition of approximately 25 stalls of the existing 84 -stall surface parking lot and landscaping for the construction and operation of one three - level office building. The demand for parks is generally associated with the increase of housing or population in an area. As discussed above in Response XIII(a), the proposed project is not expected to induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, according to Figure R 1 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, there are no existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities resulting in the need for additional facilities. See Section XV(a) and (b), Recreation, for additional discussion on parks and recreation. No impacts would occur. a5. Other public facilities? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the number of employees at the project site by approximately 53 employees; however, these employees are expected to come from the local population and would not require any persons to be relocated from out the region as discussed above in Response XIII(a). The proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the use of other public facilities requiring the need for new or altered service facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse impacts on other public facilities or require new facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards. Impacts would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -57 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion 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 proposed project would not affect neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. As discussed in Section X111(a), Population and Housing, the proposed project is not expected to substantially induce population growth. The proposed project would provide approximately 67 short-term construction jobs and an average of 53 long -term professional jobs. The employment opportunities are expected to be fulfilled by the local population and it is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region. Furthermore, according to Figure Rl of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, there are no existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur. No impacts would occur. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As discussed in Section XIII(a), Population and Housing, the proposed project is not expected to substantially induce population growth. The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreation facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts would occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -58 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: program, including, but not limited to level of a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for other standards established by the county the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant roads or highways? components of the circulation system, including but C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ not limited to intersections, streets, highways and ® ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ E ❑ program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design ❑ ❑ ® ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -59 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) identifies City requirements for the preparation of traffic studies. Per the TPO, any project that generates fewer than 300 average daily trips (ADT) does not require a traffic study. Therefore, the City of Newport Beach has determined that a traffic study for the proposed project is not required because the project would generate fewer than 300 ADTs. The project site is located along Von Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Table 3 -10 below identifies the roads in the vicinity of the project site. Table 3 -10. Roads in the Vicinity of the Project Site Road Name Number of Lanes Speed Limit Range (miles per hour) Description Von Karmen Ave Four -lane divided 40 Trending in an east -west direction with a painted median and on- street parking prohibited Jamboree Road north of Six -lane divided 50 Trending in a north -south East Coast Highway (SR- direction with a raised landscaped 1) median and on- street parking prohibited MacArthur Boulevard Six -lane divided 50 Trends in a north -south direction North of the SR -73 Ramps roadway with a raised and on- street parking is prohibited landscaped median on MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard Eight -lane divided between Bonita Canyon roadway with a raised Drive and the SR -73 landscaped median Ramps Birch Street Four -lane divided 40 Trending in an east -west direction with a painted median and on- street parking prohibited Campus Drive east of Four -lane divided 45-50 Trending in an east -west direction MacArthur Boulevard with a painted median and on- street parking prohibited east of MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive west of Six -land divided Raised median on -street parking MacArthur Boulevard prohibited west of MacArthur Boulevard Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation. It is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. A range of LOS is used to describe traffic conditions. LOS A indicates free- flowing conditions, whereas LOS F indicates severely congested conditions, based on the volume -to- capacity ratios (V /C) shown in Table 3 -11 below. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -60 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -11. Volume -to- Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Ranges Signalized Intersections V/C Ratio LOS Description < 0.60 A LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. 0.61 to < 0.70 B LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. 0.71 to < 0.80 C LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 0.81 to < 0.90 D LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 0.91 to < 1.0 E LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. > 1.0 F LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation; that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine have specific performance criteria associated with intersections along the City limits and within the John Wayne Airport and Irvine Business Complex areas (LSA 2009). The City of Newport Beach target for peak hour intersection operation as stated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan is LOS D or better except at the following locations where LOS E is considered acceptable: intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine (City of Newport Beach 2006a, LSA 2009). The City of Irvine target for peak hour intersection operation is LOS D or better except in the following areas where LOS E is considered acceptable: intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Newport Beach, and Irvine Business Complex Area (LSA 2009). In 2009 as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, existing conditions of roads and intersections around the project site were determined (LSA 2009). They are described in Appendix E. During construction, the maximum daily trips would depend on the number of truck trips received in a day and the number of employees at the construction site. Furthermore, no more than 15 PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -61 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist construction workers would be at the construction site at one rime. Table 3 -12 below provides the estimated daily roundtrip truck trips and number of construction employees associated with each phase of construction. Table 3 -12. Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees Construction Phase Construction Activity Duration Worker Per (Days)a Day Construction Worker Roundtrips Per Day Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Phase Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Day" Total Trips Per Day Demolition 6 6 12 20 3 15 Grading 24 6 12 40 2 14 Construction, 168 15 30 12° 2 32 asphalting, and architectural finishing" .Phase duration assumes a six -day construction work week. t There is overlap between the construction of the proposed project, asphalting, and architectural finishing. Twelve rounduip truck trips would only occur during a 1 week (5 day) period of asphalting. d Numbers are rounded to nearest whole number. It is assumed construction employees and trucks would use Jamboree, MacArthur, and Von Karman to access the project site during construction. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that the estimated daily construction trips would occur during the AM and PM peak travel periods. For example, during demolition it is estimated there would be 7.5 AM trips and 7.5 PM trips for a total of 15 trips per day (the total trips per day identified above in Table 3 -12 during demolition). Typically, truck trips associated with the deliveries of materials and goods would not occur during peak hour traffic rimes, but rather off peak times throughout the day. It is also conservatively assumed the AM and PM trips generated by construction would occur on every single road segment. Typically, trips are assigned to road segments. These assumptions provide a conservative analysis of the estimated increase in trips associated with construction of the proposed project. The 31 estimated AM trips that would be generated by construction would increase traffic levels over existing conditions on Jamboree, MacArthur, and Von Karman by 0.2% to 1.4 %. The 31 estimated PM peak trips that would be generated by construction would increase traffic levels over existing conditions by 0.17 to 1.23% on Jamboree, MacArthur, and Von Karman (See Appendix E for a table of each roadway segment and the percent increase in traffic associated with the construction of the proposed project during the AM and PM). The trips generated by construction would be temporary and would cease to exist once construction is completed. And finally, as discussed below, most of the conditions at the existing intersections described above within the vicinity of the proposed project are operating at acceptable levels of LOS. Therefore, trips associated with the construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition assigns a total of 132 ADTs per day for an office building of 11,960 gross square feet (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2008). A total of 19 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak hour trips are assigned to office buildings of this size. The same assumptions described above for construction are assumed for operation. The addition of 19 AM peak hour trips would increase traffic levels over existing conditions between PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -62 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist 0.5% and 1.61% during AM peak hour traffic and between 0.44% and 1.38% during PM peak hour traffic. (See Appendix E for a table of each roadway segment and the percent increase in traffic associated with the operation of the proposed project). Therefore, the addition of 19 AM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS D or worse during the AM peak hour. Furthermore, the addition of 18 PM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS E, for those intersections shared between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. Therefore, impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion managementprogram, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less - than - Significant Impact. Within the defined Orange County Congestion Management Program highway network, intersections and freeway segments are not allowed to deteriorate to a condition worse than LOS E, or the base year LOS if worse than E (Orange County Transportation Authority 2003). The following intersections are Congestion Management Program intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, I -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road, and I -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. Table 3 -13 below summarizes the 2003 AM and PM peak hour LOS for these Congestion Management Program intersections. Table 3 -13. Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program Intersections Intersection 2003 AM Peak Hour LOS 2003 PM Peak Hour LOS MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road C 1 -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road C C I -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. D D All intersections are operating at LOS C or worse. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project's AM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS D or worse, for those intersections shared between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. Furthermore, the addition of the proposed project's PM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS E, for those intersections shared between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine (see discussion of LOS above in Response XVI(a) for individual proposed project impacts related to LOS and measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system). There are a number of projects proposed in the cities of Newport Beach and hrvine which could cumulatively increase traffic to levels on the roads and intersections surrounding the project site. The proposed project was included in the cumulative projects list of the traffic study for the City Hall Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, which included other cumulative projects located within the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine (LSA 2009). Table 17 of the City Hall DEIR summarizes the cumulative analysis and identifies there would be no significant impacts at any of the studied intersections, which include the intersections identified above, in 2013 (LSA 2009). Furthermore, for all intersections shared by the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach a LOS of E is acceptable during AM and PM peak periods. Table 22 of the DEIR indicates the MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LSA 2009). Finally, the Orange County Congestion Management Program (2007) Appendix B -2 identifies specific criteria for which projects are exempt. Any development applications generating PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -63 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist vehicular trips below the ADT threshold for CMP traffic analysis include any project generating less than 2,400 ADT total, or any project generating less than 1,600 ADT directly onto the CMP Highway System. The proposed project would generate approximately 132 trips per day, and thus would be below the criteria established by the Congestion Management Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard and impacts would be less than significant. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less - Than - Significant Impact. As described in Section VIII(e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the boundaries of the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project would be within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. The proposed project includes constructing one three -level office building with a maximum height of 50 feet. The project site is approximately 42 feet above mean sea level (AES Due Diligence 2004). The proposed project would not require notification to the FAA in accordance with Section 77.13 of the FAR because the proposed project would not be more than 200 feet above ground level and would not be more than 206 feet above mean sea level; the proposed project would not create any imaginary surfaces with any of the specific slope characteristics identified within Section 77.13; the proposed project is not a highway; and the proposed project is not a modification to an existing airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change of air traffic patterns including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. Impacts would be less than significant. it Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the alignment of any of the adjacent roads. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, Newport Beach Department of Public Works would review and approve all plans, including plans for commercial driveway approaches. Impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction or operation of the proposed project would not affect streets or otherwise affect emergency access routes. The proposed project would be designed to incorporate all standards required City of Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that project implementation would not result in hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas surrounding the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Transit service is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in the vicinity of the project site. OCTA Bus Line 75 travels along Harvard Avenue and Jamboree Road between the Tustin Marketplace area and the Newport Transportation Center. Furthermore, there are pedestrian and bicycle easements along the street frontage along Von Karman Avenue. In the Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element, Figure CE4 shows the Master Plan of Bikeways in the City. Von Karman Avenue is designated as a Class I bikeway. Bikeway is a term used to PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -64 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. A Class I bikeway provides for bicycle travel on a paved right -of -way separated from any street or highway. This includes sidewalk bikeways adjacent to the street (City of Newport Beach 2OO6a). The proposed project includes the construction and operation of an office building in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community area. The construction and operation of an office building would maintain all pedestrian and bicycle easements and would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts would not occur. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -65 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Lessthan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ stormwater 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 would new or expanded entitlements be needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider that 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of SARWQCB. The City requires NPDES permits, as administered by SARWQCB according to federal regulations, for both point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the United States. In addition, wastewater service in the project vicinity is provided PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -66 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist by the City (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The majority of the City's wastewater flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, while flows from the portion of the City north of State Route 73 are pumped to Plant No.I.See Figure 3 -4, Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas. The proposed project is located north of State Route 73; therefore, wastewater would be treated by Plant No. 1. The OCSD Reclamation Plant No.1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 million gallons per day and treats an average of 90 million gallons per day. Therefore, it operates at 52% of its capacity (City of Newport Beach 20066). The proposed office building would be constructed in an area on the project site that is currently developed with a surface parking lot and some landscaped area. The project site currently generates wastewater from urban runoff during rain events. The proposed project would increase wastewater generation above the current wastewater generation rate, as office commercial would be expected to generate more water than a surface parking lot. Approximately 20 gallons of wastewater per employee per day are produced for office type commercial uses (Brown pers. comm. b). Therefore, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,060 gallons of wastewater per day. This would equate to approximately 386,900 gallons per year of wastewater, which is 0.2% of the remaining capacity (84 million gallons per day) of Plant No. 1.10 The proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of SARWQCB and would comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board as discussed in Section LX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements that would regulate discharge from construction (also described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality). Finally, since OCSD Plant No. 1 operates at 52% of its capacity, the additional wastewater generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by OCSD. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any violation of standards set forth by OCSD. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less - than - Significant Impact. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to the existing OCSD sewer system. OCSD, as stated above in Response (a), manages and oversees all wastewater in Orange County and would be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed project. See Response (d) below regarding the proposed project's potable water demand. The proposed project would not require additional new water supplies or water entitlements due to its small increase in demand; therefore, no new potable water facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 10 The proposed project combined with the existing PRES building would also result in a negligible increase in wastewater generated. Approximately 24 people work in the existing PRES building (which is based on 6,850 gross square feet and SCAG data of 287 square feet per employee). Therefore, approximately 480 gallons of wastewater per day or approximately 175,200 gallons per year is generated by the existing PRES building (using a factor of 20 gallons of wastewater per employee per day). Approximately 1,540 gallons per day or approximately 562,100 gallons per year of wastewater would be generated by adding the proposed project wastewater generation to the existing PRES building generation. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -67 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site consists mostly of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the pervious area as described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. During construction, runoff from the project site would be managed by BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements per Mitigation Measure WQ -1. BMPs would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of a SWPPP to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains per Mitigation Measure WQ -1. Storm runoff generated through project operations would be diverted to the infiltration trench and catch basin per the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B). Roof drainage would be routed into underground perforated pipes to allow for infiltration and treatment of roof runoff and all of the drainage from the parking area would drain into an existing 4- foot -wide catch basin on the west side of the site. This catch basin would be fitted with media -filled cartridges that would provide the regulatory level of treatment (see Appendix B, Preliminary WQMP). Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? Less- than - Significant Impact. Water service is provided by the City of Newport Beach, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District. Figure 3 -5, Water Infrastructure and Service Areas, illustrates the service boundaries of each provider. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of IRWD. IRWD encompasses a 179 - square mile service area and its current population of 330,000 is approximately 76% of the ultimate projected population estimated at 434,511 for 2030. In 2009, IRWD had approximately 96,829 connections serving approximately 57,795 acre -feet of potable water, 8,036 acre -feet of non - potable water, and 26,185 acre -feet of recycled water annually (Irvine Ranch Water District 2009). Approximately 35% of IRWD's current water supply is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, with the remaining 65% coming from local groundwater wells (Irvine Ranch Water District 2009). IRWD prefers to diversify and rely less on imported and more on local supplies, and has therefore developed extensive groundwater pumping capacities to meet potable demands in addition to Metropolitan Water District supplies. IRWD's non - potable water system meets the majority of the landscape irrigation and agricultural water demands. IRWD has an extensive dual distribution system, which delivers recycled water from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant and the Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plan. The source of IRWD's groundwater supply is the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. IRWD is an operator of groundwater- producing facilities in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Within the Basin, degraded groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin provides non - potable water for agricultural and landscape use. IRWD also currently operates six wells within the unadjudicated Lake Forest area; however, this area has much less groundwater production capability. The majority of these wells produce poor quality supply which supplements the tertiary reclamation plant production in order to meet peak seasonal demand (Irvine Ranch Water District 2005). An Urban Water Management Plan was prepared by IRWD in 2005 and evaluates water supply and demand within its service area (Irvine Ranch Water District 2005). See Table 3 -14 below for current and projected planned water supplies. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -68 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 COSTA MESA Project Location rub '�4b 1CF INTERNATIONAL Legend -- CMn Wade . no kler CM aI NuwatN h Costa wftobn Wkt Iry RoncMWOIWC 'I' kw�mv fltl n= arW kbnioWd Lor II V N L w�ernvV RW slaie arq Fetleia rlpnwW Skeen Mole. WW wanex�i��mmvcnfe mm en iMre RoncM wrndr oam�.i wF rnaatA, g MIIm �pyef aM pry. a zvaane mmyarvxvremn.Lmm.b W�Mxfn -GNma 14o.Ymb WPd.M 1�` uoc� bi\ S f' brnb rug riyure r•r Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas PRIES Office Building B C. .11. �� K.W Tn. ICFWater Infrastructure and Service Areas INTERNATIONAL PRIES Office Building B \ ; Legend ...... CM Baurgory Waal InIr .M. Waei Pmttla's n cMa rJewnort Beocn Project Location wno xonon Wa a t Ness crosotld Wrn o 1 H1��IQNN I�]ntiS mO Slbmage] 1On65 L• wammvy t: ,v�.e eoatls m0 FeOaal Hlpnxay f�. •• �'} moon mute. waw nuos+�cve osoiw rvry nw�cn wrnw pnrci nor w.aowo. y Nyy 9 OS �� K.W Tn. ICFWater Infrastructure and Service Areas INTERNATIONAL PRIES Office Building B City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -14: Irvine Ranch Water District Current and Planned Water Supplies Potable Supplies: 2005 acre -feet/ year 2010 acre -feet/ year 2015 acre -feet/ year 2020 acre -feet/ year 2025 acre -feet/ year 2030 acre -feet/ year Purchased MWD 19,306 25,318 31,508 35,477 37,395 38,161 treated Clear groundwater 29,960 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 Treated groundwater 7,200 22,988 25,066 27,306 29,459 29,753 Non - potable Supplies: Recycled water 15,296 26,203 26,091 27,948 29,231 29,523 Purchased MWD 5,304 6,303 4,556 3,434 3,225 3,225 untreated Native (surface water) 7,251 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Non - potable 2,285 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 groundwater Total 86,602 116,710 123,119 130,063 135,208 136,560 Note: The water supplies projected here do not represent the total supply capacity available to IRwD, but rather the projected supplies to meet the projected demands. Note: Alt connections for IRWD are metered and therefore appropriately capture the demand of IRWD's service area. Source: Irvine Ranch Water District 2005 The service area population of IRWD is expected to increase 15% from approximately 366,000 in 2010 to 434,000 in 2030. Commercial accounts are expected to increase approximately 35% from approximately 4,600 accounts in 2010 to 7,100 accounts in 2030. This would result in a 30% increase in commercial water demand, which would total an estimated 13,500 acre -feet for 2030. The Urban Water Management Plan identifies that IRWD's demands for water can be met in average, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2030 based on current and projected water supplies and the demands forecast for normal, a single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios through 2030 (Irvine Ranch Water District 2005). IRWD's water supply reliability is enhanced through development of multiple sources of supply and adequate storage, pumping and distribution facilities. See Table 3 -15 below for past, current and future water uses based on monthly records of water sales throughout the service area. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -69 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Table 3 -15: Past, Current, and Future Water Uses Year Service Area Population Water Use Sectors Single Family Multi- Family Commercia 1 Industrial Instit /Gov Landscape Ag. Total 2005 316,000 #of accts. 47,650 30,147 3,973 1,054 223 5,306 81 88,434 AFY 26,103 4,868 7,663 6,047 2,842 23,371 8,801 79,696 2010 366,192 #of accts. 68,409 34,947 4,631 1,141 224 5,923 38 115,313 AFY 36,475 6,300 9,584 8,615 3,769 34,332 8,615 107,690 2015 384,502 # of accts. 74,937 44,723 5,385 1,204 254 6,308 41 132,851 AFY 39,156 7,901 10,922 8,904 4,183 35,829 9,295 116,190 2020 403,727 # of accts. 82,896 48,076 6,017 1,347 272 6,841 31 145,479 AFY 42,665 8,366 12,020 9,813 4,416 38,272 7,115 122,668 2025 423,914 # of accts. 86,363 52,698 6,694 1,433 329 7,102 21 154,641 AFY 43,783 9,033 13,173 10,287 5,269 39,141 4,767 125,453 2030 434,511 # of accts. 91,053 54,966 7,011 1,504 343 7,431 18 162,326 AFY 45,468 9,280 13,590 10,635 5,405 40,339 4,008 128,725 Source: Irvine Ranch Water District 2005 3 -70 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist The project site currently does not have a demand for potable water since it is primarily existing surface parking spaces and some landscaped area. The proposed project would increase water demand, as a commercial office building would use more water than surface parking and some landscaping area. A standard assumption is that potable water usage is approximately 111 % of the sewerage generation rate; therefore, the proposed project would use approximately 1,177 gallons of potable water per day. This would equate to approximately 429,605 gallons per year or approximately 1.32 acre -feet per year. This demand would be approximately less than 0.001% of the total projected demand identified in the IRWD Urban Water Management Plan for 2015 to 2030. It would be approximately 0.01% of the commercial water demand in 2015 to 2030. This demand is approximately 0.001% of the total supply identified in the IRWD for 2015 to 2030. Therefore, the increase in the water demand by the proposed project over the existing use would be negligible when compared to the projections planned for in the IRWD Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, based on IRWD's evaluation and planning for reliability of water supplies and the anticipated proposed project water demand, no new or expanded entitlements would be required to serve the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less - than - Significant Impact. See Response XVII(b). f. Be served by a landfill with sufftcientpermitted capacity to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate an increase in solid waste production as a result of the proposed commercial office building. The majority of commercial solid waste generated in the City is collected by the waste haulers and transported to a City -owned transfer station. Refuse is consolidated and transported to a materials recovery facility where recyclable materials are sorted from refuse by machines and other methods. The remaining solid waste is then taken to one of three Orange County landfills (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Currently, only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill serves the City of Newport Beach. Closure is currently estimated at year 2022; however, Integrated Waste Management Department is preparing an environmental impact report to support expansion of the landfill and extending its closure date to 2053 (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The permitted daily tonnage limit for the Bowerman Landfill is 8,500 tons per day of refuse except for 36 days per year when a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed. If the expansion is approved, the landfill would accept 11,500 tons per day (City of Newport Beach 2006b). A study of the Frank R. Bowerman landfill and its remaining capacity is presented in Table 3 -16 below. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -71 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -16. Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Capacity Current Remaining Maximum Capacity Capacity Estimated Maximum Daily Annual Landfill (million tons) (million tons) Close Date Load (Tons) Usage (Tons) Frank R. 44.56 81.60 2022 8,500 2,332,576 Bowerman Source: City of Newport Beach 2006b The proposed project would increase the commercial solid waste generated at the proposed project site as the existing land use does not generate any solid waste that must be disposed of in a landfill. The proposed project involves the construction of two levels of office space above ground -level parking spaces. Assuming each employee produces 10.53 pounds of solid waste per day, the proposed project during operation would produce, on average, 558 pounds of solid municipal waste per day (City of Newport Beach 2006b). This would be less than 1% of the daily load of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill". Construction waste generated by the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in the total construction and demolition waste the landfill receives; however, much of the asphalt would be recycled. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill would be able to accommodate the increase in solid waste generated by the proposed project during construction and operation. Impacts would be less than significant. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City recycling programs; therefore, no impacts would occur. " The proposed project combined with the existing PRES building would also result in a negligible increase in solid waste generated. Approximately 24 people work in the existing PRES building (6,850 gross square feet and SCAGs data of 287 square feet per employee). Therefore, approximately 253 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 92,345 pounds per year is generated by the existing PRES building (using a factor of 10.53 pounds of solid waste per employee per day). Approximately 811 pounds per day or approximately 296,015 pounds per year of solid waste would be generated by adding the proposed project solid waste generation to the existing PRES building generation. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -72 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion 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 periods of California history or prehistory? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project area is urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 11I0-1 would reduce impacts on migrating birds to less- than - significant levels. Additionally, no historical or archaeological cultural resources would be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed project. Although the proposed project is unlikely to disturb paleontological resources during construction, should the construction be located at depths greater than 5 feet, Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant. See Appendix F, Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report, for a description of mitigation measures and methods for implementation, verification, and responsible parties. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -73 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Potentially Significant Impact Lessthan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ E ❑ ❑ 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 periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion 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 periods of California history or prehistory? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project area is urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 11I0-1 would reduce impacts on migrating birds to less- than - significant levels. Additionally, no historical or archaeological cultural resources would be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed project. Although the proposed project is unlikely to disturb paleontological resources during construction, should the construction be located at depths greater than 5 feet, Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant. See Appendix F, Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report, for a description of mitigation measures and methods for implementation, verification, and responsible parties. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -73 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less- than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. The City of Newport Beach identified 12 individual projects within the City. Projects located in the Irvine Business Complex area of the City of Irvine identified on the list of Current Discretionary Projects Under Review are also added to the cumulative project list below. These 17 projects are considered cumulative because of the proximity of the project site to the Irvine Business Complex. The majority of the City of Irvine's projects are currently delayed and/or pending as indicated on the list of discretionary projects. The total 29 cumulative projects are described below. City of Newport Beach ■ Newport Beach Country Club, located at 1600 East Coast Highway. This development includes five residential dwelling units, 27 hotel units with a 2,048 - gross- square -foot concierge and guest center, 3,523- gross - square -foot tennis club with a 6,718 - gross- square -foot spa, 41,086 - gross- square -foot golf club with accessory facilities, seven tennis courts and a swimming pool. ■ Mariner's Medical Arts, located at 1901 Westcliff Drive. This development includes 12,245 gross square feet of a medical office addition. ■ City Hall & Park Development, located at 1100 Avocado Avenue. This development includes 98,000 gross square feet for City Hall, 17,135 gross square feet of library expansion, 450 -space parking structure, and a 15 -acre park. ■ Newport Business Plaza, located at 4699 Jamboree Road and 5190 Campus Drive. This development includes 43,951 gross square feet of new office building, 5,744 gross square feet of bank uses, 2,214 gross square feet of retail uses, and 2,263 gross square feet of restaurant uses. ■ Banning Ranch, located at 4520 West Coast Highway. This development includes 1,375 dwelling units, 75,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, 75 -room guest accommodations, parks, and open space. ■ Sunset Ridge Park, located at 4850 West Coast Highway. This development includes 13.67 acres of active park land. ■ Old Newport GPA, located at 328 -340 Old Newport Boulevard. This development includes 25,725 gross square feet of medical office uses. ■ Marina Park, located at 1700 Balboa Boulevard. This development includes 10.45 acres of public marina, beach, and park with recreational facilities as follows: 26,990 gross square feet of Balboa Center Complex, 23 slips for Visiting Vessel Marina, 1,328 gross square feet of Marina Services Building, 5,500 gross square feet of Girl Scout House, and 153 parking spaces. ■ Conexant /Koll Conceptual Plan, located at 4343 Von Karman Avenue. This development includes 974 residential dwelling units. ■ AERIE, located at 201 Carnation Avenue. This development includes a six -unit condominium building with subterranean parking, which would include 25,500 cubic yards of grading. ■ Coast Community College District, located at 1505 -1533 Monrovia Avenue. This development includes 67,000 gross square feet of a higher education learning center. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -74 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist ■ Beauchamp, located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard, General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment for new residential units (5 single -unit dwellings). City of Irvine ■ Michelson and Jamboree (Park Place), tentative tract map and park plan for the Bosa residential development Phase 2 (566 units). ■ Avalon Jamboree H, located at 16901 Jamboree, General Plan Amendment, zone change, park plan, and conditional use permit for new residential units (180 residential apartments). ■ Irvine Tech Center, located at the northwest corner of Jamboree and Campus, Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, and zone change for new mixed use project to include 1,000 units. ■ Kilroy, located at 17150 Von Karman Avenue, General Plan Amendment, zone change, park plan, and tentative tract map to increase Irvine Business Complex residential intensity cap to 7,190 units to provide for 469 residential units. ■ Alton & Millikan Apartments, located at 16952 Millikan General Plan Amendment, zone change, park plan, tentative tract map, and conditional use permit for 156 residential apartments. ■ 2852 Kelvin, General Plan Amendment, zone change, park plan, and conditional use permit for 194 apartments /condominiums. ■ 3333 Michelson Drive, minor modification to Conditional Use Permit of Park Place. ■ Aquinaga Green Materials Recovery Facility, located at 16355 Construction Circle West, conditional use permit to establish materials recovery facility. ■ GIFREH, located at 18691 Jamboree Road, multi -use center. ■ 2062 Business Center Drive, Tentative Parcel map to create two parcels for condominium purposes. ■ Element, located at 17662 Armstrong, conditional use permit for 122 -room, limited- service hotel. ■ 2555 Main Street, Tentative Tract Map to create 481 residential condominium units. ■ Hindu Temple, located at 16540 Aston, conditional use permit for shared parking. ■ 16952 Millikan, conditional use permit to operate a music and martial arts school. ■ Ocean Blue Day Spa, located at 17801 Main Street, conditional use permit to establish a massage use. ■ 166321 Hale Avenue, conditional use permit to establish a martial arts studio in 3,179 square foot suite. ■ St. Marks Church, located at 17840 Skypark Circle, conditional use permit to establish the St. Marks Church. The analysis of cumulative projects addresses only those environmental issues that have the potential to be affected by the combined cumulative project list. This environmental document provides a determination of whether or not a significant cumulative impact exists, and whether the proposed project would contribute to such a significant cumulative impact to a considerable degree. Only project impacts that are deemed cumulatively considerable are considered potentially significant impacts in the context of this analysis. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -75 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Implementation of the proposed project would include the construction and operation of a new office building within an existing urban office complex area. The construction and operation of the proposed project would be of similar nature to the existing office buildings and surrounding urban uses within the vicinity of the project site. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not degrade or detract from the urban built -out nature of the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Business Complex of the City of Irvine. Furthermore, should the Conexam /Koll Conceptual Plan be approved, the proposed project would support the aesthetics of a mixed -use area, which would include the existing office complex and the new residential and commercial development associated with the Conexam/Koll Conceptual Plan. Therefore, any less -than- significant impact the proposed project has on aesthetics would not represent a considerable degree when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative project list and would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in the disturbance of undiscovered paleontological and archaeological cultural resources. In conjunction with the projects listed above, the proposed project would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact on cultural resources. The mitigation measure identified in Section V, Cultural Resources, would reduce the significance of impacts on cultural resources associated with disturbance of an undiscovered cultural resource. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to implement similar measures. As such, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to a considerable cumulative impact on agriculture and forest resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, or utilities. As discussed above in Sections II, Agriculture and Forest Resources; XI, Mineral Resources; XIII, Population and Housing; XIV, Public Services; XV, Recreation; and XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project is not located in an agricultural area; would not cause a hazardous release; is not located in a valuable mineral resource area; would not add to the population of the region or necessitate new housing; and, would not substantially increase the use of public services or utilities such that new services would be required. Therefore, any less- than - significant impact the proposed project has on these resources would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts to a considerable degree when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative project list. Impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase dust levels in the project area. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. 12 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project (Forecast of 12 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -76 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region, and therefore inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on geology and soils because of erosion or effects from expansive soil. The mitigation measure identified in Section VI, Geology and Soils, would reduce the significance of project impacts on geology and soils to a less -than- significant level. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute similar BMPs to control erosion and would be required to follow the California Building Code standards to minimize the risk of seismic- induced effects. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution cumulative impacts on geology and soils would be less than cumulatively considerable. With regard to GHG emissions, as discussed earlier in Response 1II(b), the amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative climate change /worldwide GHG emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality from the generation of stormwater runoff. The mitigation measure identified in Response IX(a) would reduce the significance of project impacts on hydrology and water quality to a less- than - significant level. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute water quality management plans and implement BMPs. Implementation of the water quality management plan and BMPs in a cumulative scenario would reduce the cumulative contribution of impacts associated with the proposed project to less -than cumulatively- considerable levels. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to excessive noise levels from construction; however, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Response XII(a) during construction. Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute similar measures if they were found to expose people to excessive noise. None of the cumulative projects are located in the immediate vicinity to be audible together with the proposed project construction activities. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section XVI, Transportation and Traffic, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to increase traffic volumes during construction and operating conditions. The proposed project was included in the cumulative projects list of the traffic study for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan (LSA 2009), as well as other cumulative projects in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. For all intersections shared by the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach, LOS of E is acceptable during AM and PM peak periods. There would be no significant impacts at any of the studied intersections with the implementation of the proposed project and future projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -77 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard and impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in less- than - significant environmental impacts or less -than- significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. Additionally, the impacts from the proposed project when combined with the list of cumulative development projects would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See Appendix F, Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report, for a description of mitigation measures and methods for implementation, verifications and responsible parties. Although construction of the proposed project is expected to create temporary adverse effects related to construction noise and hazardous materials during construction demolition, these impacts would be mitigated to a less- than- significant level. The significant operation impacts associated with geology and soils related to expansive soils would be reduced to less- than - significant levels with mitigation incorporated. PRES Office Building B July 2010 3 -78 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Chapter 4 Errata to the Draft IS /MND Chapter 4 Errata to the Draft IS /MND Introduction This section of the document addresses modifications to the draft IS /MND for the proposed PRES Office Building B. It presents all revisions related to public comments, as determined necessary by the Department. Only sections that had revisions based on the public comments are included, and sections that had no revisions are not included. Readers are referred to Chapters 1 through 3 of this final IS /MND to view complete sections. This section provides changes to the draft IS /MND in revision -mode text (i.e., deletions are shown with st_ gh and additions are shown with underline). These notations are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or minor revisions as needed as a result of public comments or because of changes in the project since the publication and distribution of the draft IS/MND. Changes to the Draft IS/MND The following changes to the text as presented below are incorporated into the final IS /MND. Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics, Page 3 -5 b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? No Impact. The proj et site does fiat ,.,.. sist ,.f....., reek ,.utef,.....:..gs that are of signifiea. «t . isttal quality. There are no histerie buddings an site or in the ..... jeet afea that would be a ff eted by the p_,.pe ,a .._,.:,.,.t ,;... thef ..,._, tThere are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (California Department of Transportation 2009). In addition, the County of Orange General PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500872.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Plan was also reviewed to determine if there are locally designated scenic highways within proximity of the project site. County of Orange General Plan Transportation Element Figure IV -11 does not identify any designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site (County of Orange 2004). Furthermore, the project site does not consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality. There are no historic buildings on site or in the project area that would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage a- scenic resources along a scenic highway, and no impacts would occur. IV. Biological Resources, Pages 3 -17 and 3 -18 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According Figure NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located within an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Additionally, field surveys of the site confirmed that the project site is fully developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Specifically. ICF performed a biological survey of the site on June 22, 2010 (see new Appendix G for the Biological Memorandum). The biological survey confirmed the project site contains no riparian habitat and the proposed project would not have an impact on the retarding basin. Therefore, there would be no impacts from project implementation on the habitat that the retarding e asin provides to bird species, including the great egret (Ardea alba), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and mallard (Anal pla , �rhvnchos). Of the species listed, the brown pelican, a federally protected species when present in nesting colonies and communal roosts, is only known to breed on Anacapa Island and a few other Channel Islands in southern California. Therefore, there would be no 2rroject- related impacts on California brown pelican nesting colonies or communal roosts. While it is possible for the brown pelican to be observed using the retarding basin, the area provides no habitat for the pelican that would be affected as a result of construction or operation of the proposed roject. The retarding basin is not within the proiect site boundaries, and the proposed project would have no permanent or temporary direct impacts on the retarding basin. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community and no impacts would occur. d. interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less- than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND undeveloped lands. According to Figures NRl and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not identified as a biological resources area, nor is it located in an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a) and the site is not connected to any wildlife corridors. Therefore, the project site is not considered a part of a regional wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species from one area to another. The retarding basin and adjacent areas provide marginal- to low - quality foraging habitat for wading birds such as the great blue heron and great egret. The ornamental trees within and adjacent to the roject site provide at best, marginal roosting habitat for wading birds; however, no sign of past or current nesting or roosting from wading birds was observed during a field visit performed on June 22. 2010 (Appendix G). Disturbance of the ornamental lawn and trees on the proiect site would remove approximately 2,000 square feet, or 0.05 acre, of marginal- to low- quality foraging habitat for wading birds. Furthermore, there are many locations of high - quality foraging habitat birds would likely use within the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, including Newport Back Bay and the San Joaquin Marsh. The retarding basin is not within the project site boundaries, and the proposed priect would have no permanent or temporary direct impacts on the retarding basin. Temporary indirect impacts (noise, light, etc.) on the retarding basin during the construction period could occur due to the proximity of the site to the basin. Given that the retarding basin provides low - quality habitat for waterfowl and that the project is in the immediate vicinity of other large local estuaries that birds use, temporary construction- related impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The project site does not support daily movement of species. Because of the poor quality of foraging habitat that the ornamental lawn and ornamental trees provide, and because the project is in the vicinity of local estuaries (San Joaquin Marsh, Upper Newport Bay) used by birds, proiect- related impacts to wading bird fora igin,g habitat would be considered less than significant. Although the existing ornamental trees on site do not are not anti,.ipat,.a ta provide important habitat, the removal of ornamental trees on site could reduce the number of stopover locations or nesting sites for migratory birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BI0-1 is proposed to reduce the impact on migratory birds should the trees be removed during migration season. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 would further minimize impacts on wading or tree roosting birds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Pages 3 -34 to 3 -35 e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -3 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Less - than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project is within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. All building height restrictions identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) have as their ultimate limits the imaginary surfaces as applicable and defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. "Imaginary Surfaces" are defined by means of elevations, heights, and slopes in relation to individual aimorts, the spaces above which are reserved for air navigation. The proposed proiect site is located within FAR Part 77 Obstruction for imaginary Surfaces for JWA as identified by the FAR Part 77 John Wayne rport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Figure in Appendix D of the AELUP. The ALUC uses all of the FAR Part 77.73 standards along with the results of FAA aeronautical studies, or other studies deemed necessary by the ALUC in order to determine if a structure is an `obstruction." Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any construction or alteration that: • Exceeds 200 feet in height about the ground level at its site. • Exceeds a height greater than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at specific slope characteristics at 20,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the airport runway. • Is a highway with specific characteristics. • Is occurring at an airport. The proposed project includes construction of a three -level office building with a maximum height of 50 feet. The project site is approximately 42 feet above mean sea level (AES Due Diligence 2004). The proposed project does not require notification to the FAA in accordance with Section 77.13 of the FAR because the proposed project would not be more than 200 feet above ground level and not more than 206 feet above mean sea level; the proposed project would not exceed a height greater than the imaginary surface planes identified in Section 77.13 (Federal Aviation Administration 2010); the proposed project is not a highway; and the proposed project is not a modification to an existing airport. Therefore, the filing of Form 7460 -1 with the FAA is not required. Although the proposed project is exempt from filing the Form 7460 -1 notice, a referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review is required due to the location of the proposal within the AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. general plan amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). The proposed project would comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land use Commission's John Wayne AELUP (Airport Land Use Commission 2008). The PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -4 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. Although the proposed project is located within an airport land use plan, it would comply with all established standards, requirements, and plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Pages 3 -39 to 3 -42 Discussion Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land within the City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Each of these watersheds is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMP requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The project site is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed. San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin (City of Newport Beach 2003). The EPA and Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board have identified San Diego Creek as an impaired water body. Impairments are identified for nutrients, sediments and toxics (see Appendix B, Preliminary WQMP). The main tributary of the San Diego Creek Watershed, San Diego Creek, drains directly into Upper Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program was established under the Clean Water Act (EPA 2010). It is a two - phased national program for addressing the non - agricultural sources of stormwater discharges that adversely affect the quality of receiving waters (EPA 2010). The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed by stormwater runoff into local receiving waters (EPA 2010). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (City PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -5 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND of Newport Beach 2006a). The City is a co- permittee for the NPDES Permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWOB). The City's permit regulates the amount of stormwater contaminants delivered into the City's waterways via the roads, gutters, storm drain systems, and other impervious surfaces. These impervious surfaces collectively are called municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). (Gity of Newpeft o, aeh 2009x) N4S4 The permits - requires an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain City facilities like the MS4, and use of BMPs in many residential, commercial, and development - related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Specifically, the City is required to do the following: • Control contaminants into stone drain systems. • Educate the public about stormwater impacts. • Detect and eliminate illicit discharges. • Control runoff from construction sites. • Implement BMPs and other site - specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment. • Prevent pollution from municipal operations, including fixed facilities and field activities. • Inspect industrial and commercial sites for compliance with NPDES regulations (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Therefore. the Citv is responsible for regulating discharges into the MS4s durin the construction and operation of projects. Two implementing tools regularly applied to proiects within the City to comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit are the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP). SWPPPs are not only required under the NPDES program, but are required to comply with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SARWOCB. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of 1 acre or more, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale, must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (2009 - 0009 -DWQ Permit effective July 2010) (State Water Resources Control Board 2010a). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (State Water Resources Control Board 2010b). The PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -6 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND requirements of the SWPPP are based on the construction design specifications detailed in the final design plans of the proposed proiect and the hydrology and geology of the site expected to be encountered during construction. These final Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. This allows the City to review the plans and require appropriate additional requirements under the SWPPP prior to grading and in compliance with the City's NPDES permit (as described above). The proposed building footprint is approximately 3;500 6 500 square feet; therefore, the amount of disturbed area during construction would be less than 1 acre and would not be part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not require the preparation or implementation of a formal SWPPP. However, since the project site is adjacent to a retarding basin, and is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed, which is impaired for sedimentation, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 is incorporated. Mitigation Measure WO -1 lists BMPs that could be included in the SWPPP, but are not limited to those specific BMPs. The SWPPP will ultimately list the final design, project-specific BMPs the discharger will use to limit runoff and protect water quality during construction. All BMPs and other requirements in the SWPPP are enforced by City code inspectors, as required under the NPDES permit described above. The SWPPP is specifically designed to avoid and/or minimize impacts on water quality. It is the standard practice to require SWPPPs, and not specify the detailed BMPs until final design, as required by General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SARWOCB. Furthermore, the SWPPP and BMPs included in the SWPPP are proven as effective measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to water quality through the standard practices of enforcement and use by the City and SARWOB. The preparation of a SWPPP would comply with the General Construction Activity_ Stormwater Permit and the NPDES program. Therefore, Mitigation Measure W -1 as described below would minimize the potential for construction activities to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. However, the proposed project would remove landscaped area, which would be replaced with surface parking and the proposed office building; therefore, slightly increasing the impermeable surface of the project site (see Appendix B for additional details). The 14elifRi .aF. ' Wate. Quality Management plan rtxinnnn) would he e,1 and ,. ...,1 by the Cit. priar to the :..,.uanee of ....,., ing and building PerlffiitS .. «,1 ...,.,,i,1 h.. 4:fl a l: E-,.a ,.t tl...t t:...,. ThO ❑lFeli...:«,,... 1x nnnn (n ««,. «, iN B) identifies the Gil.. ing «0« a ...t,. «„ 1 BN4P, !hat afe Fe„affffn tided t0 manage past «st..de. i,.« stamw"atAf «..fCC...,., the «..,...0.....1 .,:t.,. fR. UGate ....0.3eFt5, 0 e e 0...1 0 0 .....J: «0 the 0..,10 fliRg ...aetiee.. and the :.. paets Of litt0..:..0 afid :.. PF0P0....,..t0F disposal YR:!!G!R!ESR.E7GT... .. .. RF.FTil1SSiFl/.TIf.T.TSSrSI.' . PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -7 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) identifies additional BMPs to control the volume of stormwater generated and maintain water quality. The BMPs in the Preliminary WQMP include, but are not limited to: several nonstructural source control BMPs (e.g., activity restrictions, landscape management, etc), several structural BMPs (e.g., stormdrain signage, trash and waste storage, etc.), several site design BMPs (e.g., runoff volume reduction, etc.), and several treatment control BMPs (e.g., Filterra Roof Drain Planter) in order to maintain water quality. These various BMPs would control the pollutants of concern for the Proposed project, which include: bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, pesticides, organic compounds, and sediment. These. 144q inel.,,, h..t .._,...,a limited . (see Figum 1 of -2 in A...,eadi,, B C F R,o laegtimi of a I I the, QN4Ps ..,..,...,.see) These additional BMPs are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff during_ operation of the proposed project. Currently, stormwater runoff generated by the proiect site (e.g., parking lot) and the surrounding tributary area (e.g.. remaining parking lot) are collected via sheet flow and discharged into an existing stormwater drain at the entrance of the parking lot adjacent to the parking ticket booth. This is then discharged into the existing 48 inch stormwater drain and routed to the manhole and concrete weir wall. The volumes generated by the roject site during low -flow events are routed to the stormdrain within Von Karman Avenue and are not discharged into the retarding basin. This existing stormwater infrastructure would remain the same under the proposed project. Currently, a portion of the existing landscaped area on the project site flows unrestricted into the retarding basin. The protection of water quality is related to the land use generating the stormwater and to the volume stormwater flow generated under storm events. A preliminary vdrology report was prepared to evaluate the change between the existing and proposed proiect conditions regarding stormwater capacity and the change in existing and proposed project conditions regarding water quality (see PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -8 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Appendix H). The preliminary ydrology report used criteria established by the Countv of Orange in the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual /Preliminary and /or Project Water Quality Management Plans (2010). The County of Orange requires that new development perform a hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) assessment and incorporate BMPS to ensure any HCOCs created by the new development are mitigated (County of Orange 2010). An HCOC exists when the hydrologic regime of a site is altered or may be altered, and there is a potential for impacts on downstream channels alone or in conjunction with impacts of other proiects (County of Orange 2010). The County of Orange technical document specifically defines HCOCs if the following conditions exist: • post development run off volume for the 2 -year, 24 -hour storm event exceeds that of pre - development conditions by more than 5 percent: or • time of concentration' of post development runoff for the 2 -year, 24 -hour storm event is less than the time of concentration of the pre - development condition by more than 5 percent. (County of Orange 2010). If these conditions do not exist post - development, then an HCOC does not exist and does not need to be considered further (County of Orange 2010). The 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm event hydraulic calculations for the existing conditions and proposed project conditions were performed using software written per the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual (1986). The existing conditions (project site plus the surrounding parking lot) and the Proposed project conditions (project site with proposed project plus the surrounding parking lot) are included in Table 3 -6.12 below. As shown, the difference between the two is negligible and the peak flow under proposed proiect conditions is nearly identical to existing conditions. See Drawing I of 2 and Drawing 2 of 2 of Appendix H, which depict the existing and proposed project peak flows on a roject area maw Table 3 -6.1. Chanae between Existina and Proposed Flow Rates Existing Conditions Flow Rate Proposed Project Flow Rate Storm Event (Cubic Feet Per Second) (Cubic Feet Per Second) Difference Q2 1.11 1.17 0.06 010 2.05 2.14 0.09 0100 3.18 3.32 0.14 Westland Group 2010. Based on these flow rates, the proposed project would generate approximately 79 cubic feet of additional stormwater runoff during a 2 -year storm event, when I Time of concentration is e� nerally defined as the length of time it takes from stormwater runoff to travel from the highest point on the project site to the lowest point. 2 Existing tables have not been renumbered as part of Chapter 4 Errata. If a new table is included in Chapter 4 it is numbered to indicate the Table that would occur before it in Chapter 3. Therefore, Table 3 -6.1 would occur after Table 3.6 in Chapter 3 but before Table 3 -7. PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -9 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND compared to existing conditions (Appendix H). Appendix H calculates the change in the time of concentration between the pre- and post - development under 2-year and 10 -year storm event conditions by dividing the pre - development time of concentration by the difference between the time of concentration pre- and post- development. A 2 -year storm event has a difference in the time of concentration of 1.76 percent and a 10 -year storm event has a difference in the time of concentration of 1.03 percent between pre- and post - development. Since both of these are less than 5 percent, an HCOC would not result as part of the proposed project per the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document discussed above. Similarly, the storm volume difference before and after development for 2 -year and 10 -year frequencies is less than 2 percent. Therefore, the proposed project meets the County of Orange criteria for control of stormwater runoff, and an HCOC would not occur. However, the Final WQMP will include a BMP such as the Cultec Model PAC 150 to reduce the peak flow generated during a 100 -year storm event. This type of BMP could store 24.91 cubic feet of stonT water and would prevent stormwater generated by the proposed roject from overflowing the existing weir wall. Furthermore, since the cubic feet generated by the 2 -year and 10 -year storm events are less than the cubic feet of stormwater generated by the 100 -year storm event, volumes generated by those smaller storm events would not create an HCOC and would be contained by the BMP. Filterra Bioretention Systems are proposed for this site and are included in the Preliminary WQMP and would be included in the Final WOMP methods to maintain existing water ater quality. Specifically, there would be two locations for the Filterra systems: one at the northeast side of the building to maintain rooftop stormwater runoff water quality (Filtera roof drain) and one in the parking lot at the southwest corner of the building to maintain parking lot water quality (Filtera catch basin). The Filtera Bioretention System is a City of Newport Beach accepted and approved BMP to maintain water quality. It is also Technology Assessment Protocol for Ecology (TAPE) and Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) approved. As discussed in Appendix B, the Filtera Bioretention System utilizes physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of soil, plant, and microbe complex to remove pollutants typically found in urban stormwater runoff (e.g., bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, pesticides, organic compounds, and sediments). Appendix H includes a letter of confirmation from the manufacturer of the Filtera Bioretention System that the flows and cubic feet of stormwater generated by the proposed project and cited above would be fully contained by two Filtera Bioretention Systems of 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the roof drain and 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the parking lot. Therefore, the entire stormwater volume and flow generated by the proposed project site would be fully treated by the Filtera Bioretention System prior to discharge into the existing stormwater system of the City of Newport Beach. The Filtera Bioretention System would be sized appropriately to deal with the flows generated by the proposed project site and would treat the runoff of the site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP by preparing the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP, which is required for approval as part of the PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -10 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND issuance of building and grading permits, will demonstrate that the BMPs discussed above and in Appendix B and Appendix H will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact. The existing project area is in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The existing landscaped areas surrounding and located on the project site drain predominately into the retarding basin to the northwest of the project site (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008) (Appendix B). The existing parking areas drain via sheet flow to concrete ribbon gutter within the existing parking lot. Stormwater generally travels westerly along the gutter and is discharged into an existing catchment basin in the southwest corner located in the main entrance into the project site, along the west side of the site (Appendix B). No streams or rivers are currently located on or around the project site and the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The proposed project would involve some grading and minor soil disturbance during construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would comply with the DAMP (described above in Section IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality). Once operational, the proposed project would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site as the existing site is already largely paved with surface parking. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of exposed soil thereby contributing to siltation or erosion. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) provides BMPs such as pavement detention, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff - minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter to control the volume and quality of runoff generated by the slight increase in impervious surface on site. As described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) and the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix H), flow would continue to drain in a westerly direction into the existing catchment basin. Therefore, the operation of the project site as an office building would not result in a substantial change to the existing drainage. Impacts associated with erosion during operation and construction, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. Substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil because PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -11 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND of the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site is-(84 surface parking spaces). During construction, runoff quantities and velocity from the project site would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), operation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), BMPs would be used yelumes. These nr.rtn, are ifielaaea to improve treatment and storage capacity for the proposed project, which is an improvement over the existing site conditions. Any changes in hydrology are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff, providing partial flood relief to receiving waters. Furthermore, peak flows are generally the same under the existing conditions as the proposed project conditions. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Overall, urban street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2003). As described above in Section IX(d), the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site as 84 stalls of surface parking would not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area as discussed in Section IX(a), (c), and (d) above. The Koll Center Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site. Kell Center Newport Planned Community maintains the retarding basin (Tong pers. comm. a). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce the flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new development areas upstream (City of Newport Beach 2000). The existing stormwater infrastructure is designed to first discharge volumes into the existing stormwater drain in Von Karman Avenue venerated by low -flow storm events and then discharge volumes into the retarding basin venerated by high -flow storm events. Stormwater volumes are conveyed via a subterranean 48 inch stormdrain, which transverses the existing parking lot of the PRIES building in a northerly direction, to an existing subterranean manhole approximately 14 feet from the edge of the retarding basin (see Figure 2 -5 of Chapter 2 of the Draft IS /MND and Appendix H). There is a concrete weir wall inside the manhole. The weir wall regulates the volume of stormwater that is generated by the surrounding tributary area of the Kell Center and enters the retarding basin. The PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -12 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J&S 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND existing stormwater infrastructure is designed so that flows from lower frequency storms with lower runoff volumes, such as 2 -year and 10 -year storm events, are deflected by the weir wall and forced to flow in a northwesterly direction toward the City's public system in Von Karman Avenue. Stormwater volumes generated from upstream and the surrounding Koll Center that would overtop the weir wall and enter the retarding basin would come from large storm events (e.g 1 00- e storm events). As discussed in Section Mal, the difference between the existing flow rate and the proposed project flow rate is negligible, and the peak flow under proposed project conditions is nearly identical to existing conditions. Therefore, as discussed above. an HCOC would not result as part of the proposed project ler the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document. Similarly, the storm volume difference before and after development for 2 -year and 10 -year storm frequencies is less than 2 percent. Therefore, the proposed proiect meets the County of Orange criteria established in the technical guidance document for control of stormwater runoff, and an HCOC would not occur. However, the Final WOMP will include a BMP such as the Cultec Model PAC 150 to reduce the peak flow generated during a 100 -year storm event. This type of BMP could store 24.91 cubic feet of stormwater and would prevent stormwater generated by the proposed roject from overflowing the existing weir wall. Furthermore- since the cubic feet generated b,, the and l0 -year storm events are less than the cubic feet of stormwater generated by the 100 -year storm event, volumes generated by those smaller storm events would not create an HCOC and would be contained by the BMP. Thus, the project design would not funnel water into the retarding basin; all flows from the proposed proiect would flow toward the existing parking lot and would be contained by the capacity of the existing stormwater infrastructure. T"° °°a ° °t ° ° °'a not a_°:., inn t ° The proposed project would comply with the policies outlined in the General Plan to minimize runoff - related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.11, NR 3.20 and NR 4.4 and implementation would reduce the volume of runoff generated and potential for flooding. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) for the proposed project discusses operational BMPs, inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality. Stormwater drainage flows from the proposed project would be accommodated by the capacity of the existing catchment basin (Tong. pers. comm. b). Furthermore, as discussed in Section Ma), Filterra Bioretention Systems are proposed for this site and are included in the Preliminary WOMP and would be included in the Final WOMP as a method to maintain existing water quality. Appendix H includes a letter of confnmation from the manufacturer of the Filtera Bioretention System that the flows and cubic feet of stormwater generated by the proposed project and cited above would be fully contained by two Filtera Bioretention Systems of 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the roof drain and 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the parking lot. Therefore, the entire stormwater volume and flow generated by the proposed proiect site would be fully treated by the Filtera Bioretention System prior to discharge into the existing stormwater system of the City of Newport Beach. The Filtera PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -13 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Bioretention System would be sized appropriately to deal with the flows generated by the proposed proiect site and would treat the runoff of the site. The AF&4;;iffm Final WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. At that time it would be finalized and would demonstrate that the BMPs discussed in the Preliminary WQMP and the Preliminary HvdrologyReport will control storrwater runoff and maintain water quality. Furthermore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during construction. Increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems or generate polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts on stormwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. XII. Noise, Page 3 -53 e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less - than - Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan shows the existing 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 shows that the project site is located approximately 0.25 to 0.5 mile outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Figure N2, "Existing Noise Contours," of the City of Newport Beach General Plan shows that the proposed proiect is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour of the AELUP Noise Contours. Per Table 1, "Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise (Applicable to Aircraft Noise Sources)," of the AELUP, commercial land use categories such as retail and office, which experience a CNEL of less than 65 dB, are considered "normally consistent." Furthermore, normally consistent land uses, such as office land uses within the 60 dB contour, are allowed to use conventional construction methods, and no special noise reduction requirements are needed. The AELUP identifies noise impacts zones and recommends measures to reduce aircraft noise on certain land uses. A Moderate Noise Impact is identified as 60 dB CNEL or greater, but less than 65 dB CNEL, and is included in Noise Impact Zone "2" of the AELUP. The AELUP specifically identifies residential land units in this zone and requires sound attenuation as set forth in the California Code of Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations for residential units. The AELUP text does not identify commercial retail or office land uses as requiring sound attenuation. Since the proposed proiect does not include residential units and is within the 60 dB CNEL contour, it is normally consistent with the airport and is not required to provide sound attenuation. Therefore, noise impacts related to air traffic would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -14 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND XIV. Public Services, Pages 3 -56 to 3 -57 Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: al. Fire protection? Less -than- Significant Impact. As discussed in Section XIII, "Population and Housing," employees that would work at the site would likely reside in the Orange County area. Because the type of business would be related to real estate services, unique qualifications are Rencrally not required and would not result in the need to recruit people from out of the state or the region. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in growth - inducing effects because the population of Newport Beach or Orange County would not increase, and there would be no additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, including possible additional demand on and use of fire equipment and medical supplies at the project site. The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. There are eight fire stations strategically located throughout the City so that a fire unit can respond to residents and businesses in less than 5 minutes. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered an all -risk Fire Department and provides services for all types of emergencies (City of Newport Beach 2009b). The project site is served by the nearest fire station, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7, which is located at 20401 Southwest Acacia Street at the intersection of Southwest Acacia Street and Mesa Drive, approximately 1.9 miles to the southwest of the project site. The Fire Department reviewed the proposed project's site plans and project description on March 26 and June 2, 2010. The Fire Department reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the California Fire Code, including the size and location of the building, occupancy safety, fire hydrant necessity, and fire truck and emergency access. Therefore. Tthe proposed project would include all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers, and would be required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City, including compliance with applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations. Emergency vehicle access for the proposed project would be provided to the project site from Von Karman Avenue. —The proposed project would be within the current capacity of the Newport Beach Fire Department and would not create the need for any new facilities or personnel (Bunting pers. comm.). Impacts would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -15 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND a2. Police protection? Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed above and in Section XIII, "Population and Housing." employees that would work at the site would likely reside in the Orange County area; therefore, the project would not result in growth- inducing effects because the population of Newport Beach or Orange County would not increase, and there would be no additional demand for police protection services within the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Beach Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately 3.5 miles from the project site. The project site is located in Newport Beach Police Department Area 2 (Newport Beach Police Department 2010). The Newport Beach Police Department confirmed that, if constructed, the proposed proiect would not change their current operating practices (Hartford pers. comm.). Furthermore, based on the personal communication correspondence, even if employees came from other cities in Orange County, the police department would be able to accommodate the increase in professional office e=lovees. employees, these employees are expeeted to som-P. f4:9;n thp local population an' ^°p°i. Additionally, the department is currently patrolling the project site and surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or additional police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Pages 3 -59 to 3 -63, a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? In 2009 as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, existing conditions of roads and intersections around the project site were determined (LSA 2009). They are described in Appendix E. As described in Chapter 2, " Proiect Description," of the Draft IS /MND, the construction staging area would be located along the southwest property line adiacent to the Conexant property. Access from the project site to the office buildings to the east may be temporarily unavailable during construction, but employees and visitors to these offices could use the other access road off Von Karmen Avenue. Furthermore, since construction would last approximately 8 months, employees and visitors to these offices would use the other access road off Von Karmen Avenue during construction time, after which normal access PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -16 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND would be restored. Therefore, impacts associated with circulation due to construction staging would be less than significant. During construction, the maximum daily trips would depend on the number of truck trips received in a day and the number of employees at the construction site. Furthermore, no more than 15 construction workers would be at the construction site at one time. Table 3 -12 below provides the estimated daily roundtrip truck trips and number of construction employees associated with each phase of construction. Table 3 -12. Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees Construction Phase Construction Activity Duration Worker Per (Days)' Day Construction Worker Roundtrips Per Day Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Phase Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Day" Total Trips Per Day Demolition 6 6 12 20 3 15 Grading 24 6 12 40 2 14 Construction, 168 15 30 12` 2 32 asphalting, and architectural finishing' 'Phase duration assumes a six -day construction work week. t There is overlap between the construction of the proposed project, asphalting and architectural finishing. Twelve roundtrip track trips would only occur during a I week (5 day) period of asphalting. d Numbers are rounded to nearest whole number. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less - than - Significant Impact. Within the defined Orange County Congestion Management Program highway network, intersections and freeway segments are not allowed to deteriorate to a condition worse than LOS E, or the base year LOS if it is worse than E (Orange County Transportation Authority 2007 and 2009290-3). The following intersections are Congestion Management Program intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, 1 -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road, and I -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. Table 3 -14 below summarizes the 20073 AM and PM peak hour LOS for these Congestion Management Program intersections. PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -17 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Table 3 -14. Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program Intersections= Intersection 20073 -AM Peak Hour LOS 20073 PM Peak Hour LOS MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road C D I- 1-405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road C C I-405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. D C-B I Figure 5 page 2 of 3 "Orange County Congestion Management Program Level of service 2009" in the Orange County 2009 Congestion Management Program (Orange County Transportation Authority 2009) does not identify a deterioration of LOS at any of the intersections above. Two of the intersections (I -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road and 1 -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road) are not within the iurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach, as they are located in the City of Irvine. All intersections in Table 3 -14 are operating at LOS-E D or better. The 19 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project would be dispersed throughout the roadway system and would not affect any one CMP intersection at any one time. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project's 19 AM peak hour Lips and 18 PM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS PE or worse per the CMP LOS requirements, and the G:t. of !Fvifte. c.... hef:.f.e..,. the .adage.. _c the __o_o_,.a PTT n e'A'. 814 n, aeh and the G:ty ,.r r...:. e (See dlige...,,.:,... ,.er nc in sect ea vvra.\ eg-eet6,... ess Cm- the ..,._C,._.....nee efthe eirsuL.t :..n system). The proposed project was included in the cumulative projects list of the traffic study for the City Hall Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, which included other cumulative projects located within the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine (LSA 2009). Table 17 of the City Hall DEIR summarizes the cumulative analysis and identifies there would be no significant impacts at any of the studied intersections, which include the intersections identified above, in 2013 (LSA 2009). Furthermore, for all intersections shared by the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach a LOS of E is acceptable during AM and PM peak periods. Table 22 of the DEIR indicates the MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LSA 2009). Finally, the Orange County Congestion Management Program (2007) Appendix B -2 identifies specific criteria for which projects are exempt. Any development applications generating vehicular trips below the ADT threshold for CMP traffic analysis include any project generating less than 2,400 ADT total, or any project generating less than 1,600 ADT directly onto the CMP Highway System. The proposed project would generate approximately 132 trips per day, and thus would be below the criteria established by the Congestion Management Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard and impacts would be less than significant. PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -18 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND Chapter 4. References County of Orange. 2004. General Plan. County of Orange. 2010. Exhibit 7.111 Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual /Preliminary and /or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). Submitted to the santat Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board May 24. Available at: httl2: / /www.ocwatersheds.com/ Documents /TechnicaIGuidance.pdf. Accessed on: July 27. 2010. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Frequently Asked Questions. Available: < http:/ /cfi)ub.ei)a.gov /nvdes /fags.cfm >. Accessed: June 18, 2010. Heartford, Bill. Lt. Support Services Division of the City of Newport Beach Police Department. June 16, 2010 — Email. Orange County Flood Control Division. 1986. Orange County Hydrology Manual. Available at: < http: / /www.ocflood.com/Documents /pdf /OC Hydrology Manual.ydfl Accessed on: July 27, 2010. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2007. Orange County Congestion Management Program. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2009. Orange County Congestion Management Program. Available at: < http: / /www.octa.net /pdf /cMD09.pdfl Accessed on: July 27, 2010. .mot t*eersranl<�.exerat nssssr ... PRES Office Building B July 2010 4 -19 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Chapter 5 References Chapter 5 References Printed References AES Due Diligence, Inc. 2004. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared for The PRES Companies. San Diego, CA. Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. California Air Resources Board. 2008a. News Release: CARB Adopts Landmark Rules to Clean Up Pollution From "Big Rigs." Revised: December 12, 2008. Available: < http:// www. arb .ca.gov /newsrel/m12l2O8.htm >. Accessed: March 30, 2010. — . 2008b. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal – Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. October 24. California Department of Conservation. 1994. DMG Open -File Report 94 -15. Division of Mines and Geology. —. 2007. California Geological Survey — Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Available: <http: / /www.consrv.ca.gov/ cgs /rghm/ap /Pages /affected.aspx >. Accessed: November 11, 2009. —. 2009. Orange County Important Farmland 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. August 2009. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup. Available: <http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese–List.cfin>. Accessed: March 8, 2010. PRES Office Building B July 2010 5 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8s 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 5. References California Department of Transportation. 2009. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways. Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic highways/index.htm>. Accessed: November 12, 2009. California Division of Mines and Geology. 1997. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County California. Seismic Hazard Report 03. California Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. List of "active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available: http: / /www.calepa. ca.gov /SiteCleanup /CorteseList/. Accessed: November 10, 2009. City of Newport Beach. 2000. Storm Drain Master Plan. Cited in the City of Newport Beach (2006b). 2003. Hazards Assessment Study. Cited in City of Newport Beach (2006b). 2006a. City of Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006. 2006b. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update. State Clearing Housing Number: 2006011119. April 2006. 2009a. Coastal Land Use Plan. Certified by the Coastal Commission on October 13, 2005; adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 13, 2005. Last revised: June 26, 2009. Available: <http://www.city.newport- beach.ca.us/PLN/LCP/LCP.htm#Coastal_Land_Use_Plan>. Accessed: March 26, 2010. 2009b. Fire Operations Division. Available: < htt p:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page= 1131 >. Last revised: July 15, 2009. Accessed: November 6, 2009. County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. Available: < http:// www. ocplanning .net/GeneralPlan2005.aspx >. Accessed: November 10, 2009. Department of Water Resources. 2004. Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Bain: South Coast Hydrologic Region Coastal Plain of Orange County Ground Water Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118. February 27. Employment Development Department. 2009a. Santa Ana- Anaheim -Irvine Metropolitan Division (Orange County). Orange County loses 3,100 jobs over the month and 53,000 jobs over the year. December 18, 2009. PRES Office Building B July 2010 5 -2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 5. References Available: <http: / /www.cahnis.ca.gov /file /lfmonth/oran$pds.pdf>. Accessed: January 21, 2010. 2009b. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP). November 2009 - Preliminary. Sacramento, CA. Available: < http: / /www.labormarketinfo .edd.ca.gov / ?pageid =164 >. Accessed: January 21, 2010. Federal Aviation Administration. 20 10. Notice Criteria Tool. Available: https: / /oeaaa.faa. gov/ oeaaa /extemal/gisTools /gisActiola.j sp ?action= doNalloti ceRequiredTool &latD =33 &lath= 39 &latS =47.81 &latDit= N &longD =117 &1 ongM =51 &longS= 39.75 &longDit =W &datum= NAD83 &siteElevation =0 &st ructureHeight =50 &traverseway =NO &onAirport =false &submit = Submit >. Accessed: May 5, 2010. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change. June 19. Available: <http: / /www.opr.ca .gov /ceqa/pdfs /juneO8- ccga.pdf>. Accessed: March 30, 2010. Institution of Transportation Engineers. 2008. Trip Generation, 8th Edition. December. Irvine Ranch Water District. 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. November. —. 2009. Fact Sheet. Last revised: February 2009. Available: < http:// www. irwd .com/Medialnfo /factsheet.pdf>. Accessed: March 5, 2010. King, Chester. 1963. Site Record for CA- Ora -115. Site Record on File at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. LSA. 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report City Hall and Park Development Plan. Prepared by LSA for the City of Newport Beach, SCH No. 2009041010. Morton, P.K. and R. V. Miller. 1981 Geologic Map of Orange County California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 204, Plate 1. Newport Beach Police Department. 2010. Patrol and Traffic Division. Available: <http: / /www.nbpd.org/insidenbpd/ divisions /pat_trf /default.asp >. Accessed: February 3, 2010. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2003. Orange County Congestion Management Program. Available: PRES Office Building B July 2010 5 -3 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 5. References < http:/ /www.octa.neUctfp/Final ° /u20CMP %202003 ° /`2ODocument.pdf>. Accessed: March 25, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Revised November 1993. Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Employment Density Summary Report. 2008. Regional Transportation Plan. Stadum, Carol J. 2010. The Geologic History of Orange County. Modified from Orange County Geology- Teacher's Guide. Available: <http: / /www.ivc.edu /geology /pages /ocgeo.aspx >. Accessed: Mar 11, 2010 State Water Resources Control Board. 2010a. Stormwater Program: 2009-0009 - DWQ Construction general permit (effective July 1, 2010) Available: <http: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov /water_issues /programs /stormwater /gen_const faq .shtml #1 >. Accessed: March 13, 2010. . 2010b. Stormwater Program: Construction Storm Water Program. Available: <http: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov /water issues/ programs /stormwater /construction.s html >. Accessed: March 13, 2010. TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report. Proposed PRES HQ2 Office Building, 4300 Von Karman, Newport Beach California. TGR Project No. 07 -1994. Submitted to PRES Companies, Newport Beach California. Santa Ana, California. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Federal Transit Authority. U.S. Geological Survey. 1896. Santa Ana 30- minute topographic quadrangles. 1901. Santa Ana 30- minute topographic quadrangles. 1965. Tustin 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. Revised 1981. 2009. Mineral Resources On Line Spatial Data Orange County. Last revised: December 9, 2009. Accessed: January 5, 2010. Available: <http: / /tin.er.usgs.gov /mrds /select.php ?place= f06059 &div= fips >. Personal Communications Brown, Janet. (a) Associate Planner. City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, CA. May 4,2010—Email with Drainage Plan as attachment. PRES Office Building B July 2010 5 -4 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 5. References Brown, Janet. (b) Associate Planner. City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, CA. February 17, 2010 — Email. Bunting, Steve. Division Chief/Fire Marshal. Newport Beach Fire Department. Newport Beach, CA February 3, 2010 — Email. Tong, Michael. (a) PRES. Newport Beach, CA. February 18,2010—Email. Tong, Michael. (b) PRES. Newport Beach, CA. March 11, 2010 Email. PRES Office Building B July 2010 5 -5 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 Chapter 6 List of Prepareres Chapter 6 List of Preparers City of Newport Beach Associate Planner ICF Jones & Stokes Project Director Project Manager Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazard Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems Land Use and Planning, Transportation and Traffic, and Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cultural Resources Noise Graphics Editor Publication Specialist Janet Johnson Brown Chad Beckstrom, AICP Nicole Williams Tanya Jones Nicole Williams Victor Ortiz Mark Robinson Peter Hardie Soraya Mustain Laura Cooper Jenelle Mountain - Castro PRIES Office Building B July 2010 6 -1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J&S 00873.09 Appendix Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ROC NO, CO SO, PM1'Itti PNIt co, Demolition Emissions On-site Total 1.73 12.75 697 - 9.63 2.58 1,164.93 Fugitive Dust - - - - 8.82 1.83 - Off-Road Diesel 1.73 12.75 6.97 - 0.81 0.75 1,164.93 Off-site Total 0.89 11 Al s.Is 0.01 0.53 0.44 1,638.55 On -Road Diesel 0.87 11.36 4.36 0.01 0.52 0.44 1,545.25 Worker Trips 0.02 0.0U 0.79 - 0.01 - 93.30 Grand Total 2.62 24.16 12.12 0.01 10.16 3.02 2,803.48 Site Grading Emissions On -site Total 3.10 25.66 13.28 - 2.60 1.35 2,298.47 Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.47 0.31 Off -Road Diesel 3.10 25.66 13.28 - 1.13 1.04 2,298.47 Off -site Total 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 12439 On -Road Diesel - - - - - - - Worker Trip 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 124.39 Grand Total 3.13 25.72 14.33 2.61 1.35 2,422.86 Building Erection /Finishing Emissions On -site Total 6.09 10.31 6.28 - 0.72 0.66 959.01 Off -Road Diesel, Bldg Cast 0.80 5.04 2.76 - 0.26 0.24 517.96 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 4.16 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Gas 0.10 - - - - - - Off -Road Diesel, Asphalt 1.03 5.27 3.52 - 0.46 0.42 441.05 Off -site Total 0.09 0.62 1.91 - 0.05 0.02 287.76 Worker Trips, Bldg Cast 0.03 0.05 0.87 - 0.01 - 103.50 Vendor Trips, Bldg Crust 0.01 0.14 0.11 - 0.01 0.01 26.63 Worker Trips, Arch Coatings - - 0.05 - - - 6.03 On -Road Diesel, Asphalt 0.03 0.39 0.15 - 0.02 0.01 58.32 Worker Trips, Asphalt 0.02 0.04 0.73 - 0.01 - 93.28 Grand Total 6.18 10.93 8.19 0.77 0.68 1 246.77 On -site Emissions Totals Demolition 1.7 12.8 7.0 - 9.6 2.6 1,164.9 Site Grading 3.1 25.7 13.3 - 2.6 1.4 2,298.5 Building Erection/Finishing 6.1 10.3 6.3 - 0.7 0.7 959.0 Maximum On -site Emissions 6 26 13 - 10 3 2,298 Localized Significance Threshold -- 219 6,841 -- 135 76 -- Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No No Regional Emissions Totals Demolition 2.6 24.2 12.1 0.0 10.2 3.0 2,803.5 Site Grading 11 25.7 14.3 - 2.6 1.4 2,422.9 Building Erection/Finishing 6.2 10.9 8.2 - 0.8 0.7 1,246.8 Maximum Regional Emissions 6 26 14 0 10 3 2,803 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 -- Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No No Notes: URBEMIS print -out sheets and fugitive PM calculation worksheet are attached. ' Fugitive PM,, and PM,.., emissions estimates take into account compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. s The project site is located in SCAQMD SRA No. 20. These LSTs are based on the site location SRA, distance to nearest sensitive receptor location from the project site (500 meters), and project area that could be under construction on any given day (one acre). Page: 1 12/1412009 12:57:59 PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 CO2 10.15 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: G:\Los Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality \PRES IS \PRES_URBEMIS.urb924 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,246.75 Project Name: PRIES CO2 0.01 Project Location: South Coast AQMD PM2.5 CO2 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 0.49 1,502.14 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 PM2.5 CO2 Summary Report: 0.50 1,608.95 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES 2 NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 3.14 25.72 14.33 0.02 8.88 1.28 2011 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.10 10.64 7.97 0.00 0.01 0.73 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.21 0.11 1.62 0.00 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10. TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.11 1.53 13.90 0.02 2.52 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.32 1.64 15.52 0.02 2.53 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2,5 CO2 10.15 1.85 1.18 3.03 2,803.47 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,246.75 PM2.5 CO2 0.01 106.81 PM2.5 CO2 0.49 1,502.14 PM2.5 CO2 0.50 1,608.95 ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM 10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 1 1211412009 12:57:59 PM Time Slice 10 /1/2010 - 10/8/2010 Active 2.62 24.15 12.12 0.02 8.88 1.28 10_15 1.65 1.18 3.03 22 8213.47 Days 6 Demolition 10/01/2010- 10/0812010 2.62 24.15 12.12 0.02 8.88 1.28 10.15 1.85 1.18 3.03 2,803.47 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.82 0.00 8.82 1.83 0.00 1.83 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 1.73 12.75 6.97 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.75 0.75 1,164.93 Demo On Road Diesel 0.87 11.36 4.36 0.01 0.05 0.46 0.52 0.02 0.43 0.44 1,545.25 Demo Worker Trips 0.02 0.05 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.30 Time Slice 10/11/2010- 1118/2010 3.14 25_72 14_33 0.00 1.47 1.13 2.60 0.31 1.04 1.35 2,422.86 Active Davy- 21 Mass Grading 10/0912010- 3.14 25.72 14.33 0.00 1.47 1.13 2.60 0.31 1.04 1.35 2,422.86 1i /n8 /2n1n Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.10 25.66 13.28 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 0.00 1.04 1.04 2,298.47 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.39 Time Slice 11/9/2010- 12/31/2010 0.84 5.23 3.75 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.25 648.09 Active Dnvs 39 Building 11/09/2010 - 05/08/2011 0.84 5.23 3.75 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.25 648.09 Building Off Road Diesel 0.80 5.04 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.24 0.24 517.96 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.14 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 26.63 Building Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.50 Time Slice 1/3/2011- 31712011 Active 0.76 4.94 3.53 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 648.07 Days'46 Building 11/0912010- 05/08/2011 0.76 4.94 3.53 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 648.07 Building Off Road Diesel 0.72 4.77 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.22 022 517.96 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.63 Building Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.47 Time Slice 3/8/2011 4/29/2011 Active 4.92 4.94 3.57 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 654.11 Devi 39 Building 11/09/2010 - 05108/2011 0.76 4.94 3.53 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 648.07 Building Of Road Diesel 0.72 4.77 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.22 517.96 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.63 Building Worker Trips 0.03 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.47 Coating 03 /08/2011 - 06/08/2011 4.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 Page: 1 12/14/2009 12:57:59 PM Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 5/2/2011 - 5/612011 Active Days'5 Asphalt 05 /01/2011 - 05/08/2011 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 11/0912010- 05/08/2011 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/0812011 - 06/08/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 519/2011 - 6/8/2011 Active Days: 23 Coating 03/08/2011- 06/08/2011 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 6.10 10_64 7.97 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.67 1246.75 1.18 5.70 4.40 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.00 0.44 0.44 592.64 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 5.27 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.42 0.42 441.05 0.03 0.39 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 58.32 0.02 0.04 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.28 0.76 4.94 3.53 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 648.07 0.72 4.77 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.22 517.96 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.63 0.03 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.47 4.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 4.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 4.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 4.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 10/1/2010 - 1018/2010 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 42000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 21000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 364.58 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Crushing /Processing Equip (142 hp) operating at a 0.78 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at 0.55 load factor for hours per day Page: 1 12/14/2009 12:57:59 PM Phase: Mass Grading 10/912010 - 11/8/2010 -Default Mass Site Grading /Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 0.48 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.12 Fugitive Duet Level of Detail: Default 12.22 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Scrapers (313 hp) operating at a 0.72 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Skid Steer Loaders (44 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 5/1/2011 - 5/812011 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.23 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Skid Steer Loaders (44 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 11/9/2010 - 51812011 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 1 Plate Compactors (8 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Skid Steer Loaders (44 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 3/8/2011 - 618/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7 /1/2008 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6130/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7 /1/2008 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 S02 PM10 12/14/2009 12:57:59 PM CO2 0.07 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: 0.00 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.01 0.09 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.12 0.02 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.08 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.21 0.11 CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.00 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 1.62 Area Source Chances to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX General office building 1.11 1.53 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.11 1.53 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Enni Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 CO 13.90 13.90 ME S02 0.02 0.02 0.01 PM10 2.52 2.52 0.01 PM25 0.49 0.49 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT General office building 11.01 1000 sq it 13.00 143.13 1,456.71 143.13 1,456.71 106.81 CO2 1,502.14 1,502.14 Page: 1 12/14/2009 12:57:59 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 51.6 0.8 99.0 0.2 Light Truck <3750 lbs 7.3 2.7 94.6 23 Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs 23.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 Med Truck 5751 -8500 lbs 10.6 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 lbs 1.6 0.0 81.2 18.8 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.9 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) General office building 35.0 17.5 47.5 Page: 1 12/14/2009 12:57:55 PM PM10 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 PM2.5 PM2.5 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: G: \Los Angeles\3_Projects \_Air Quality \PRES IS \PRES_URBEMIS.urb924 1.85 1.18 3.03 Project Name: FIRES 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.67 Project Location: South Coast AQMD PM2.5 CO2 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 104.00 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 PM2.5 CO2 Summary Report : 0.49 1,360.30 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM2.5 CO2 ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 2010 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 3.14 25.72 14.33 0.02 8.88 1.28 2011 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.10 10.64 7.97 0.00 0.01 0.73 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.21 1.85 13.27 0.01 2.52 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day. unmitigated) 1.30 1.94 13.34 0.01 2.52 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 10.15 1.85 1.18 3.03 2,803.47 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.67 1,246.75 PM2.5 CO2 0.00 104.00 PM2.5 CO2 0.49 1,360.30 PM2.5 CO2 0.49 1,464.30 Page: 1 12/14/2009 12:57:49 PM PM10 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 PM2.5 PM2.5 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons /Year) File Name: G: \Los Angeles\3_Projects \_Air Quality \PRES IS \PRES_URBEMIS.urb924 0.02 0.03 46.49 Project Name: FIRES 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.85 Project Location: South Coast AQMD CO2 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 PM2.5 CO2 Summary Report : 0.09 265.51 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 2010 TOTALS (tans /year unmitigated) 0.06 0.44 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.02 2011 TOTALS (tons /year unmitigated) 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.01 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.21 0.30 2.50 0.00 0.46 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.24 0.32 2.79 0.00 0.46 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 46.49 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.85 PM2.5 CO2 0.00 19.49 PM2.5 CO2 0.09 265.51 PM2.5 CO2 0.09 285.00 PRES Existing Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Existing Project Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Project Net Project Emissions Net Mobile Net Area Net Stationary Total Net SCAQMD Significance Threshold Difference Significant? Regional Emission Calculations (lbs /day) ROC NOx CO sox PM10 PM2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.9 13.9 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.6 15.6 0.1 2.5 0.5 1.2 1.9 13.9 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.6 15.6 0.1 2.5 0.5 55 55 550 150 150 55 (54) (52) (534) (150) (147) (54) No No Nol No No No 12/14/2009 1:19 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Regional PRES Stationary Sources Electricity Usage Electricity Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) h Usage Rate Total Electricity Usage CO ROC NOx 11,111,110 sox Land Use 1.000 Soft (kWhlsa.illvrl (KWhlvearl (MWhWav) 0_2 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Existing Emissions from Electricity Consumption (Ibslday) Office 0.0 12.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Retail 0.0 13.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hotel /Motel 0.0 9.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Restaurant 0.0 47.45 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Food Store 0.0 53.30 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Warehouse 0.0 4.35 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 College /University 0.0 11.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 High School 0.0 10.50 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Elementary School 0.0 5.90 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hospital 0.0 21.70 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miscellaneous 0.0 10.50 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Residential (DU) 0.0 5,627 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Existing 0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Project Office 13.0 12.95 168,350 0.461 0.092 0.005 0.530 0.018 0.055 Retail 01) 13.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hotel /Motel 01) 9.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Restaurant 0.0 47.45 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Food Store 0.0 53.3 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Warehouse 0.0 4.35 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 College /University 0.0 11.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 High School 0.0 10.5 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Elementary School 0.0 5.9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hospital 0.0 21.7 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miscellaneous 0.0 10.5 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Residential (DU) 0.0 5,627 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Project 168,350 0.461 0.09 0.01 0.53 0.02 0.06 Net Emissions From Electricity Usage 0.09 0.01 0.53 0.02 O.Ofi Summary of Stationary Emissions CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Total Existing Emissions ( Ibs/day) Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) Total Net Emissions (Ibslday) ' Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A, CEOA Air Quality HandbooK SCAOMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -11 -B, CEOA A'r Quality Handbook, SCAOMD, 1993. ` Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9 -12 -A, CFOA Air Duality Handbook SCAOMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -12 -B, CEOA Air Cosily Handbook SCAOMD, 1993. ' The emission factors for NOx in Ibs per million cult of natural gas are 120 for nonresidential uses and 60 for residential uses. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.63 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.63 0.02 D.06 12114/2009 1 :19 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xis Stationary PRES Project Condition Mobile- source Natural Gas Combustion Electricity Demand Related Water Consumption Related Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Year 2020 AB32 Scoping Non - mitigated Percent Business as Plan Reductions Year 2020 Reductions Usual Emissions from BAU 266 (79) 187 29.8% 17 (2) 16 9.0% 79 (26) 53 33.0% 0 (0) 0 33.0% 362.31 (106.83) 255.48 29.5% 2020 GHG Emissions Percent Below Business as Usual 29.5% AB 32 Percentage Below Business as Usual Target Percentage 28.5% Meet /Exceed AB 32 GHG Reduction Target? Yes Summary of AB32 Scoping Plan Reductions Mobile-Source Pavley Emissions Standards 19.8% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 7.2% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 2.8% Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Emission Reductions 7.4% Extraction Emission Reductions 1.6% Electricity/Water Pumping Renewables Portfolio Standard 33.0% AB 32 Reduction Target Calculation 2020 California CO2e Emissions Inventory BAU Forecast (MMT) 596.40 1990 California CO2e Emissions Inventory (MMT) 426.60 AB 32 Reduction Target (MMT) 169.8 Required Reduction from Year 2020 BAU Emissions 28.5% 3/24/2010 11:27 AM PRES_Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Regional 312412010 1132 AM PRES Stationary Sources Electricity Usage office 0.a 20 Olfics 138 12:95 168"na 0 046 37109 Electricity Emission Resume (lbsIMWM ° 37176 Retail Usage Rate° Total Electricity Usage CO2 CHr III COle "no Use 1000SSo (kWbbo.MVrl KWf�eJ MW�y) 801 0.0067 0.0037 2111 Existing - - - Emi uni ne from Electricity Qbohday) office 0.0 1295 - - - - - - Rema a.0 in. - - - - - - HolellMdel 0.0 995 - - - - - - Realaurent 0.0 47,45 - - - - - - Fmtl$mm as 5380 - - - - - - Washouse 0.0 435 - - - - - - CallegelunWersBy 0.0 11.55 - - - - - High an., 00 1050 ElementiSCM1CaI Elementary Schmal 00 5.90 - - - - - - Hospgsl 0.0 21.70 - - - - - - Misrellaneoue g 1050 - - - - - - Reciaimed(oU( 00 5.627 - - - - - - 29 TMst Eaen"ng - - - - - - Proiect office 0.a 20 Olfics 138 12:95 168"na 0 046 37109 050 0.Oa 37176 Retail 00 13.55 - - - - - - HotellMOtel 00 9.95 - - - - - - Restaurant 00 4745 - - - - - 2O Food Stan 00 53.3 - - - - - - namebouse 0.0 4.35 - - - - - - Callegelunmerslry g 11 s5 Project High School 00 10.5 - - - - - - ElementiSCM1CaI 0.0 5.9 - - - - - - Hospital 0g 21 2.9 warenawas g 2. Miscellaneous 0.0 10.5 - - - - - 29 Residential (OU) 0.0 5,627 - - - - - - Miscellaneous TWal Protect 168,350.00 0A6 371.08 0.00 0.00 371.76 Residentlal(Mi Fandly OU) Not Emissions From Electricity Usage Vies 0.50 OAO 371.76 Natural Gas Natural Gas Usage Rafe a Lana use 1000 S R rt uffam.Mmm Ex sting office 0.a 20 Retail o.a 29 Hatehloull 0,0 4B Realaurant 0,0 48 Fund$h- no 29 Warehouse 0.0 20 Collegeruniasralty 0.0 48 High SOnoal 00 29 Elementary School co 2O Haspltsl 0.0 4.6 Minealaneoue g 29 Residential (Single Family OU) 00 6.665 Resbental(Multl- Femlly OU) 0.0 4012 Tell Exthating Project Office 13.0 2.0 Remg 0.0 29 Hobna el 00 43 Rieummm co 4.5 Food Store 0.0 2.9 warenawas g 2. Coll"Surlymmity 00 48 High Si 00 29 Fermin, Sri no 2. Hosprol 0.0 48 Miscellaneous 00 2.9 Residential (Single Family UU) Oo 6665 Residentlal(Mi Fandly OU) 00 4,012 Emission Factors (kg(MM &u( - Test Natural Gas Usage CO2 CHI WO coo, ( ou ital Btuf li 53_05 000se 0.0001 2111 Emissions tram Natural Gas (Ibsltlay( 26,000.00 888,200.00 10450 O01 Sea 10430 Total Free. 29,oi 339,2111 104.00 mg, ... 150.30 Net Emissions From Natural Gee 1)1 104.0 0.01 OAO 104.30 Emissions CO2 CHI N20 Cale road Existing Emosears (Ibsltlay) - - - - TotalPricedEmissions(Ibslaay) 675 C9 001 000 476 G6 Total Net Emissions(lbslday) 475.08 0.01 0.00 4711 sychusy Usage Ralas from Tad. As 111, CEOA 1, Qual, ,c ...U. 1903. Emiuion Faviora I- Table C.1 and Tads C2, Cereal RemNno Pi dN, Calilomia Climate an Registry, Mard,.11 GIWeI Wemin9 Fain 1521 kr CH. and 310 br Ni G-Ind RerrNno Pi . Calilomia Climele Asti Regist, Mercb 2002. NeturelGee usage... Omm T. de Ali. CEGA se tivality HaIr. .h, SCA... too. Emays- Factors. hum Table C5antl Tab, C b: General RewNno Fna Calilomia Climate Mlm Says, . 12007 10odcemlol sour¢ Igoe =1 oae A. Eneryy mlmmation Aamlmmauon Aeeileble MlplMww.eieeoe nuadecas cumn -an land Ml FREE_ Reglwa10,umbsEmbslons.xla GHGStdli PRES Mobile Sources Vehicle Tyne Existing Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751 -5750 lbs Mad Truck 5751 -8500 Ids Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,0001Ids Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ina Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 Ids Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Vehicle Tyne Project Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 he Light Truck 3751 -5750 lbs Mad Truck 5751 -8500 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501 A0,000 Ina Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 Ibs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,0001bs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Percent Tvoe VMT by Tvne Emission Factors' 0 0 CH4 N2O 0.0 - 0.06 0.08 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.42 0.01 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 Total Existing 0.00 1.75 1.03 Percent TVOe VMT by Tyne Emission Factors' 100 1456.71 CH4 N2O Mobile Sources CH4 Ny0 Cote 21/310° Emissions from Mobile Sources (lbs /day( CH4 Nt0 Cote 21/310° 51.6 751.66 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.13 43.18 7.3 106.34 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03 10.72 23.0 335.04 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.10 33.76 10.6 154.41 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.03 10.78 1.6 23.31 0.18 0.09 0.01 0.00 1.63 0.5 7.28 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.9 13.11 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.5 7.28 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.1 1.46 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.1 1.46 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 2.8 40.79 0.42 0.01 0.04 0.00 1.07 0.1 1.46 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.9 13.11 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 1.32 Total Project 1.75 1.03 0.33 0.31 103.92 Net Emissions From Mobile Sources 0.33 0.31 103.92 ° Emission factors from Table CA General Reporting Photo.. California Climate Action Regis", March 2007. b Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry , March 2007. 12/14/2009 1 :20 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Mobile Enter Data in all yellow highlighted cells using CAMX emission factors SWP Energy Intensity ISWP west branch MWD Energy Intensity: IMWDwestbranch Southern California Average N/A 9,232 kWh /MG (includes losses) 1,013 kWh /MG (includes losses) 9,727 kWh /MG (includes losses) fategory Water Energy Use (kWh) 9W CH4 j 20 CO2 CO2e 11 5461 0.01 0.00 177 acre /ft Importation (kg /year) (metric tons /year) Imported from SWP 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Imported from MWD 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 OR 2 Southern California Average 1 4,179 0.06 0.02 1,351 1 For all other Sources: Emission Factor: CO2 0.323405 kg/kWh Emission Factor: CH4 0.000014 kg /kWh Emission Factor: N2O I 0.000004 kg /kWh Energy Intensity: 1,272 kWh /MG (includes losses) CAMX (eGRID) CAMX (eGRID) CAMX (eGRID) Water Treatment Energy Intensity. 111 kWh /MG (Includes losses) Water Energy Use (kWh) -.29 CO2 acre /ft Distribution: (kg /year) CO2e (metric tons /year) CO2e 11 5461 0.01 0.00 177 0 Water Treatment Energy Intensity. 111 kWh /MG (Includes losses) Energy Intensity: 1,911 kWh /MG (includes losses) Water Energy Use (kWh) CH4 N2O CO2 CO2e Year acre /ft treatment I (kg /year) (metric tons /year) 0 11 431 0.00 0.00 14 0 Energy Intensity: 1,911 kWh /MG (includes losses) Category Water Energy Use (kWh) a -:' wastewater treatment CH4 N2O CO2 I (kg /year) CO2e (metric tons /year) 4,179 11 7391 0.01 0.00 239 0 Category Energy Use (kWh) CO2e (metric tons /year) Water Supply and Conveyance 4,179 1 Water Treatment 43 0 Water Distribution 546 0 Wastewater Treatment 739 0 Total 5,508 2 Highlighted cells are used in calculations GHG GV✓F" CH4 21 N20 310 Conversion Factors metric tons /ton 0.907185 tons /metric ton 1.102311 Ibs /kg 2.204623 days /year 365.25 g/lb 453.5924 kWh /MWh 1,000 million gallons (MG)/acre foot 0.32585 Table C -4: Potential Adjustments to WER Table 1 -3, Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Emission Factors unit source CO2 0.286165 kg/kWh SCE 2007 average EF CH4 30.601400 Ib /GWh CA Average(eGRID) CH4 0.000014 kg/kWh CA Average(eGRID) N20 4.497600 lb /GWh CA Average(eGRID) N20 0.000002 kg/kWh CA Average(eGRID) CO2 712.985300 Ib /MWh CAMX(eGRID) CO2 0.323405 kg/kWh CAMX(eGRID) CH4 30.2365 Ib /GWh CAMX(eGRID) CH4 0.000014 kg/kWh CAMX(eGRID) N20 8.0758 Ib /GWh CAMX(eGRID) N20 0.000004 kg/kWh CAMX(eGRID) Sector WER Northern California(kWh /MG) Adjusted w /Lasses SWP east branch Southern WER California(kWh /MG) Adjusted w /Lasses Water Supply and Conveyance 150 1,811 2,117 8,900 8,324 9,727 Water Treatment 100 n/a 111 100 n/a 111 Water Distribution 1,200 n/a 1,272 1,200 n/a 1,272 Wastewater 2,500 1,911 1,911 2,500 1,911 1,911 Total 3,950 5,022 5,411 12,700 11,535 13,022 SWP west branch 7,900 9,232 SWP east branch 9,900 11,569 MWD west branch 906 1,013 MWD east branch 540 604 Loss factor MWD loss factor 16.9% 11.9% 11.0% 6.0% 0.0% 12.9% 286.17 13.88 2.04 323.40 13.72 3.66 Electricty Emission Factors 1990 unit CH4 EF: 0.0067 lb CH4 /MWh N20 EF: 0.0037 lb N20 /MWh CO2 EF: 804.54 lb CO2 /MWh CH4 EF: 0.0000030 kg/kWh N20 EF: 1.67829E -06 kg /kWh CO2 EF: 0.364933206 kg /kWh Appendix B Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan PRELIMINARY Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) For: PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. Prepared for: PRES INC 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949)261 -7737 Prepared by: Westland Group Inc 9540 Center Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)989 -9789 APRIL 30, 2010 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for PRES INC by Westland Group, Inc. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept., Planning Application No. and Building Dept. Building Permit Application No. requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan. The undersigned is aware that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are enforceable pursuant to the City's Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 14.36.040 The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the: Santa Ana Region Stormwater Runoff Management Program. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Signed Name: Michael Tong Title: Project Manager Company: PRES INC Address: 4300 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone #: (949)261 -7737 Date: PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /4300 Von Karman Ave APRIL 30, 2010 Contents Page ii Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Contents Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions ....................... ..............................4 Section II Project Description ........................................................................... ............................... 5 Section III Site Description ................................................................................ ............................... 6 Section IV Best Management Practices ( BMPs) ................................................ ............................... 9 Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs .......................... ............................... 18 Section VI Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details ............................................ .............................40 Section VII Educational Materials Included ...................................................... .............................42 Attachments Attachment A ................................................................. ............................... Educational Materials CASQA SC -41: Building & Grounds Maintenance CASQA: Landscape Maintenance CASQA SD -12: Efficient Irrigation CASQA SD -13: Storm Drain Signage CASQA SD -20: Pervious Pavements CASQA SD -32: Trash Storage Areas The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for Landscape & Gardening Tips for Using Concrete & Mortar Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Good Operating Practices Food /Restaurant Industry Attachment B ............................................. ............................... Notice of Transfer of Responsibility PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /4300 Von Karman Ave APRIL 30, 2010 (To be provided in the final WQMP) Contents Page iii Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICA TION NO Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions Permit required: Grading & Building Permits Water Quality Conditions: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a Project WQMP. Legal Description: Parcel 1, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 60, page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. The site consists of an existing office building (converted from a former restaurant building), landscaped area and paved parking lot. The area of the site is 55,779 SF or 1.28 Acres. This redevelopment project includes the construction of a new office building on portions of the site's landscaped area and paved area, summarized as below: Total Site Acreage = 55,779 SF Area of Redevelopment = 13,331 SF % of Site being Redeveloped = 24% Existing landscape area (pervious) = 16,759 SF Existing Hardscape /Parking (impervious) = 39,020 SF Proposed conversion of pervious area to impervious area = 3,561 SF Proposed conversion of impervious area to pervious area (including the introduction of porous AC) = 2,178 SF Net addition of impervious area = 3,561- 2,178 =1,383 SF The project is considered to be a significant redevelopment and will be classified as Priority Project Category No. 7: parking lot (including impervious roof tops) area of 5,000 square foot or more and potentially exposed to urban runoff. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street 4/30/2010 Section I Page 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Section II Project Description Planning Area: the project is within the Planned Community (PC) District, PC15, the Koll Center. The development of the project will be subject to the land use regulations of PC District 15. The project consists of the construction of a new office building on an existing developed site. The existing building occupying the northwest portion of the site will remain and the new building, consisting of two floors with lower level parking, will be located easterly. The new building footprint is approximately 5,800 square feet. Per the redevelopment square footage summary listed above, about 3,561 SF of the landscaped area will be removed and replaced with rooftops and pavement. However, with the introduction of 895 square of porous pavement, the net increase in impervious area after development will be 1,383 SF. The new building will function as a office building, primarily used for a land developer's corporate office. There will be no manufacturing or restaurant activities. The potential stormwater pollutants expected to be associated with this project are as follows: Pesticides: Potential Sediment: Potential Nutrients: Potential Heavy Metals: Anticipated Organic Compounds: Anticipated Trash & Debris: Anticipated Oxygen Demanding Substance: Potential Oil & Grease: Anticipated Bacteria & Viruses: Potential SIC Codes: 8741 - Management Services PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section II Page 5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO Section III Site Description In particular, the project is within the City of Newport Beach Planned Community District 15 (PC15, Kell Center). The proposed building will be located easterly of an existing office building (formerly used as a restaurant). Beforer development, Total Site Area = 55,779 SF Landscaped (pervious area) = 16,759 SF Roof tops and pavement (impervious area) = 39,020 SF % impervious = 39,020/55,779 = 69.95% After development, Total Site Area = 55,779 SF Landscaped and porous pavement (pervious area) = 15,376 SF Roof tops and pavement (impervious area) = 40,403 SF % impervious = 40,403/55,779 = 72.43% The Soil Type Type for the area is Designated as D per the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Type D soils are generally clayey and has very limited infiltration capacity. Based on a geotechnical report by TGR Geotechnical, Inc. (Report No. 07 -1994, dated January 29, 2008), the site is underlain by approximately five (5) feet of fill (compacted fill is generally not favorable to infiltration). The fill consists of low to some instances, highplastic, silty to sandy clay. The fill is underlain with native low plastic silty to sandy clay to the maximum depth drilled (about 15 feet to 25 feet) for this project. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth drilled (about 26.5 feet). However, the TGR report mentioned about the historic depth to high groundwater was 10 feet below existing ground surface. Due to the extensive clay soil layer and extremely low infiltration rates (0.01 inch per hour assumed versus the normal 0.5 inch per hour for better drained soils), a porous pavement with a gravel reservoir bed together with an efficient gravity fed subdrain system will be an viable alternative to mitigate hydrologic conditions of concern created by the added impervious square footage of 1,383 SF. The new building will function as a office building, primarily used for a land developer's corporate office. There will be no manufacturing or restaurant activities. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street 5/12/2010 Section III Page 6 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. In particular, the project is within the City of Newport Beach Planned Community District 15 (PC15, Kell Center). The proposed building will be located easterly of an existing office building (formerly used as a restaurant). Beforer development, Total Site Area = 55,779 SF Landscaped (pervious area) = 16,759 SF Roof tops and pavement (impervious area) = 39,020 SF % impervious = 39,020/55,779 = 69.95% After development, Total Site Area = 55,779 SF Landscaped and porous pavement (pervious area) = 15,376 SF Roof tops and pavement (impervious area) = 40,403 SF % impervious = 40,403/55,779 = 72.43% The Soil Type Type for the area is Designated as D per the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Type D soils are generally clayey and has very limited infiltration capacity. Based on a geotechnical report by TGR Geotechnical, Inc. (Report No. 07 -1994, dated January 29, 2008), the site is underlain by approximately five (5) feet of fill (compacted fill is generally not favorable to infiltration). The fill consists of low to some instances, highplastic, silty to sandy clay. The fill is underlain with native low plastic silty to sandy clay to the maximum depth drilled (about 15 feet to 25 feet) for this project. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth drilled (about 26.5 feet). However, the TGR report mentioned about the historic depth to high groundwater was 10 feet below existing ground surface. Due to the extensive clay soil layer and extremely low infiltration rates (0.01 inch per hour assumed versus the normal 0.5 inch per hour for better drained soils), a porous pavement with a gravel reservoir bed together with an efficient gravity fed subdrain system will be an viable alternative to mitigate hydrologic conditions of concern created by the added impervious square footage of 1,383 SF. The project site is a part of a larger urban watershed composed on Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Tract No. 7953 (Koll Center Development). The storm drain infrastructure is shown in the City of Newport Beach Improvement record drawings TRI -07953 dated 1973. There are subsequent storm drain modifications which are depicted other City as -built records. Watershed runoffs are conveyed by underground storm drain systems via drainage easements through the subject property and eventually connect to a public stormwater conduit within Von Karman Avenue right -of -way. The existing lake northwest of the proposed building functions as a stormwater overflow detention pond. Generally, lower frequency storm runoffs are confined within the storm drain and do not drain directly into the lake itself. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section III Page 7 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Presently the onsite runoffs flow into a concrete gutter within the existing parking lot. Stormwater travels generally westerly along the gutter and discharged into a catch basin near the southwest corner of the existing building. Stormwater then exit the catch basin via a 15" pipe southeasterly and connect to the 36 inch diameter storm drain main line within the drainage easement. Stormwater from the said mainline will drain into the City's main line in Von Karman Avenue. The City storm drain system in Von Karman Avenue continues to flow through the City's M54's which will flow into the San Diego Creek. Flows from the San Diego Creek empties into the Upper Newport Bay; thence southerly the Lower Newport Bay and eventually the Pacific Ocean. According to the 2006 CWA Section 303(d), impaired water bodies within this watershed include: San Diego Creek Reach 1- Impairment: Fecal Coliform, Selenium, Toxaphene San Diego Creek Reach 2 - Impairment: Metals Upper Newport Bay - Impairment: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity Lower Newport Bay - Impairment: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity Rhine Channel - Impairment: Copper, Lead, Mercury, PCBs, Sediment Toxicity, Zinc Comparing to the pollutants generated by the project site: Bacteria/ Viruses, Heavy Metals, Nutrients, Pesticides, Organic Compunds, Sediments, Trash and Debris, COD's, Oil and Grease The pollutants of concern are: Bacteria and Viruses, Heavy Metals, Pesticides, Organic Compounds and Sediment. Treatment controls will be required. Porous Pavement: Treatment Control Effective as High or Medium for Organic Compounds /Metals /Bacteria & Viruses Bioretention Cell (Filterra Roof Drain Planter): Sediment /Metals Source control will eliminate the use of DDT type of pesticides. Treatment BMP's are designed to mitigate the identified pollutants of concern. Details of the BMP's are shown in the attached BMP map. The Upper and Lower Newport Bay are classified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section III Page 8 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICA TION NO Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) Source Control BMPs The following tables show source control BMPs (routine non - structural and routine structural) included in this project and those that were not included. Table 1. Routine Nonstructural BMPs (There is no BMP with the designation N16.) PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 9 Check One If not applicable, state brief Identifier Name Not Included reason Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, X Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions X N3 Common Area Landscape X Management N4 BMP Maintenance X N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How X development will com I N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance X Not applicable to type of project proposed N7 Spill Contingency Plan X N6 Underground Storage Tank X No underground storage tank will Compliance be constructed N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure X Compliance N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X N11 Common Area Litter Control X N12 Employee Training X N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks x There are no loading docks for the project N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection X N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and X Parkina Lots N17 Retail Gasoline Outlets X No retail gasoline outlet will be constructed (There is no BMP with the designation N16.) PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNINGAPPLICATION NO Non - Structural Source Control BMPs The location of the source control BMP are shown in the BMP Map included in Section VI. Section VII includes copies of the educational materials that will be used in implementing this project- specific WQMP. (N1) Education for Property Owners, Operators, Occupants, or Employees Practical Informational materials will be provided by the project proponent to the first occupants /operators /employees on general housekeeping practices that contribute to the protection of stormwater quality. These materials shall include general housekeeping practices that contribute to the protection of Urban Runoff quality and BMPs that eliminate or reduce pollution during subsequent property improvements. Employee Training/ Education Program as it would apply to all future employees. Based on information provided by the City of Newport Beach and attached in Section VII, the owner shall familiarize himself with this document and shall provide copies of this information to all future operators and employees for training purposes. (N2) Activity Restrictions Pres Companies, Inc. will institute the following Activity Restriction applicable to employees, tenants and contractors hired for maintenance activities. 1. Outside of the porous asphalt pavement to the southeast of the front entrance, no pressure washing on the remaining paved surfaces will be allowed. 2. The porous asphalt pavement shall be maintained in accordance with procedures per Section V. 3. Trash - No rubbish, trash, garbage or other waste material shall be kept onsite or on any public street abutting the properties, except in sanitary container located in appropriate areas (trash containers). All dumpster lids must be closed at all times. 4. Drainage - There shall be no interference with or alteration of the established drainage pattern on the site unless an adequate alternative provision is made for proper drainage with the prior written approval of the City. 5. Hosing of spilled contents such as motor oil, transmission fluids, paints, solvents and other oils or chemicals into the catch basin and landscaped areas are prohibited. 6. Vehicle washing, maintenance, or repair on the premises will be prohibited. 7. The blowing, sweeping or hosing of debris (leaf litter, grass clippings, litter etc.) into streets, storm drain inlets, landscaped areas or other conveyances will be prohibited. (N3) Common Area Landscape Management All ongoing landscape maintenance shall be consistent with County Water Conservation Resolution or City equivalent, plus fertilizer and/or pesticide usage consistent with Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers per DAMP Section 5.5. BMP Fact Sheet No. SC -41, CASQA Landscape Maintenance (attached per Section VII) plus fertilizer and pesticide usage consistent with the instructions contained on product labels and with the regulations administered by the State Department of Pesticide Regulations, or City PRIES INC Section IV WQMP 4 30 10.doc Page 10 Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. equivalent. Owner to maintain porous pavement per SD -20, (from California BMP Handbook and attached per Section VII), Filterra Roof Drain Planter per manufacturer's instruction attached per Section VII), and other landscape area. Landscape maintenance must address replacement of dead vegetation, repair of eroded areas, proper disposal of green waste, etc. Irrigation system maintenance must address to the testing and observation of the irrigation system to detect overspray, broken sprinkler heads and other system failures. The irrigation system will be maintained bi- monthly (or as required if malfunctioning of the system is reported by the landscape maintenance crew) and the landscape maintenance frequency will be weekly. The responsible party will be the owner. (N4) BMP Maintenance The responsible party for implementation of each non - structural BMP will be the owner. (N5) Title 22 CCR Compliance Compliance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sectons of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management shall be enforced by County Environmental Health (and /or City equivalent) on behalf of the State. A complete set of the site and building plans and all related documents are reviewed and approved for compliance by the City's Health Department. (N6) Local Industrial Permit Compliance Compliance will be achieved through the City Building Permit process based on details of the bakery operations. (N7) Spill Contingency Plan The plan is prepared by the owner for use by the building operator which mandates stockpiling of cleanup materials, notification of responsible agencies, disposal of cleanup materials, documentation, etc. (N9) Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Compliance with City ordinances enforced by the City Fire Department for the management of hazardous materials. The Orange County Health Department and the State Department of Toxics Substance Control will be responsible for enforcing hazardous materials and hazardous waste handling and disposal regulations. (N10) Uniform Fire Code Implementation Compliance with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code enforced by the City of Anaheim Fire Department. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section Iv Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. (Nil) Common Area Litter Control The owner will implement trash management and litter control procedures within and near the vicinity of the facility aimed at reducing pollution of drainage water. The owner may contract with their landscape maintenance firms to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance, which should consist of litter patrol, emptying of trash receptacles. (N12) Employee Training Education program (see N1) as it would apply to all existing and new employees. (N14) Common Area Catch Basin Inspection The owner is required to have at least 80 percent of drainage facilities inspected, cleaned and maintained on an annual basis with 100 percent of the facilities included in a two -year period. Cleaning should take place in the late summer /early fall prior to the start of the rainy season. Drainage facilities include catch basins, manholes and conveyance swales. (N15) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The areas exterior to the building will be swept as frequently as necessary to prevent sediment, landscape waste and trash from entering onsite catch basins and the adjoining public streets. At a minimum, the sweeping will be done on weekly basis. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section Iv Page 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICA TION NO Table 2. Routine Structural BMPs Structural Source Control BMPs The location of the structural source control BMP are shown in the BMP Map included in Section VI (S1) Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage 1. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN ") and /or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. 2. Maintain legibility of stencils and signs. (S3) Design Trash Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 13 Check One Name If not applicable, state brief reason Not Included Applicable Provide storm drain system stenciling and x si na a SD -13 Design and construct outdoor material storage x No outdoor material storage is planned areas to reduce pollution introduction Design and construct trash and waste storage x areas to reduce pollution introduction SD -32 Use efficient irrigation systems $ landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, X and source control SD -12 Protect slopes and channels and provide x No slopes or channels for this project energy dissipation Incorporate requirements applicable to the x following individual priority project cate ones: a. Dock areas X No Dock areas will be constructed b. Maintenance bays X No maintenance bays will be constructed C. Vehicle wash areas X No onsite vehicle washing will be allowed d. Outdoor processing areas x None Contemplated e. Equipment wash areas X Equipment washing will be conducted indoors I. Fueling areas X None Planned g. Hillside landscaping X Not applicable h. Wash water control for food x Not applicable preparation areas I. Community car wash racks X Not applicable Structural Source Control BMPs The location of the structural source control BMP are shown in the BMP Map included in Section VI (S1) Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage 1. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN ") and /or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. 2. Maintain legibility of stencils and signs. (S3) Design Trash Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 13 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. The trash containment area shall be designed and constructed to meet the following requirements: 1. Paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run -on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash. 2. Provide attached lids on all trash containers that exclude rain, or roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation. 3. Connection of trash area drains to a sanitary sewer. (S4) Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design 1. Owner will install an irrigation system which will have the following features: 2. Employ rain shut -off device that will automatically preventing irrigation during and after precipitation events 3. Provide the appropriate amount of water to meet each landscape area's specific needs 4. Use flow reducers or shuoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss due to broken sprinkler heads or lines 5. Implement landscape plan consistent with County Water Conservation Resolution or City equivalent, which should include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. 6. The timing and application methods of irrigation water shall be designed to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the municipal storm drain system. (S6) Incorporate Requirements Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories Parking Lots: Source Control BMP's - required. Site Design BMPs - To be incorporated into site design. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section Iv Page 14 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNINGAPPLICATION NO Site Design BMPs The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMPs follows: Table 3. Site Design BMPs t. Detention and retention areas incorporated into landscape design provide areas for retaining and detaining stormwater flows, resulting in lower runoff rates and reductions in volume due to limited infiltration and evaporation. Sute Site Design BMPs may reduce the size of Treatment Control BMPs. 2. The "C' Factor is a representation of the ability of a surface to produce runoff. Surfaces that produce higher volumes of runoff are represented by higher "C" Factors. By incorporating more pervious, lower "C' Factor surfaces into a development, lower volumes of runoff will be produced. Lower volumes and rates of runoff translate directly to lowering treatment requirements. The parking area fronting the building entrance will be constructed of porous AC pavement. An infiltration gravel bed with perforated pipes will be constructed below the porous AC. Half of the roof of the proposed building will be discharged directly into the perforated pipe system below the porous AC pavement. Even though the underlying soil is clayey silt and sand, only a minute infiltration of 0.01 inch per hour is assumed. The subdrain system together with the gravel bed will store and eventually convey any residual stormwater runoff into the existing onsite storm drain system. The entire roof will drain into the Filterra Roof Drainage Planter. The system is TARP approved and has demonstrated to simulate the treatment capability of a bioretention planter. The footprint is smaller in comparison and will also be easier and economical to maintain. About 60% of the entire roof runoff will be stored and partly infiltrated by the porous pavement and Filterra Roof Planter. The area of the roof is 5,800 SF. 60% of 5,800 SF is 3,480 SF and larger than the required impervious area mitigation of 1,383 SF PRES INC WQMP 4 30 l0.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 15 Included? Technique Brief Description of Method Yes No Minimize Impervious Area /Maximize X Provide porous AC Pavement Permeability (C-Factor Reduction Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas X Roof runoff drain to Filterra Roof Planter DCIAs (C-Factor Reduction Create Reduced or "Zero Discharge" Areas X Provide porous AC Pavement Runoff Volume Reduction Conserve Natural Areas (C- Factor Reduction) X No natural areas within the project areas t. Detention and retention areas incorporated into landscape design provide areas for retaining and detaining stormwater flows, resulting in lower runoff rates and reductions in volume due to limited infiltration and evaporation. Sute Site Design BMPs may reduce the size of Treatment Control BMPs. 2. The "C' Factor is a representation of the ability of a surface to produce runoff. Surfaces that produce higher volumes of runoff are represented by higher "C" Factors. By incorporating more pervious, lower "C' Factor surfaces into a development, lower volumes of runoff will be produced. Lower volumes and rates of runoff translate directly to lowering treatment requirements. The parking area fronting the building entrance will be constructed of porous AC pavement. An infiltration gravel bed with perforated pipes will be constructed below the porous AC. Half of the roof of the proposed building will be discharged directly into the perforated pipe system below the porous AC pavement. Even though the underlying soil is clayey silt and sand, only a minute infiltration of 0.01 inch per hour is assumed. The subdrain system together with the gravel bed will store and eventually convey any residual stormwater runoff into the existing onsite storm drain system. The entire roof will drain into the Filterra Roof Drainage Planter. The system is TARP approved and has demonstrated to simulate the treatment capability of a bioretention planter. The footprint is smaller in comparison and will also be easier and economical to maintain. About 60% of the entire roof runoff will be stored and partly infiltrated by the porous pavement and Filterra Roof Planter. The area of the roof is 5,800 SF. 60% of 5,800 SF is 3,480 SF and larger than the required impervious area mitigation of 1,383 SF PRES INC WQMP 4 30 l0.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 15 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNINGAPPLICATION NO Treatment Control BMPs The following table shows treatment BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMP follows: Table 4. Treatment Control BMPs Name Included? If not applicable, state brief reason Yes No Vegetated (Grass) Strips X None designed Vegetated (Grass) Swales X None designed Proprietary Control Measures X Dry Detention Basin X None designed Wet Detention Basin X None designed Constructed Wetland X None designed Detention Basin /Sand Filter X None designed Porous Pavement Detention X Porous Landscape Detention X Infiltration Basin X Not applicable Infiltration Trench X None Designed Media Filter Not used Proprietary Control Measures Not used Along the southwest entrance, the parking area will be constructed of porous pavement with infiltration, detention and outflow system beneath the pavement. A Filterra Roof Drain Planter is designed at the southeast corner of the building to treat and intercept the entire roof runoff. For identified pollutants of concern that are causing an impairment in receiving waters, the project WQMP shall incorporate one or more Treatment Control BMPs of medium or high effectiveness in reducing those pollutants. This report will demonstrate, and document in the project WQMP, that all pollutants of concern will be fully addressed. Detailed descriptions on the implementation and long -term O &M of planned Treatment Control BMPs will be provided. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 l0.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section IV Page 16 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Porous Pavement (S8) The parking area located at the southeast building front entrance will be constructed of porous asphalt with a gravel bed for storm water storage and infiltration. The porous asphalt allows water to seep into the gravel recharge bed, where the gravel voids will temporarily store the storm water and which will be partly infiltrated, and the remaining stored and gradually released via a subdrain into the existing onsite storm drain system. The roof drainage will also be discharged directly into the recharge bed via a drain pipe through the parking lot. Maintenance of the porous AC is described in Section V. BMP fact sheet SD -20 Pervious Pavement is attached per Section VII. Filters Roof Drain Planter (S9) The entire roof drainage will be discharged into the Filterra Roof Drain Planter. The manufacturer's literature and maintenance procedures of the unit is attached per Section VII. Proprietary Treatment Device (S3) A grating catch basin fitted with a filter insert manufactured by BioClean Environmental is constructed at the porous AC pavement. The catch basin provides access for maintenance of the underground subdrain system. This insert is for pretreatment only to increase the life -span of the gravel infiltration bed beneath. BMP fact sheets for the filters and their maintenance are described in Section V. TREATMENT BMP CALCULATIONS For the area tributary to the porous AC: To be provided in the final WQMP For the area tributary to the Filterra Roof Drain Planter: To be provided in the final WQMP PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section Iv Page 17 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs: Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Plan The inspection/ maintenance responsibility for BMPs will he the owner - Pres Inc. Filterra Roof Drain Planter Maintenance: See next page PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 18 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) FIRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO, io 6" 4'-0" � � 6" --------- ------- - - -- -- I I I I I I I I A A O _ I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PLAN VIEW PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY TREE FRAME & GRATE AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN CAST IN TOP SLAB FOR CLARITY) TOP SLAB SPLASH BLOCKS 1 d a" PVC T o ° o s. d > z w MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST PERFORATED FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM UNDERDRAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST BY AMERICAST MODMFl TIONS OF OMWINGS ME ONLY PERMITIEO SECTION A —A BY WRMEN A ORIMnON FROM FlLTERM OMWING AVA6MI.E IN TIF FlLE FORMAT. DATE: 12 -02 -09 DWG: 4x4 ROOF 4X4' PRECAST FILTERRA@ UNIT HOOF DRAIN CONFIGURATION II o GopyngEiG 20P/6YAmiwt WITH 4" PVC PIPED IN US PAT 6.277.274 A10 6.669.521 PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 19 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICA TION NO Operation & Maintenance (OM) Manual v01 f I Ile ffa Bioretention Systems A Growing Idea in Stormwater Filtration. I4AMERICAST 1111,11e ltuatian System toll free. (866) 349 3458 1 fax (804) 798 8400 1 maintenanceOfilterra.com I fiherra. COrti PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section v Page 20 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC Table of Contents Overview Filterra ®General Description Fifterrao Schematic Basic Operations Design Maintenance Maintenance Overview Why Maintain? When to Maintain? Exclusion of Services Maintenance Visit Summary Maintenance Tools, Safety Equipment and Supplies Maintenance Visit Procedure Maintenance Checklist Resources Example Filterra Project Maintenance Report Sheet Example Filterra Structure Maintenance Repot Sheet Fitterras Warranty Drawing FTST -2 Filterra Standard Configuration Detail Drawing FTNL -3. Fitters Narrow Length Configuration Detail Drawing FTNW -3 Fiiterra Narrow Width Configuration Detail PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0 fitters filterra com toll frees (866) 349 3458 APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 21 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. filt6) erra General Description The following general specifications describe the general operations and maintenance requirements for the Americast stormwater bioretention filtration system, the Fi@errW% The system utilizes physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of a soil, plant and microbe complex to remove pollutants typically found in urban stormwater runoff. The treatment system is a fully equipped, pre constructed drop-in place unit designed for applications in the urban landscape to treat contaminated runoff. nmion �, r fi[terra Stormwater Flows through a specially designed filter media mixture contained in a landscaped concrete container. The mixture immobilizes pollutants which are then decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of the Fifterra' system's micro /macro fauna and flora. Stormwater runoff flows through the media and into an underdrain system at the bottom of the container, where the treated water is discharged. Higher flows bypass the Fifterra3 to a downstream inlet or outfall. Maintenance is a simple, inexpensive and safe operation that does not require confined space access, pumping or vacuum equipment or specialized tools. Properly trained landscape personnel can effectively maintain Fiflerra` Stormwater systems by following instructions in this manual. :O L30S filterm.COm toll free 86& 345 3450 PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 22 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0 filters Basic Operations Fitterre is a bioretention system in a concrete box. Contaminated stormwater runoff enters the fitter box through the curb inlet spreading over the 3 -inch layer of mulch on the surface of the fitter media. As the water passes through the mulch layer, most of the larger sediment particles and heavy metals are removed through sedimentation and chemical reactions with the organic material in the mulch. Water passes through the soil media where the finer particles are removed and other chemical reactions take place to immobilize and capture pollutants in the soil media. The cleansed water passes into an underdrain and flows to a pipe system or other appropriate discharge point. Once the pollutants are in the soil, the bacteria begin to break down and metabolize the materials and the plants begin to uptake and metabolize the pollutants. Some pollutants such as heavy metals, which are chemically bound to organic particles in the mulch, are released over time as the organic matter decomposes to release the metals to the feeder roots of the plants and the cells of the bacteria in the soil where they remain and are recycled. Other pollutants such as phosphorus are chemically bound to the soil particles and released slowly back to the plants and bacteria and used in their metabolic processes. Nitrogen goes through a very complex variety of biochemical processes where it can ultimately end up in the plantlbacteria biomass, turned to nitrogen gas or dissolves back into the water column as nitrates depending on soil temperature, pH and the availability of oxygen. The pollutants ultimately are retained in the mulch, soil and biomass with some passing out of the system into the air or back into the water. Design and Installation Each project presents different scopes for the use of Rfterrae systems. To ensure the safe and specified function of the stormwater BMP, Americast reviews each application before supply. Information and help may be provided to the design engineer during the planning process. Correct Filtena'a box sizing (by rainfall region) is essential to predict pollutant removal rates for a given area. The engineer shall submit calculations for approval by the local jurisdiction. The contractor is responsible for the correct installation of Filtera units as shown in approved plans. A comprehensive installation manual is available at fillrerra.com. Maintenance Why Maintain? All stormwater treatment systems require maintenance for effective operation. This necessity is often incorporated in your property's permitting process as a legally binding BMP maintenance agreement. • Avoid legal challenges from your jurisdiction's maintenance enforcement program. • Prolong the expected lifespan of your Filterra media • Avoid more costly media replacement • Help reduce pollutant loads leaving your property . Simple maintenance of the Filterra® is required to continue effective pollutant removal from stormwater runoff before discharge into downstream waters. This procedure will also extend the longevity of the Irving biofilter system. The unit will recycle and accumulate pollutants within the biomass, but is also subjected to other materials entering the throat. This may include trash, silt and leaves etc. which will be contained within the void below the top grate and above the mulch layer. Too much silt may inhibit the Fflerra'e flow rate, which is the reason for site stabilization before activation. Regular replacement of the mulch stops accumulation of such sediment . iGrob,'G] filterra.com toll free (866) 3493458 PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 23 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0 filters When to Maintain? Americast includes a 1 -year maintenance plan with each system purchase. Annual included maintenance consists of a maximum of two (2) scheduled visits. Additional maintenance may be necessary depending on sediment and trash loading (by Owner or at additional cost). The start of the maintenance plan begins when the system is activated for full operation Full operation is defined as the unit installed, curb and gutter and transitions in place and activation (try Supplier) when mulch and plant are added and temporary throat protection removed. Activation cannot be carried out until the site is fully stabilized (full landscaping, grass cover, final paving and street sweeping completed). Maintenance visits are scheduled seasonally, the spring visit aims to clean up after winter loads including salts and sands. The fall visit helps the system by removing excessive leaf litter. A first inspection to determine if maintenance is necessary should be performed at least twice annually after every major storm event of greater than (1) one inch total depth (subject to regional climate). Please refer to the maintenance checklist for specific conditions that indicate if maintenance is necessary. It has been found that in regions which receive between 30 -50 Inches of annual rainfall, (2) two visits are generally required Regions with less rainfall often only require (1) one visit per annum. Varying land uses can affect maintenance frequency; e.g. some fast food restaurants require more frequent trash removal. Contributing drainage areas which are subject to new development wherein the recommended erosion and sediment control measures have not been implemented require additional maintenance visits. Some sites may be subjected to extreme sediment or trash loads, requiring more frequent maintenance visits. This is the reason for detailed notes of maintenance actions per unit, helping the Supplier and Owner predict future maintenance frequencies, reflecting individual site conditions. Owners must promptly notify the (maintenance) Supplier of any damage to the plant(s), which constitute(s) an integral part of the bioretention technology. Owners should also advise other landscape or maintenance contractors to leave all maintenance to the Supplier (i e. no pruning or fertilizing). Exclusion of Services It Is the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate irrigation when necessary to the plant of the Fitterra® system. Clean up due to major contamination such as oils, chemicals, toxic spills, etc will result in additional costs and are not covered under the Supplier maintenance contract Should a major contamination event occur, the Owner must block off the outlet pipe of the Filtemae (where the cleaned runoff drains to, such as drop - inlet) and block off the throat of the Filterre. The Supplier should be informed immediately. PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street filterra corn toll frees (866) 349 3458 APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 24 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0 fitters Maintenance Visit Summary Each maintenance visit consists of the following simple tasks (detailed instructions below). 1. Inspection of Filterre and surrounding area 2. Removal of tree grate and erosion control stones 3. Removal of debris, trash and mulch 4. Mulch replacement 5. Plant health evaluation and pruning or replacement as necessary 6. Clean area around Flltenao 7. Complete paperwork Maintenance Tools, Safety Equipment and Supplies Ideal tools include. camera, bucket, shovel, broom, pruners, hoe /rake, and tape measure. Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should be used in accordance with local or company procedures. This may include impervious gloves where the type of trash is unknown, high visibility clothing and barricades when working in close proximity to traffic and also safety hats and shoes. A T -Bar or crowbar should be used for moving the tree grates (up to 170 Ibs ea.). Most visits require only replacement mulch. Three bags of double shredded mulch are used per unit (on a standard 64' size). Some visits may require additional Fifterra" engineered soil media available from the Supplier. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street filterra com toll frees (866) 349 3458 APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 25 Maintenance Visit Procedure Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 1. Inspection of FlRerrae and surrounding area • Record individual unit before maintenance with photograph (numbered). Record on Maintenance Report (see example In this document) the following: Record on Maintenance Report the following: Standing Water yes I no Damage to Box Structure Damage yes I no to Grate yes Ino Is Bypass Clear Ves I no If yes answered to any of these observations, record with dose -up photograph (numbered). 2. Removal of tree grate and erosion control stones • Remove metal grates for access Into Fllterra® box. • Dig out silt (if any) and mulch and remove trash & foreign items. Record on Maintenance Report the following: Silt/Clay yes I no Cups/ Sacs yes I no Leams yes Ino # of Buckets Removed 3. Removal of debris, trash and mulch • After removal of much and debris, measure distance from the top (if the Flltenra@7 engineered media soil to the bottom of the top slab. If this distance Is greater than 17, add Fitterra® media (rot top soil or other) to recharge to a 9' distance. Record on Maintenance Report the followinp: Distance to Bottom of Top Slab (Inches) # of Buckets of Media Added Filterra" Stormwater Bioretention Filtration System toll tree (866) 3493458 1 f (804) 7988400 1 maintenanceftlifterra.com I filterracom PRIES INC Section V WQMP 4 30 10.doc Page 26 Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 6) fitterra= 4. Mulch replacement • Add double shredded mulch evenly across the entire unit to a depth of X. • Ensure correct reposiboning of erosion control stones by the Filterrae inlet to allow for entry of bash during a storm event. • Replace Fiberree grates correctly using appropriate Ifting or moving tools, taking care not to damage the plant. 5. Plant health evaluation and pruning or replacement as necessary • Examine the plant's health and replace if dead. • Prune as necessary to encourage growth in the correct directions Record on Maintenance Report the following: Height above Grate (feet) Width at Widest Point (feet) Health alive I dead Damage to Plant yes I no Plant Replaced yes I no 6. Clean area around Filterra® • Clean area around unit and remove all refuse to be disposed of appropriately. 7. Complete paperwork • Deliver Maintenance Report and photographs to appropriate location (normally Americast during maintenance contract period). • Some jurisdictions may require submission of maintenance reports in accordance with approvals, It is the responsibility of the Owner to comply with local regulations. 10 0 -i hlterra. corn PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 toll free: (866) 349 3458 Section V Page 27 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Maintenance Checklist -Ponding' ofwater on 'Pending' In unit could be Starmweter should drain Drainage Conditions to Check Conditions That freely and evenly through System Problem to excessive fine Actions Failure For Should Exist Inlet Excessive sediment a Accumulated sediments Inlet should be nee of Sediments andrar trash trash accumulation or hash impair free flow, obstructions allowing free should be removed. contact manufacturer for of water Into Fdlena distributed flow of water and pest free. advice. Into File" Mulch Cover Trash and doemble Excessive trash and/or Minimal trash a other Trash and deals Should debns ammnulab. dears accumulation debris on mulch corer be removed and mulch coverreked level. Ensure bark nugget mulch is not used. Mulch Cover -Ponding' ofwater on 'Pending' In unit could be Starmweter should drain Recommend contact mulch cover indicative of clogging due freely and evenly through manufacturer and replace to excessive fine mulch cover. mulch as a minimum. sediment acmmulaeon a spill of pertraeum as. Vegetation Plants not growing or in SoiVmukh too wet, Plants should be healthy contact manufacturer for Par condition evidence or spill and pest free. advice. Incorrect plant selection. Pest infestatien. Vandalism to plants. Vegetation Rant growth excessive Rents should be TrilnroNne plants in appropriate to Me accordance with typical species and location of landscaping and safety Filterre . needs Structure Structure has visible Cracks wider than K Inch Vault should be repaired . cracks or evidence of sal panicles entering the structure through the cracks. Maintenance is ideally to be performed twice annually. Inspection lobe performed after every major slam event >t inch total depth, subject to climate. Filterra Stormwater 0ioretention Filtration System toll Free (866) 349 34581 fax (B04) 798 84001 maintenance) fllferra.corn 1 fitterra.com PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 28 Filterra0 Project Maintenance Order Project Address Directions Project Company Owner Contact Name Telephone # Owner Notified of Mice on (date) Filterra Units on this Order Total Units on this Project Date of Maintenance Arrival Time Departure Time # of Workers Notes on Project Maintenance Supervisor PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 12/14.94 Section V Page 29 Filterra® Structure Maintenance Report Project 0 Plant Type 0 Date 0 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Structure Number 0 Structure Size 0 GPS D Pre Mtce Photo # inmai yoservauons Standing Water Y N Damage to Grate Y N IF Yes, STOP NOW 6 call 804 - 798.6068 Is Bypass Clear Y N Notes Damage to Box Structure Y N If YES to anv observation take close uo photo Waste Sift / Clay Y N Buckets Removed (# of) Cups/Bags Y N Notes Leaves Y N Other meata Distance to Bottom of Top Stab (in.) Notes Buckets of Media Added (# no Mulch Netting Replaced Y N Bags of Mulch Added (# of) Stones Replaced Y N Notes Plata #1 ( #2) #1 ; ( #2) Height above Grate (feet) Plant Replaced YIN Y / N Width at Widest Point (feet) Notes Health Alive/Dead Alive /Dead Damage to Plant YIN Y / N If YES to plant darraoe take close un nhnto Other Notes (use back if necessary) PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 ivla Section V Page 30 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. filrerra� Filters Warranty Seller warrants goods sold hereunder against defects in materials and workmanship only, for a period of (1) year from date the Seller activates the system into service. Seller makes no other warranties, express or implied. Seller's liability hereunder shall be conditioned upon the Buyer's installation, maintenance, and service of the goods in strict compliance with the written instructions and specifications provided by the Seller. Any deviation from Seller's instructions and specifications or any abuse or neglect shall void wan-antics. In the event of any claim upon Seller's warranty, the burden shall be upon the Buyer to prove strict compliance with all institutions and specifications provided by the Seller. Seller's liability hereunder shall be limited only to the cost or replacement of the goods. Buyer agrees that Seller shall not be liable for any consequential losses arising from the purchase, installation, and/or use of the goods. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 31 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. r- - -- _ ---- - - -- -L I I I I I I A o i \ \ A I II I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I PLAN VIEW TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB CLEANOUT COVER CAST IN TOP SLAB TOP SLAB INTERLOCKING JOINT (TYP) PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) / m aF 0 N 10 n a z UNDERDRAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST iD MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) SDR -35 PVC COUPLING CAST INTO PRECAST BOX WALL BY AMERICAST (OUTLET PIPE LOCATION VARIES) CURB (BY OTHERS) GALVANIZED ANGLE NOSING CURB AND GUTTER (BY OTHERS) � STREET DOWEL BARS 0 12' O.C. PERFORATED UNDERORAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L W TREE GRATE OUTLET QTY & SIZE PIPE 6 x 6 6' -0" 6' -0" (1) 30 4° SDR -35 PVC •• SIZES SHOWN ME FOR THE MID ARANDC AND MAY VARY ACROSS THE COUNTRY PI.EME CONTACT RLTERRA FOR A UST OF SIZES WRHIN YOUR REGION DATE: 07 -07 -06 1 Dwc: FIST -2 PRECAST FILTERRAO UNIT ➢���]D ���� STANDARD CONFIGURATION US PAT 6,2Z2,274 O9YT,N C 20916y Amcirnn MD 6.569.321 PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 32 1A L I_ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. iW 6. TREE FRAME PLANT AS SUPPLIED CLEANOUT COVER & GRATE BY AMERICAST CAST IN TOP SLAB CAST IN (NOT SHOWN TOP SLAB TOP SLAB FOR CLARITY) INTERLOCKING JOINT (TYP) a 0 I n a � z_ MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST e UNDERORAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST SECTION A —A INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) 55 PVC COUPUNG INTO PRECAST BOX BY AMERICAST 7 PIPE ION VARIES) (BY OTHERS) GALVANIZED ANGLE NOSING CURB AND GUTTER (BY OTHERS) � STREET DOWEL BARS ® 12" O.C. PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L w TREE GRATE QTY & SIZE OUTLET PIPE 4 x 6 4' -0" 6' -0" (1) 3.3 4" SDR -35 PVC 4 x 8 4' -0" 8' -D" (1) 30 4" SDR -35 PVC 4 x 12 4' -0" 12' -0" (2) 3x3 4" SDR -35 PVC 6 x 8 6' -0" 8' -0" (1) 4.4 4" SDR -35 PVC 6 x 10 6' -0" 10' -0" (1) 4x4 6" SDR -35 PVC 6 x 12 6' -0" 12' -0" (2) 4x4 6" SDR -35 PVC 7 x 13 7' -0" 13' -0" (2) 4x4 6" SDR -35 PVC •• SIZES SNOHN ARE FOR 1NE MID ARANRC AND MAY VARY ACROSS THE COUNTRY PL E CONTACT FlLTERRA FOR A LIST OF SIZES w [N YOUR REGION DATE: 09 -04 -07 1 DwG: FTNL -3 PRECAST FILTERRAO UNIT fl���D]Q��" NARROW LENGTH CONFIGURATION US PAT 6.2n.274 COE/"�C3��'AmQ18I AND 6.559.321 PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 33 A t Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. b 6" I W r 6.. T- b SDR -35 PVC COUPLING / CAST INTO PRECAST BOX WALL J (OUTLET PIPE LOCATION VARIES) TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB TOP SLAB INTERLOCKING JOINT (TYP)� 0 e I n p INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) CURB (BY OTHERS) CLEANOUT PLANT AS SUPPLIED COVER BY AMERICAST CAST IN GALVANIZED (NOT SHOWN TOP SLAB FOR CLARITY) ANGLE NOSING (1) 30 CURB AND GUTTER 8 x 4 m (BY OTHERS) 4' -0" r STREET MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST - UNDERORAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST SECTION A -A DOWEL BARS ® 12 O.C. FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L w TREE GRATE OTY & SIZE OUTLET PIPE 6 . 4 6' -0" 4' -O" (1) 30 4" SDR -35 PVC 8 x 4 8' -0" 4' -0" (1) 30 4" SDR -35 PVC 8 x 6 8' -0" 6' -0" (1) 4x4 4" SDR -35 PVC 10 x 6 10' -D" 6' -0" (1) 44 B" SDR -35 PVC 12 x 4 12' -0" 4' -0" (2) 30 4" SDR -35 PVC 12 x 6 12' -0" 6' -0" (2) 4x4 6" SDR -35 PVC 13 x 7 13' -0" 5-0" (2) 4x4 6' SDR -35 PVC SRES SHOWN ARE FOR THE MID ATUWTIC AND MAY VARY ACROSS THE COUNTRY PLEASE CONTACT FILTERRA FOR A UST OF SIZES WITHIN YOUR REGION DATE: 09 -04 -07 Dwc: FTNW -3 lowoffogzwlye Cwy,&OMbyAmivtl PRIES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street PRECAST FILTERRAO UNIT ��d�QQQd' NARROW WIDTH CONFIGURATION uR PAT 8.277.274 APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 34 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICA TION NO Porous AC Maintenance: Frequency: The pavement should be inspected several times in the first few months after construction, and at a minimum twice annually thereafter. Inspection should be conducted after large storms to check for surface ponding that might indicate possible clogging. The catch basin and cleanout of the porous AC parking lot provide a means of inspection for the state of infiltration below grade and should be performed a minimum of four times a year and prior to the onset of the rainy season. Seal coats must not be applied as they would be on dense pavement. Topcoating of any kind should be practiced only if a fully porous coating material is available. If the pavement is partially clogged by debris and sediment, it can be rehabilitated by vacuuming and washing. If dirt is limited to a specific pavement area, such as that tracked on by dirty tires, a vacuuming effort can be focused on the limited Dart of the surface where dirt is present. High - pressure washing with simultaneous vacuuming is consistently the most effective at restoring infiltration after clogging. Infiltration to tightly clogged surface cannot be restored merely by vacuuming alone and sweeping followed by suction. Wet sweeping (moistening followed by sweeping) is prohibited as the infiltration will further be reduced by lodging sediment particles more tightly in the surface pores. All types of cleaning re most effective when they are done before clogging is complete. If cleaning is delayed and dirt is allowed to be ground into the surface by rain and traffic, it is harder to vacuum out later. When a surface is completed clogged, it can be restored by milling off the top one or two inches, where clogging is usually concentrated, and replacing it with equal thickness of open- graded asphalt friction course per NAPA Information Series 115 or per Caltrans specifications for OGFC (Standard Specifications Section 39) and utilize a stiff PG binder PG70 -10 PM. PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 35 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Catch Basin Insert Grate Inlet Skimmer Box Media Filter I. Specifications Track Record: The Grate Inlet Skimmer Box Media Filter (GISB -Media Filter) is manufactured by a company whom is regularly engaged in the engineering design and production of treatment systems for stormwater. Grate Inlet Skimmer Box has been installed and in use as designed in field locations for a duration of over 10 years. Coverage: The GISB -Media Filter provides full coverage of inlets such that all catch basin influent, at rated flows, is conveyed to the filter. The filter will retain all windblown and swept debris entering the drain. Non - Corrosive Materials: All components of the GISB -Media Filter, including mounting hardware, fasteners, support brackets, filtration material, and support frame are constructed of non- corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV /marine grade fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration is 1/4" x 1 '/ "expanded, 10 x 10 mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, monofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in the product. Durability: The GISB -Media Filter is constructed of an all fiberglass frame and stainless steel screens backed by 1/2 x 1/2-diamond plate stainless steel. Filter (excluding oil absorbent media) and support structures are of proven durability, with an expected service life of 10 to 15 years. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with no slippage, breaking, or tearing. Warranty: GISB -Media Filter is warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. Please see the: Suntree Technologies warranties that the materials used to manufacture it's products will be able to withstand and remain durable to environmental conditions for a period of 5 years from the date of purchase. Oil Absorbent Media: The GISB -Media Filter is fitted with a hydrocarbon boom for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from influent, and so placed in the filter assembly to treat influent at rated flow. Hydrocarbon booms are easily replaceable in the filter, without the necessity of removing fixed mounting brackets or mounting hardware. The hydrocarbon boom is placed in a separate trough located at the top of the filter unit. The hydrocarbon boom encompasses the total perimeter of the unit and lies horizontal for maximum absorption. Primary Filtration Media: The GISB -Media Filter is fitted with a multi -level media filter. The media filter treat influent at a rated flow before going into bypass. The multi -level media filter has three layers. The top layer consists of granular perlite that provides treatment flow TSS, oils & PRESINC Secti Oil V WQMP a 30 io.doc Page 36 APRIL 30, 2010 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. grease, and other particulate pollutants. This layer provides pretreatment for the main layer of treatment. The middle layer consist of BioMediaGREEN, this layer provides the main treatment. BioMediaGREEN is a proprietary filter media with a high sorptive capacity for dissolved pollutants. This layer provides treatment flow fine TSS, hydrocarbons, nutrients, metals, and bacteria. The bottom layer consists of granular expanded shale. This layers main function an under drain but also provides treatment of dissolved phosphorous and other dissolved pollutants. Overflow Protection: The GISB -Media Filter is designed so that it does not inhibit storm flows entering the grate inlet, or obstruct flow through the catch basin during peak storm flows. Filter Bypass: Water will not bypass the primary media filter at low flows, nor bypass through attachment and inlet contact surfaces at low flows. Pollutant Removal Efficiency: The GISB -Media Filter is designed to capture high levels of trash and litter, grass and foliage, sediments, hydrocarbons, grease and oil. The filter has a multistage filtration system, which incorporates three mesh sizes and an overflow opening. POLLUTANT Grate Inlet Skimmer Box Trash & Litter 90 to 95% Oil & Grease 54% to 95% Sediments /TSS 73% to 84.41% Organics 79.3% Total Nitrogen 65 to 79% Total Phosphorus 71 to 98% In addition to the above third party independently tested removal efficiencies for a standard GISB. The addition of the BioMediaGREEN allows for much higher levels of treatment. Following are the removal efficiencies for the BioMediaGREEN which is used in all GISB -Media Filters. BioMediaGREEN POLLUTANT Removal Efficiencies Oil & Grease (mg/L 90% TPH (mg/L 99% TSS (m ) 85% Turbidity NTU 99% Total Phosphorus (m /L) 69.6% Dissolved Metals (mg /L) 75.6% PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.Goc APRIL 3o, 2010 Sil- Co -Sil 106. Mean particle diameter = 19 microns Section V Page 37 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Non - Scouring: During heavy storm flows or other flows that bypass the GISB -Media Filter, the filter water turbulence deflection shield prevents washout of debris and floatables in the filter basket. Filter Removal: The GISB -Media Filter is readily removable from the mounting /support frame for maintenance or replacement. Removal and replacement of filter screens is accomplished without the necessity of removing mounting bolts, support frames, etc., but by lift out through the grate inlet. The filter also incorporates a removable water turbulence deflector shield and an overflow shield. II. Installation Installation: The GISB -Media Filter will be securely installed in the grated type catch basin, so that no filter bypass can occur at low flow. If any anchoring devices and fasteners are installed within the interior of the drain inlet they should be non corrosive metals. The GISB -Media Filter is located in the catch basin directly beneath a grate opening for direct service /access from the manhole. Installation Notes: 1. Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. notes that the GISB -Media Filter shall be installed pursuant to the manufacturer's recommendations and the details on this sheet. 2. The filter shall provide coverage of entire inlet opening, to direct all flow to insert. 3. To install the GISB -Media Filter, lift the grate. 4. Place GISB -Media Filter into catch basin, the flange of the insert should sit on same lip that grate sits on. The perimeter area of catch basin can be calked to prevent water from entering catch basin under flange. 5. Grate can be replaced into catch basin, resting on the flange of the GISB -Media Filter. 6. In instances where filter cannot sit on catch basin lip an alternative installation as follows: Grate is removed and aluminum "L" channel can be placed on 2 or 4 sides on catch basin walls approximately 2 inches below lip where grate sits. The "L" channel to be attached to side of catch basin with 1/4" drive pins. Basket can be then set on the "L" channel and caulked. Grate can then be placed back into catch basin, resting on catch basin lip. 7. Diagrams of both of these types of installation can be seen on cut sheets. III. Maintenance Maintenance: The GISB -Media Filter is designed to allow for the use of vacuum removal of captured materials and spent filter media, serviceable by centrifugal compressor vacuum units without causing damage to the filter or any part of the mounting and attachment hardware during normal cleaning and maintenance. The GISB -Media Filter can be cleaned without entering the catch basin. Maintenance Notes: PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 38 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 1. Bio Clean Environmental Services Inc. recommends cleaning and maintenance of the GISB- Media Filter a minimum of two times per year or following a significant rain event that would potentially accumulate a large amount of debris in the system. The hydrocarbon boom should be replaced a minimum of twice per year or at each service as needed. The primary filter media (zeolite and BioMediaGREEN) should be replaced a minimum of once per year. May vary with loading conditions. 2. Any person performing maintenance activities that require entering the catch basin or handle a toxic substance have the proper training. 3. Remove grate to gain access to GISB -Media Filter. Remove the deflector shield with the hydrocarbon boom attached. Under normal conditions, cleaning and maintenance will be performed from the above ground surface. 4. Special Note: entry into an underground manhole, catch basin or stormwater vault requires training in an approved OSHA Confined Space Entry Program. 5. Remove all trash, debris, organics, and sediments collected by the GISB -Media Filter. Removal of the trash and debris can be done manually or with the use of a vactor truck. The hose of the vactor truck will not damage the screen of the filter. 6. Evaluation of the hydrocarbon boom shall be performed at each cleaning. If the boom is filled with hydrocarbons and oils it should be replaced. Remove boom by cutting plastic ties and remove boom. Attach new boom to basket with plastic ties through pre - drilled holes in basket. 7. Evaluation of the primary filter media shall be performed at each cleaning. If the filter media is saturated or clogged with pollutants and sediments it should be replaced. To replace, first all accumulated trash and sediments should be removed from above the filter media. Pull our removable screen located directly above the media. Remove spent filter media by hand or with a vac truck. Check of the condition of the expanded shale under drain media. Replace if necessary. Install new blocks of BioMediaGREEN. Make sure fit is water tight. Replace perlite media to level equal to the removable screen. Replace removable screen and secure in place. 8. Place the deflector shield back into the filter. Replace grate. 9. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. Please refer to state and local regulations for the proper disposal of material. 10. Following maintenance and/or inspection, the maintenance operator shall prepare a maintenance /inspection record. The record shall include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of filter. 11. The owner shall retain the maintenance /inspection record for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records shall be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 12. Any toxic substance or item found in the filter shall be removed according to local and state requirements. B 1& CLEAN' P 6 Box -764 Oceanside, 43 92049 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. INC ww 4ioclea 0 Fax (760) al.net 76 www. biocleanenvironmental. net PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc APRIL 30, 2010 Section V Page 39 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. Section VI Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section VI Page 40 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PRES INC WQMP 43010.doc I MAP OF SITE LOCATION do `a RECEIVMG WAMW 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE PROJECT ME 2= APN 445 - 131 -05, CEOf&E K. CWK M 21M EKV, 9-91 -II APRIL 30, 2010 Section VI Page 41 A \ \ `� \l \ cn \ / ' -------- - - - - -- �' \ II I �O2 i x� ��'PXcn T,FF ttl •C�A 'Y` ,x� ° N I N X • /�/ / / XF �Y.r�.. �FFtxN I x 11 N • — — XI ��F B �i lF O X / 0 ' i / ` 11 A // N X� xA . � 0 P X (3) xX o I F p05 o '1 F \ \ \\ / / /// • /' 95 5, / / // �q� BOC•��\ 1 I4 I 1 1 rl x P 'PgSS / / X W �I �I cn F X. ° / \\ ' \\ T / / i i i � S/O SS O'GC` / i/ ,y0�,`� // / ?•. � lam. % /� •\ /' // ji /�I �On i' F '- \� (. \`y // \ \ \_ ___ L /� � �CTi __ O/�, J6,yFg0� - __ - ____ ', _____ _08___ __ XP DRIAN/ / I m ° F O \ O xPO ' \ P�a"�P° O• A /O \ FF 41 REG \1 / \` \ \``\ / ' / \ _ A �° °P / pap \\\ \ ' I c0 P a A q A \ T/ X. / X J \ \ /S` : S . Y ° x \\ rn %o XP OD 1p o \ \ y F X z `� J SFF�G z \ `rn cl x Ul 10 `gyp cn SG / Y/cn 50 m > X p ° BOO I I ° csj` k n -7 \� S ` \, \� ^� FIBS,\ FO'np ` - -l) OP mj o sy F� \ I I x M m D Fri X O \ x m / 0 II m n o m a R � C / i \\ 0) O \ U1 I 1 x x X ° �0 c x o � O �\ O O I I f X x mmo n °, Q cn G` \`\ O / / I v m ° � N X � OD o ?\ X _ O \ u1 I I w wa O N I o Fri m O I w N a O , X co A A \ I I ° / / \ 50.7 F� ; 'c O 8 X \\ CX X n O PD cn / m O • \\ O / \ / // p\ \ X / FL ° Cp 2 2 50. p O \ \ \ o z y 00 y y O � 00 000 z z z z z z z z z z x z U � 0 000000 O vJ -u C) /�yyyV�y O O O 0 m O 0 0 o " O A z z W °m m c7 M o o z n v C-) � o m m m m < T r7 l� N N m m m m 1�1 T z m °z m z °O o N n °z W o z A° < ° < "� ° v n l J/ m ° z ° m A � m m z v�' m s n�' o Q �v� O ti ~ O m D m z D O N o r O { O Z 22 ti y r� ° V1 z O Z C ° m z p ° O ti G7 O { m Z O z O Oy m Z m ni z x� ^! o %� a c� o z ° N Nz Z (n .Z] ^ D ° �1' z y w N < C! ym m N Z m (/7 Z f°*I m NO ym CD °z O rzi v ` f z O m g ° �` n m = � �n v� Z ,�., m K 0 1 "�' N o o D = O _ d A m m N K m �.�.] � "� ��O 133 aS z l d O'qd W � z � o r�T yyZ�� m 0 ti GJ < m' OC m ��//��� D V� z ° N 0 I�l Z O D � Z 0 m /� z O O m m J^ ° Z � no A o o o Z Z i7 9�� 9��/AN AVENUE v a w O Z �, r O N �, ° ° O m O O� II y1•��� = ° 66 O Iy j/yyy N� m \ O • o z rw 0 " < � O ° I m N Z N O m ° Z ti r vD -< m Vj m < T m o D m A p m O Z m m .TOJ 0 ° m z C7 z m m • y W r 0 D m m z D z z o Z - C� �, m m „_, m y o — Z o z O N Eq NT Eq Z C) z m °z o r D r < N A m N F9 Z ° D o Z brr' Fd ° Z o c O -1 O z > O m m p Z q o ~ M• o v N LJ0 w 0 K:IPROJECIS \YEAR2010 \PI0103 \GRADING \P10103 BMP MAPI.DWG � I I \\ I I I I I �I I ' � I I • �� i I QO QO I � TT I I D a0 a0 N I o I I O I �r I I I 0 N CD I � c n` O I j o I I C7 rr z o a� I I �- z �► I I 0 I C� CO� < Q QO M I rQ ^n = I N � I W ° D Z I cn I I _ m I I I Qc m >< i 05 C-) I a I � I � C-) nh CD 4 m E I L- �ll -- --------- - - - - -- z �I Lo N F7 I y 0 , ay * REG /ST I C F m yS m GF o n 0,/'c n mN m �n D o N 10 Nd�r� 0 N A Z71 � M o < z N O Z N y m z 0 SIZE TO W A CB OPENING in z y n m jyy�j (D D logo J r IM m ti N O m O H mC 1 � A N O yZ 3: w m < D °m ~ A O D Z � 1_ m 0 m VIm N C Z m n 7N-c "O m O� x o ` yV� n C H 3 x no � l J m y y A x x D y mz A n A D x u` m \ Z m m 0 m x o$d Z Z IM x n �Om ° m m so fTl a fp N �Z m/1 p p a'. 13 ul Z O N C 0 O O Do U) A Z ISO D m m O 10 F- y y 0 ° OC c' a m Q. p a o. a O m z O o W O to ca �C y yz° 1.1 N O d D y z O Fy ML m w r l , o � o O z n Q z o F... N M�z Q m o Qo W p u� N � w ^� N0 0 K:IPROJECTS \YEAR2010 \P10103 \GRADING \P10103 BMP MAP2.DWG z r � �o � m r 4,_6,. (� _� ° �' o INV TO TOP vni � z� v m 16° o� S� =gym > e V r $ < Z m '• O��r 7� � z NATO CEO A � NZO C= ov 1 �'- � � o �J CID �KT �i� ZQc y��. z�i DZ�3�p U. 00yps� ��Y! m g C � N fG b y 41 b y W AL�� /�''�' , 1 A }n aW'm' T & 5 to z Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) PRES INC PLANNING APPLICATION NO Section VII Educational Materials Included The following is a list of educational materials included in this WQMP. CASQA SC -41: Building & Grounds Maintenance CASQA: Landscape Maintenance CASQA SD -12: Efficient Irrigation CASQA SD -13: Storm Drain Signage CASQA SD -20: Pervious Pavements CASQA SD -32: Trash Storage Areas The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door — Household Tips Tips for Landscape & Gardening Tips for Using Concrete & Mortar Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Good Operating Practices Food /Restaurant Industry PRES INC WQMP 4 30 10.doc Prel. WQMP /1301 Dove Street APRIL 30, 2010 Section VII Page 42 Building & Grounds Maintenance SC -41 Description Stormwater runoff from building and grounds maintenance activities can be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons in solvents, fertilizers and pesticides, suspended solids, heavy metals, abnormal pH, and oils and greases. Utilizing the protocols in this fact sheet will prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from building and grounds maintenance activities by washing and cleaning up with as little water as possible, following good landscape management practices, preventing and cleaning up spills immediately, keeping debris from entering the storm drains, and maintaining the stormwater collection system. Approach Reduce potential for pollutant discharge through source control pollution prevention and BMP implementation. Successful implementation depends on effective training of employees on applicable BMPs and general pollution prevention strategies and objectives. Pollution Prevention ■ Switch to non -toxic chemicals for maintenance when possible. ■ Choose cleaning agents that can be recycled. ■ Encourage proper lawn management and landscaping, including use of native vegetation. Objectives • Cover • Contain • Educate • Reduce /Minimize • Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment ✓ Nutrients ✓ Trash Metals ✓ Bacteria ✓ Oil and Grease Organics X SQA ifornia Stormwater nuality Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC -41 Building & Grounds Maintenance • Encourage use of Integrated Pest Management techniques for pest control. • Encourage proper onsite recycling of yard trimmings. • Recycle residual paints, solvents, lumber, and other material as much as possible. Suggested Protocols Pressure Washing of Buildings, Rooftops, and Other Large Objects • In situations where soaps or detergents are used and the surrounding area is paved, pressure washers must use a water collection device that enables collection of wash water and associated solids. A sump pump, wet vacuum or similarly effective device must be used to collect the runoff and loose materials. The collected runoff and solids must be disposed of properly. • If soaps or detergents are not used, and the surrounding area is paved, wash runoff does not have to be collected but must be screened. Pressure washers must use filter fabric or some other type of screen on the ground and /or in the catch basin to trap the particles in wash water runoff. • If you are pressure washing on a grassed area (with or without soap), runoff must be dispersed as sheet flow as much as possible, rather than as a concentrated stream. The wash runoff must remain on the grass and not drain to pavement. Landscaping Activities • Dispose of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation as garbage, or by composting. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. • Use mulch or other erosion control measures on exposed soils. Building Repair, Remodeling, and Construction • Do not dump any toxic substance or liquid waste on the pavement, the ground, or toward a storm drain. • Use ground or drop cloths underneath outdoor painting, scraping, and sandblasting work, and properly dispose of collected material daily. • Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for activities such as paint mixing and tool cleaning. • Clean paintbrushes and tools covered with water -based paints in sinks connected to sanitary sewers or in portable containers that can be dumped into a sanitary sewer drain. Brushes and tools covered with non - water -based paints, finishes, or other materials must be cleaned in a manner that enables collection of used solvents (e.g., paint thinner, turpentine, etc.) for recycling or proper disposal. • Use a storm drain cover, filter fabric, or similarly effective runoff control mechanism if dust, grit, wash water, or other pollutants may escape the work area and enter a catch basin. This is particularly necessary on rainy days. The containment device(s) must be in place at the beginning of the work day, and accumulated dirty runoff and solids must be collected and disposed of before removing the containment device(s) at the end of the work day. 2 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Building & Grounds Maintenance SC -41 ■ If you need to de -water an excavation site, you may need to filter the water before discharging to a catch basin or off -site. If directed off -site, you should direct the water through hay bales and filter fabric or use other sediment filters or traps. ■ Store toxic material under cover during precipitation events and when not in use. A cover would include tarps or other temporary cover material. Mowing, Trimming, and Planting ■ Dispose of leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation as garbage, by composting or at a permitted landfill. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. ■ Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed. ■ Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and drain inlets, and berm or cover stockpiles to prevent material releases to the storm drain system. ■ Consider an alternative approach when bailing out muddy water: do not put it in the storm drain; pour over landscaped areas. ■ Use hand weeding where practical. Fertilizer and Pesticide Management ■ Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides and training of applicators and pest control advisors. ■ Use less toxic pesticides that will do the job when applicable. Avoid use of copper -based pesticides if possible. ■ Do not use pesticides if rain is expected. ■ Do not mix or prepare pesticides for application near storm drains. ■ Use the minimum amount needed for the job. ■ Calibrate fertilizer distributors to avoid excessive application. ■ Employ techniques to minimize off- target application (e.g., spray drift) of pesticides, including consideration of alternative application techniques. ■ Apply pesticides only when wind speeds are low. ■ Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. ■ Irrigate slowly to prevent runoff and then only as much as is needed. ■ Clean pavement and sidewalk if fertilizer is spilled on these surfaces before applying irrigation water. ■ Dispose of empty pesticide containers according to the instructions on the container label. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC -41 Building & Grounds Maintenance • Use up the pesticides. Rinse containers, and use rinse water as product. Dispose of unused pesticide as hazardous waste. • Implement storage requirements for pesticide products with guidance from the local fire department and County Agricultural Commissioner. Provide secondary containment for pesticides. Inspection ■ Inspect irrigation system periodically to ensure that the right amount of water is being applied and that excessive runoff is not occurring. Minimize excess watering and repair leaks in the irrigation system as soon as they are observed. Training • Educate and train employees on pesticide use and in pesticide application techniques to prevent pollution. • Train employees and contractors in proper techniques for spill containment and cleanup. • Be sure the frequency of training takes into account the complexity of the operations and the nature of the staff. Spill Response and Prevention • Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up -to -date. • Place a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as brooms, dustpans, and vacuum sweepers (if desired) near the storage area where it will be readily accessible. • Have employees trained in spill containment and cleanup present during the loading /unloading of dangerous wastes, liquid chemicals, or other materials. • Familiarize employees with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. • Clean up spills immediately. Other Considerations Alternative pest /weed controls may not be available, suitable, or effective in many cases. Requirements Costs • Cost will vary depending on the type and size of facility. • Overall costs should be low in comparison to other BMPs. Maintenance Sweep paved areas regularly to collect loose particles. Wipe up spills with rags and other absorbent material immediately, do not hose down the area to a storm drain. 4 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Building & Grounds Maintenance SC -41 Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Fire Sprinkler Line Flushing Building fire sprinkler line flushing may be a source of non - stormwater runoff pollution. The water entering the system is usually potable water, though in some areas it may be non - potable reclaimed wastewater. There are subsequent factors that may drastically reduce the quality of the water in such systems. Black iron pipe is usually used since it is cheaper than potable piping, but it is subject to rusting and results in lower quality water. Initially, the black iron pipe has an oil coating to protect it from rusting between manufacture and installation; this will contaminate the water from the first flush but not from subsequent flushes. Nitrates, poly- phosphates and other corrosion inhibitors, as well as fire suppressants and antifreeze may be added to the sprinkler water system. Water generally remains in the sprinkler system a long time (typically a year) and between flushes may accumulate iron, manganese, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc. The water generally becomes anoxic and contains living and dead bacteria and breakdown products from chlorination. This may result in a significant BOD problem and the water often smells. Consequently dispose fire sprinkler line flush water into the sanitary sewer. Do not allow discharge to storm drain or infiltration due to potential high levels of pollutants in fire sprinkler line water. References and Resources California's Nonpoint Source Program Plan http:/ /www.swrcb.ca.gov /Lips /index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bml)man.p df King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http: // dnr .metrokc.jzov /wlr /dss /spcm.htm Mobile Cleaners Pilot Program: Final Report. 1997. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http:/ /www.basmaa.org/ Pollution from Surface Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http_/ /www.basmaa.org / Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http:/ /www.scvur1212p.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http :/ /www.stormwatereenter.net/ January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Landscape Maintenance Photo Credit: Geoff Brosseau Description This category includes businesses that provide landscaping and landscape maintenance /gardening services. Pollutant Sources The following are sources of pollutants: • Selecting plants or landscape design • Installing new landscaping • Maintaining landscapes • Using pesticides and fertilizers • Using gas - powered equipment • Working near waterbodies Pollutants can include: • Nutrients (fertilizers, yard wastes) • Pesticides • Heavy metals (copper, lead, and zinc) • Hydrocarbons (fuels, oils and grease) • Sediments Approach Minimize the potential for stormwater pollution and the need for C A S 0 A resources /controls (water, pesticides, fertilizers) by creating and I canrornta maintaining landscapes in a way that is compatible with the local stormwater soils, climate, and amount of rain and sun. Make stormwater Quality Association January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Landscape Maintenance pollution prevention BMPs a part of standard operating procedures and the employee training program. Provide employee education materials in the first language of employees, as necessary. Source Control BMPs The best management practices are listed by activity or area. Landscape Design • Specify native, low maintenance, and insectary (attract beneficial insects) plants and landscape designs. • Design zoned, water - efficient irrigation systems using technologies such drip irrigation, soaker hoses, or microspray systems. • Do not landscape riparian areas, except to remove non - native plants and replace them with native riparian landscaping. • Replant with native species where possible when landscaping or building an ornamental pond. Do not assume something is native because you have seen it in your area. Contact the local nursery for information or visit the California Exotic Pest Plant Council website (www.caleppc.org). Landscape Installation • Protect stockpiles and landscaping materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps or secured plastic sheeting. • Schedule grading and excavation projects during dry weather. • Divert runoff from exposed soils or lower its velocity by leveling and terracing. • Use temporary check dams or ditches to divert runoff away from storm drains. • Protect storm drains with sandbags or other sediment controls. • Revegetation is an excellent form of erosion control for any site. Keep soils covered with vegetation or temporary cover material (mulch) to control erosion. • Check plant roots before buying a plant. Do not buy plants with roots are that kinked or circling around the container. Do not buy plants with soft, rotten, or deformed root crowns. • Do not pile soil around the plant any higher than the root crown. Landscape Maintenance Yard Waste • Allow leaf drop to become part of the mulch layer in tree, shrub, and groundcover areas. • Keep lawn mower blades sharp and grasscycle. Grasscycle — leave grass clippings on the lawn when mowing. Once cut, grass clippings first dehydrate, then decompose, quickly disappearing from view. Proper mowing is required for successful grasscycling. Cut grass when the surface is dry, and keep mower blades sharp. Follow the "1/3 Rule ": mow the lawn often enough so that no more than 1/3 of the length of the grass blade is cut in any one mowing. Frequent mowing will produce short clippings that will not cover up the grass surface. The lawn may have to be cut every seven days when the lawn is growing fast but only every 7 to 14 days when the lawn is growing slowly. 2 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Landscape Maintenance • Do not leave clippings on pavement or sidewalks where they can wash off into the street, gutter, or storm drain. • Collect lawn and garden clippings, pruning waste, and tree trimmings. Chip if necessary, and compost or take to the local municipal yard waste recycling /composting facility. • In communities with curbside pick -up of yard waste, place clippings and pruning waste at the curb in approved bags or containers. No curbside pickup of yard waste is available for commercial properties. • Do not blow or rake leaves or other yard waste into the street, or place yard waste in gutters or on dirt shoulders, unless it is being piled up for recycling (allowed by some municipalities). After pick -up, sweep up any leaves, litter, or residue in gutters or on street. Fertilizing and Pruning • Perform soil analysis seasonally to determine actual fertilization need and application rates. • Fertilize garden areas with a mulch of leaves, bark, or composted manure and /or garden waste. • Apply chemical fertilizer only as needed, when plants can best use it, and when the potential for it being carried away by runoff is low. Make sure the fertilizer spreader is calibrated. • Prune plants sparingly, if at all. A healthy plant — one that is native to the area and growing under the right conditions — should not need pruning, except when it is not in the right location (where safety or liability is a concern). Watering ■ Use soil probes to determine soil moisture depth, overall moisture levels, and the need to adjust irrigation schedules. Pest and Weed Control • Anyone who is in the business of landscape maintenance and performs pest control as part of providing that service must have a license from the state to apply pesticides. Contact the Department of Pesticide Regulation for more information. • Become trained in and offer customers less -toxic pest control or Integrated Pest Management (IPM). • The label on a pesticide container is a legal document. Use a pesticide only as instructed on the label. • Store pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals indoors or in a shed or storage cabinet. • Use pesticides sparingly, according to instructions on the label. Rinse empty containers, and use rinsewater as product. • Dispose of rinsed, empty containers in the trash. Dispose of unused pesticides as hazardous waste. • To control weeds, use drip irrigation and mulch. Hand -pull weeds including roots or cut down to ground. Repeat cutting before they flower, grow new leaves, or go to seed. Use herbicides containing pelargonic acid or herbicidal soap as a last resort. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Landscape Maintenance Handling Gasoline • Use only containers approved by a nationally recognized testing lab, such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Keep the container tightly sealed. Containers should be fitted with a spout to allow pouring without spilling and to minimize the generation of vapors. • Fill cautiously. Always use a funnel and /or spout to prevent spilling or splashing when fueling power mowers, blowers, and all other gas - powered equipment. • Avoid spilling gasoline on the ground, especially near wells. If a spill occurs use kitty litter, saw dust, or an absorbent towel to soak up the spill, then dispose of it properly. • Store carefully. Gasoline moves quickly through soil and into groundwater, therefore, store and use gasoline and fuel equipment as far away from your drinking water well as possible. Be certain to keep a closed cap on the gasoline container. Store at ground level, not on a shelf to minimize the danger of falling and spilling. • Do not dispose of gasoline down the drain, into surface water, onto the ground, or in the trash. Contact the local municipality for directions on proper disposal of excess or old gasoline. Transport old gas in an approved gasoline container. Working Near Waterbodies • Do not dump lawn clippings, other yard waste, or soil along creek banks or in creeks. • Do not store stockpiles of materials (soil, mulch) along creek banks. These piles can erode over time into a creek. • Do not spray pesticides or fertilizers by creeks. • Do not over water near streams. The excess water may carry pesticides, fertilizers, sediments, and anything else in its path directly into the creek. • Do not remove native vegetation along creek banks or remove large woody debris from creek banks or creeks. Instead, contact the local municipal planning department and Department of Fish & Game for guidance. Treatment Control BMPS Not applicable. More Information Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 1999. Start at the Source — Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. (http: / /www.basmaa.org). Bay Area Water Pollution Prevention Agencies, 1998 - 2002. Less -Toxic Pest Management Fact Sheets, Less -Toxic Product List, and In -store display and promotion materials. Chnp://www.basmaa.org ) California Exotic Pest Plant Council, 1999• Exotic Pest Plant List. (http_/ /www.caleppe.org) California Integrated Waste Management Board, 1999. Grasscycle! Make the Most of Your Lawn. Make the Most of Your Time. (httI2:/ /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /organics /Pubs.htm). California Integrated Waste Management Board, 20o1. Resource - Efficient Turf Management and Resource - Efficient Landscaping. (http:/ /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /organics /Pubs.htm). Contra Costa County, no date. Grasscycle! Clip your waste! (httn: / /grasscvcle.abaiz.ca. ovl. 4 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Landscape Maintenance Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, no date. Creek Care: A Guide for Urban Marin Residents. (http:/ /www.mestoppp.org/ . Professional Lawn Care Association of America, 1997. Water Quality and Your Lawn. (hM2://www.pesp.org/l()().r,/plcaac).-,-final.htm). San Francisquito Watershed Council and San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, no date. Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and Santa Clara County Streams. ( http : / /www.acterra.org /watershed /) The Alliance for Proper Gasoline Handling, 1999• Consumer Tips for Proper Gasoline Handling. (http:/ /www.gas- eare.org/consumer ti sn htm). Videos California Integrated Waste Management Board, 1999• Grasscycle! Make the Most of Your Lawn. Make the Most of Your Time. (http:/ /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /organics /Pubs.htm). CCCSD, 2OO1. The Healthy Home & Garden - Less -Toxic Pest Control (for residents). (http://www.centralsan.org/education/ipm/hgonlineguide.htmi). References Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 1999• Start at the Source — Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. (http: / /www.basmaa.org). Bay Area Water Pollution Prevention Agencies, 1998 - 2002. Less -Toxic Pest Management Fact Sheets, Less -Toxic Product List, and In -store display and promotion materials. Ch=://www.basmaa.org ) California Integrated Waste Management Board, 1999• Grasscycle! Make the Most of Your Lawn. Make the Most of Your Time. (http:/ /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /organics /Pubs.htm). California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2001. Resource - Efficient Turf Management and Resource - Efficient Landscaping. (httT)://www.ciwmb.ca.izov/orizanir-s/Pubs.ht of Bellevue, 1991. Water Quality Protection for Landscaping Businesses, Business Partners for Clean Water. Contra Costa County, no date. Grasscycle! Clip your waste! (http: // rg assucle.abag.ca.gov). County of Los Angeles, no date. Landscaping and Nursery Facilities — Best Management Practices, Project Pollution Prevention. Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, no date. Creek Care: A Guide for Urban Marin Residents. (http:/ /www.mestoppJp.org/). Professional Lawn Care Association of America, 1997. Water Quality and Your Lawn. (h=://www.pesT).oriz/l()().-,/T)Icaac).-,-final.htm). San Francisquito Watershed Council and San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, no date. Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and Santa Clara County Streams. ( http : / /www.acterra.org /watershed /) Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, 2001. Landscaping, Gardening, and Pool Maintenance — Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry. The Alliance for Proper Gasoline Handling, 1999. Consumer Tips for Proper Gasoline Handling. ( http : / /www.gas- eare.org/consumer tips.htm). January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Efficient Irrigation SD -12 N r , k rJ . "� = =_ Description Design Objectives Q Maximize Infiltration Q Provide Retention Q Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess irrigation water being conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff of excess irrigation water into the stormwater conveyance system. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single - family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Designing New Installations The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee: ■ Employ rain - triggered shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. • Design irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water requirements. • Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. • Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. t ,L6PR9 :A 4r0R \r \l A rill January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -12 Efficient Irrigation • Design timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm water drainage system. • Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Choose plants with low irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider design features such as: Using mulches (such as wood chips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sediment in runoff - Installing appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and /or as recommended by the landscape architect - Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible - Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth ■ Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce irrigation water runoff Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment' in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of " redevelopment' must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Storm Drain Signage SD -13 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage 0 Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Description Waste materials dumped into storm drain inlets can have severe impacts on receiving and ground waters. Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain signs and stencils are highly visible source controls that are typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. Approach The stencil or affixed sign contains a brief statement that prohibits dumping of improper materials into the urban runoff conveyance system. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against waste disposal. Suitable Applications Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged to the storm drain. Signs are appropriate in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as any other area where contributions or dumping to storm drains is likely. Design Considerations Storm drain message markers or placards are recommended at all storm drain inlets within the boundary of a development project. The marker should be placed in clear sight facing toward anyone approaching the inlet from either side. All storm drain inlet locations should be identified on the development site map. Designing New Installations The following methods should be considered for inclusion in the project design and show on project plans: ■ Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language. Examples include "NO DUMPING NA C% I IF01M A 4roR \r \l A rill January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -13 Storm Drain Signage DRAINS TO OCEAN" and /or other graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. ■ Post signs with prohibitive language and /or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. Note - Some local agencies have approved specific signage and /or storm drain message placards for use. Consult local agency stormwater staff to determine specific requirements for placard types and methods of application. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. If the project meets the definition of "redevelopment ", then the requirements stated under " designing new installations" above should be included in all project design plans. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations ■ Legibility of markers and signs should be maintained. If required by the agency with jurisdiction over the project, the owner /operator or homeowner's association should enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards or signs. Placement • Signage on top of curbs tends to weather and fade. • Signage on face of curbs tends to be worn by contact with vehicle tires and sweeper brooms. Supplemental Information Examples ■ Most MS4 programs have storm drain signage programs. Some MS4 programs will provide stencils, or arrange for volunteers to stencil storm drains as part of their outreach program. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Pervious Pavements SD -20 Design Objectives Q Maximize Infiltration Q Provide Retention Q Slow Runoff Q Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Description Pervious paving is used for light vehicle loading in parking areas. The term describes a system comprising a load- bearing, durable surface together with an underlying layered structure that temporarily stores water prior to infiltration or drainage to a controlled outlet. The surface can itself be porous such that water infiltrates across the entire surface of the material (e.g., grass and gravel surfaces, porous concrete and porous asphalt), or can be built up of impermeable blocks separated by spaces and joints, through which the water can drain. This latter system is termed `permeable' paving. Advantages of pervious pavements is that they reduce runoff volume while providing treatment, and are unobtrusive resulting in a high level of acceptability. Approach Attenuation of flow is provided by the storage within the underlying structure or sub base, together with appropriate flow controls. An underlying geotextile may permit groundwater recharge, thus contributing to the restoration of the natural water cycle. Alternatively, where infiltration is inappropriate (e.g., if the groundwater vulnerability is high, or the soil type is unsuitable), the surface can be constructed above an impermeable membrane. The system offers a valuable solution for drainage of spatially constrained urban areas. Significant attenuation and improvement in water quality can be achieved by permeable pavements, whichever method is used. The surface and subsurface infrastructure can remove both the soluble and fine particulate pollutants that occur within urban runoff. Roof water can be piped into the storage area directly, adding areas from which the flow can be attenuated. Also, within lined systems, there is the opportunity for stored runoff to be piped out for reuse. Suitable Applications Residential, commercial and industrial applications are possible. The use of permeable pavement may be restricted in cold regions, and regions or regions with high wind erosion. There are some specific disadvantages associated with permeable pavement, which are as follows: C ,I IF01M A 4r0R %f %VA rill January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 10 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -20 Pervious Pavements ■ Permeable pavement can become clogged if improperly installed or maintained. However, this is countered by the ease with which small areas of paving can be cleaned or replaced when blocked or damaged. ■ Their application should be limited to highways with low traffic volumes, axle loads and speeds (less than 30 mph limit), car parking areas and other lightly trafficked or non - trafficked areas. Permeable surfaces are currently not considered suitable for adoptable roads due to the risks associated with failure on high speed roads, the safety implications of ponding, and disruption arising from reconstruction. ■ When using un- lined, infiltration systems, there is some risk of contaminating groundwater, depending on soil conditions and aquifer susceptibility. However, this risk is likely to be small because the areas drained tend to have inherently low pollutant loadings. ■ The use of permeable pavement is restricted to gentle slopes. ■ Porous block paving has a higher risk of abrasion and damage than solid blocks. Design Considerations Designing New Installations If the grades, subsoils, drainage characteristics, and groundwater conditions are suitable, permeable paving may be substituted for conventional pavement on parking areas, cul de sacs and other areas with light traffic. Slopes should be flat or very gentle. Scottish experience has shown that permeable paving systems can be installed in a wide range of ground conditions, and the flow attenuation performance is excellent even when the systems are lined. The suitability of a pervious system at a particular pavement site will, however, depend on the loading criteria required of the pavement. Where the system is to be used for infiltrating drainage waters into the ground, the vulnerability of local groundwater sources to pollution from the site should be low, and the seasonal high water table should be at least 4 feet below the surface. Ideally, the pervious surface should be horizontal in order to intercept local rainfall at source. On sloping sites, pervious surfaces may be terraced to accommodate differences in levels. Design Guidelines The design of each layer of the pavement must be determined by the likely traffic loadings and their required operational life. To provide satisfactory performance, the following criteria should be considered: ■ The subgrade should be able to sustain traffic loading without excessive deformation. ■ The granular capping and sub -base layers should give sufficient load- bearing to provide an adequate construction platform and base for the overlying pavement layers. ■ The pavement materials should not crack of suffer excessive rutting under the influence of traffic. This is controlled by the horizontal tensile stress at the base of these layers. 2 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Pervious Pavements SD -20 There is no current structural design method specifically for pervious pavements. Allowances should be considered the following factors in the design and specification of materials: • Pervious pavements use materials with high permeability and void space. All the current UK pavement design methods are based on the use of conventional materials that are dense and relatively impermeable. The stiffness of the materials must therefore be assessed. • Water is present within the construction and can soften and weaken materials, and this must be allowed for. • Existing design methods assume full friction between layers. Any geotextiles or geomembranes must be carefully specified to minimize loss of friction between layers. • Porous asphalt loses adhesion and becomes brittle as air passes through the voids. Its durability is therefore lower than conventional materials. The single sized grading of materials used means that care should be taken to ensure that loss of finer particles between unbound layers does not occur. Positioning a geotextile near the surface of the pervious construction should enable pollutants to be trapped and retained close to the surface of the construction. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that the filtering of sediments and their associated pollutants at this level may hamper percolation of waters and can eventually lead to surface ponding. One advantage is that even if eventual maintenance is required to reinstate infiltration, only a limited amount of the construction needs to be disturbed, since the sub -base below the geotextile is protected. In addition, the pollutant concentration at a high level in the structure allows for its release over time. It is slowly transported in the stormwater to lower levels where chemical and biological processes may be operating to retain or degrade pollutants. The design should ensure that sufficient void space exists for the storage of sediments to limit the period between remedial works. • Pervious pavements require a single size grading to give open voids. The choice of materials is therefore a compromise between stiffness, permeability and storage capacity. • Because the sub -base and capping will be in contact with water for a large part of the time, the strength and durability of the aggregate particles when saturated and subjected to wetting and drying should be assessed. • A uniformly graded single size material cannot be compacted and is liable to move when construction traffic passes over it. This effect can be reduced by the use of angular crushed rock material with a high surface friction. In pollution control terms, these layers represent the site of long term chemical and biological pollutant retention and degradation processes. The construction materials should be selected, in addition to their structural strength properties, for their ability to sustain such processes. In general, this means that materials should create neutral or slightly alkaline conditions and they should provide favorable sites for colonization by microbial populations. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 10 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -20 Pervious Pavements Construction /Inspection Considerations ■ Permeable surfaces can be laid without cross -falls or longitudinal gradients. ■ The blocks should be lain level ■ They should not be used for storage of site materials, unless the surface is well protected from deposition of silt and other spillages. ■ The pavement should be constructed in a single operation, as one of the last items to be built, on a development site. Landscape development should be completed before pavement construction to avoid contamination by silt or soil from this source. ■ Surfaces draining to the pavement should be stabilized before construction of the pavement. ■ Inappropriate construction equipment should be kept away from the pavement to prevent damage to the surface, sub -base or sub - grade. Maintenance Requirements The maintenance requirements of a pervious surface should be reviewed at the time of design and should be clearly specified. Maintenance is required to prevent clogging of the pervious surface. The factors to be considered when defining maintenance requirements must include: ■ Type of use ■ Ownership ■ Level of trafficking ■ The local environment and any contributing catchments Studies in the UK have shown satisfactory operation of porous pavement systems without maintenance for over 10 years and recent work by Imbe et al. at 9th ICUD, Portland, 2002 describes systems operating for over 20 years without maintenance. However, performance under such regimes could not be guaranteed, Table 1 shows typical recommended maintenance regimes: 4 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Pervious Pavements SD -20 Table 1 Typical Recommended Maintenance Regimes Activity Schedule • Minimize use of salt or grit for de -icing • Keep landscaped areas well maintained Ongoing • Prevent soil being washed onto pavement • Vacuum clean surface using commercially available sweeping machines at the following times: - End of winter (April) 2/3 x per year - Mid - summer (July / August) - After Autumn leaf -fall (November) • Inspect outlets Annual • If routine cleaning does not restore infiltration rates, then reconstruction of part of the whole of a pervious surface may be required. • The surface area affected by hydraulic failure should be lifted for inspection of the internal materials to identify the location and As needed (infrequent) extent of the blockage. Maximum 15 -20 years • Surface materials should be lifted and replaced after brush cleaning. Geotextiles may need complete replacement. • Sub - surface layers may need cleaning and replacing. • Removed silts may need to be disposed of as controlled waste. Permeable pavements are up to 25 % cheaper (or at least no more expensive than the traditional forms of pavement construction), when all construction and drainage costs are taken into account. (Accepting that the porous asphalt itself is a more expensive surfacing, the extra cost of which is offset by the savings in underground pipework etc.) (Niemczynowicz, et al., 1987) Table i gives US cost estimates for capital and maintenance costs of porous pavements (Landphair et al., 2000) Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment' must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 10 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -20 Additional Information Cost Considerations Pervious Pavements Permeable pavements are up to 25 % cheaper (or at least no more expensive than the traditional forms of pavement construction), when all construction and drainage costs are taken into account. (Accepting that the porous asphalt itself is a more expensive surfacing, the extra cost of which is offset by the savings in underground pipework etc.) (Niemczynowicz, et al., 1987) Table 2 gives US cost estimates for capital and maintenance costs of porous pavements (Landphair et al., 2000) 6 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Pervious Pavements Table 2 Engineer's Estimate for Porous Pavement SD -20 Porous Pavement ]tem l;ldtr price C,yclext Year QoaM.I Acre WS Total QIIaaL2 Acre W'S T01a1 Quail Acre WS Total QUIRL4 Acre WS Tnul QMa'3 Acre WS Total Grading SY $100 604 $1,208 1209 $2,418 1812 53,624 2419 $4.838 3020 $6,040 Paring SY $19.00 212 $4,028 424 $8.056 636 $12,084 649 $16,112 1060 320,140 Excavation CY $3.60 201 $724 403 $1,451 604 $2.114 808 $2,902 1008 $3.629 FiherFadric SY $1.15 700 $805 1400 $1,610 2000 $2,300 2800 $3.220 3600 $4,140 Suave Fill CY $16.00 201 $3,216 403 $6,448 604 $91604 646 $12,696 1608 $16,128 Sand CY $7.00 100 $700 200 $1,400 300 52,100 400 $2,800 500 $3,500 Sigh WAN EA $300.00 2 $600 3 $900 4 $1,200 7 $2,100 7 $2,100 Seeding LF $0.05 644 $32 1268 $64 1932 $97 2576 $129 3220 $161 Check Dam CY $35.06 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Total Consmrallon Costs $10,105 $19,929 $29,619 $40,158 $49,798 Construction Costs Amortized for 20 Years $503 Sam $1,48t $2,008 $4,490 Annual Maintenance Expense Item lldlt Price Cpclelf Year Qoaec.l Acre WS Total QereL2 Acre WS Tuld Qoam.l Acre W'S TMAI QoanL4 Acre WS T01111 Qea t.5 Acre WS Total Sweeping AC $250.00 6 1 31,500 2 $3.000 3 $4,500 4 $6.000 $ $7,500 Washing AC $250.00 6 1 $1,500 2 $3.000 3 $4,500 4 $6.000 5 $7,500 Inspection MH $20.00 5 5 $100 5 $100 5 $100 5 $100 5 $100 tleepClean AC $450A0 0.5 1 $225 2 $450 3 $675 19 $878 5 $1,125 Total Annul Mairriananm Expanse $31980 $7,792 $11,651 $130483 $19,370 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 10 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -20 Pervious Pavements Other Resources Abbott C.L. and Comino - Mateos L. 2001. In situ performance monitoring of an infiltration drainage system and field testing of current design procedures. Journal CIWEM,15(3), PP-198- 202. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2002. Source Control using Constructed Pervious Surfaces C582, London, SW1P 3AU. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2000. Sustainable urban drainage systems - design manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland Report C521, London, SW1P 3AU. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2000 C522 Sustainable urban drainage systems - design manual for England and Wales, London, SW1P 3AU. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). RP448 Manual of good practice for the design, construction and maintenance of infiltration drainage systems for stormwater runoff control and disposal, London, SWJ.P 3AU. Dierkes C., Kuhlmann L., Kandasamy J. & Angelis G. Pollution Retention Capability and Maintenance of Permeable Pavements. Proc 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Portland Oregon, September 2002. Hart P (2002) Permeable Paving as a Stormwater Source Control System. Paper presented at Scottish Hydraulics Study Group 14th Annual seminar, SUDS. 22 March 2002, Glasgow. Kobayashi M., 1999. Stormwater runoff control in Nagoya City. Proc. 8 th Int. Conf. on Urban Storm Drainage, Sydney, Australia, pp.825-833• Landphair, H., McFalls, J., Thompson, D., 2000, Design Methods, Selection, and Cost Effectiveness of Stormwater Quality Structures, Texas Transportation Institute Research Report 1837 -1, College Station, Texas. Legret M, Colandini V, Effects of a porous pavement with reservior strucutre on runoff water:water quality and the fate of heavy metals. Laboratoire Central Des Ponts et Chaussesss Macdonald K. & Jefferies C. Performance Comparison of Porous Paved and Traditional Car Parks. Proc. First National Conference on Sustainable Drainage Systems, Coventry June 2001. Niemczynowicz J, Hogland W,1987: Test of porous pavements performed in Lund, Sweden, in Topics in Drainage Hydraulics and Hydrology. BC. Yen (Ed.), pub. Int. Assoc. For Hydraulic Research, pp 19 -80. Pratt C.J. SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE — A Review of published material on the performance of various SUDS devices prepared for the UK Environment Agency. Coventry University, UK December 2001. Pratt C.J., 1995• Infiltration drainage — case studies of UK practice. Project Report 8 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Pervious Pavements SD -20 22,Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, SWO 3AU; also known as National Rivers Authority R & D Note 485 Pratt. C. J., 1990. Permeable Pavements for Stormwater Quality Enhancement. In: Urban Stormwater Quality Enhancement - Source Control, retrofitting and combined sewer technology, Ed. H.C. Torno, ASCE, ISBN o87262 7594, PI). 131 -155 Raimbault G., 1997 French Developments in Reservoir Structures Sustainable water resources I the 21s� century. Malmo Sweden Schluter W. & Jefferies C. Monitoring the outflow from a Porous Car Park Proc. First National Conference on Sustainable Drainage Systems, Coventry June 2001. Wild, T.C., Jefferies, C., and D'Arcy, B.J. SUDS in Scotland — the Scottish SUDS database Report No SR(O2)09 Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Edinburgh. In preparation August 2002. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 10 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -20 Geolexhle Permeable . _ Subbase .I._.... • ____ __s. To further realment Impe ...able disposal McZane or reuse (a) Pemlous pavement used for attenuation Pervious Pavements _Overnaw, Pertneabb Geote,dle e v v e Sub-0ase Inilxrelion (b) Pervious pavement used for infiltration Schematics of a Pervious Pavement System 10 of 10 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Trash Storage Areas SD -32 Description Trash storage areas are areas where a trash receptacle (s) are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. Stormwater runoff from areas where trash is stored or disposed of can be polluted. In addition, loose trash and debris can be easily transported by water or wind into nearby storm drain inlets, channels, and /or creeks. Waste handling operations that may be sources of stormwater pollution include dumpsters, litter control, and waste piles. Approach This fact sheet contains details on the specific measures required to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with trash storage and handling. Preventative measures including enclosures, containment structures, and impervious pavements to mitigate spills, should be used to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Suitable Applications Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Q Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single - family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Design requirements for waste handling areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current local agency ordinances and zoning requirements. The design criteria described in this fact sheet are meant to enhance and be consistent with these code and ordinance requirements. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with legal requirements established in Title 22, California Code of Regulation. Wastes from commercial and industrial sites are typically hauled by either public or commercial carriers that may have design or access requirements for waste storage areas. The design criteria in this fact sheet are recommendations and are not intended to be in conflict with requirements established by the waste hauler. The waste hauler should be contacted prior to the design of your site trash collection areas. Conflicts or issues should be discussed with the local agency. Designing New Installations Trash storage areas should be designed to consider the following structural or treatment control BMPs: • Design trash container areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the area(s) to avoid run -on. This might include berming or grading the waste handling area to prevent run -on of stormwater. • Make sure trash container areas are screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash. NA January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD -32 Trash Storage Areas • Use lined bins or dumpsters to reduce leaking of liquid waste. • Provide roofs, awnings, or attached lids on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation and prevent rainfall from entering containers. • Pave trash storage areas with an impervious surface to mitigate spills. • Do not locate storm drains in immediate vicinity of the trash storage area. • Post signs on all dumpsters informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed of therein. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment' in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and /or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of redevelopment' must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage (i.e., screens, covers, and signs) must be maintained by the owner /operator. Maintenance agreements between the local agency and the owner /operator may be required. Some agencies will require maintenance deed restrictions to be recorded of the property title. If required by the local agency, maintenance agreements or deed restrictions must be executed by the owner /operator before improvement plans are approved. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com a R O J E C T R E V E N T 1 0 Follow these simple steps to help reduce water pollution: Household Activities ■Do not rinse spills with water. Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, sweep and dispose of in the trash. Take items such as used or excess batteries, oven cleaners, automotive fluids, painting products and cathode ray tubes, like TVs and computer monitors, to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center ( HHWCC). ■For a HHWCC near you call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com. 0 D not hose down your driveway, sidewalk or patio to the street, gutter or storm drain. Sweep up debris and dispose of it in the trash. Automotive ■Take your vehicle to a commercial car wash whenever possible. If you wash your vehicle at home, choose soaps, cleaners, or detergents labeled non - toxic, phosphate- free or biodegradable. Vegetable and citrus -based products are typically safest for the environment. ■Do not allow washwater from vehicle washing to drain into the street, gutter or storm drain. Excess washwater should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer (through a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface like your lawn. ■Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan under leaks. Keep your vehicles well maintained to stop and prevent leaks. ■Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street, gutter or storm drain. Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste oil collection center or used oil recycling center. For the nearest Used Oil Collection Center call 1- 800 - CLEANUP or visit. www.1800cleanup.org. Pool Maintenance ■Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free of excess acid, alkali or color to be allowed in the street, gutter or storm drain. ■When it is not raining, drain dechlorinated pool and spa water directly into the sanitary sewer. ■Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain. Check with your city. Landscape and Gardening ■Do not over - water. Water your lawn and garden by hand to control the amount of water you use or set irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs. If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or sidewalk, your system is over - watering. Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. ■Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead, dispose of waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or as green waste through your city's recycling program. ■Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer, (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours. ■Take unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be recycled. For locations and hours of HHWCC, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com. Trash ■Place trash and litter that cannot be recycled in securely covered trash cans. ■Whenever possible, buy recycled products. ■Remember: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Pet Care ■Always pick up after your pet. Flush waste down the toilet or dispose of it in the trash. Pet waste, if left outdoors, can wash into the street, gutter or storm drain. ■If possible, bathe your pets indoors. If you must bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or another absorbent /permeable surface to keep the washwater from entering the street, gutter or storm drain. ■Follow directions for use of pet care products and dispose of any unused products at a HHWCC. , -J� 01 Did You Know? ■ Most people believe that the largest source of water pollution in urban areas comes from specific sources such as factories and sewage treatment plants. In fact, the largest source of water pollution comes from city streets, neighborhoods, construction sites and parking lots. This type of pollution is sometimes called "non -point source" pollution. ■There are two types of non -point source pollution: stormwater and urban runoff pollution. ■ Stormwater runoff results from rainfall. When rainstorms cause large volumes of water to rinse the urban landscape, picking up pollutants along the way. ■ Urban runoff can happen any time of the year when excessive water use from irrigation, vehicle washing and other sources carries trash, lawn clippings and other urban pollutants into storm drains. Where Does It Go? ■Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and businesses — like motor oil, paint, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaners — can be blown or washed into storm drains. ■A little water from a garden hose or rain can also send materials into storm drains. ■Storm drains are separate from our sanitary sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. Sources of Non -Point Source Pollution ■Automotive leaks and spills. ■Improper disposal of used oil and other engine fluids. ■Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint, rust, metal plating and tires. ■Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and farms. ■Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint removers. ■ Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities. ■Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other organic matter. ■ Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces. The Effect on the Ocean Non -point source pollution can have a serious impact on water quality in Orange County. Pollutants from the storm drain system can harm marine life as well as coastal and wetland habitats. They can also degrade recreation areas such as beaches, harbors and bays. Stormwater quality management programs have been developed throughout Orange County to educate and encourage the public to protect water quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system, investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm drains. Support from Orange County residents and businesses is needed to improve water quality and reduce urban runoff pollution. Proper use and disposal of materials will help stop pollution before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean. California Environmental Protection Agency www.calepa.ca.gov • Air Resources Board www.arb.ca.gov, • Department of Pesticide Regulation www.cdpcca.gov • Department of Toxic Substances Control www.dtsc.ca.gov • Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment www.oehha.ca.gov • State Water Resources Control Board www.waterboards. ca, gov Earth 911 - Community- Specific Environmental Information 1-800-cleanup or visit www.1800cleamip. org Health Care Agency's Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline (714) 433 -6400 or visit www.ocbeachinfo.com Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange County (714) 834 -6752 or visit wivteoclandfills.com for information on household hazardous waste collection centers, . recycling centers and solid waste collection O.C. Agriculture Commissioner (714) 447 -7100 or visit www.ocagcomm.com Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Visit w ww cabmphandbooks.com UC Master Gardener Hotline (714) 708 -1646 or visit wwwuccemg.com The Orange County Stormwater Program has created and moderates an electronic mailing list to facilitate communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements. Tojoin the list, please send an email to ocstormwatednfo-j oin @listocwatersheds.com Aliso Viejo ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . (949) 425 -2535 Anaheim Public Works Operations ........ (714) 765 -6860 Brea Engineering ..................(714) 990 -7666 Buena Park Public Works ... ... ... ... . (714) 562 -3655 Costa Mesa Public Services ... ... ... .... (714) 754 -5323 Cypress Public Works ................ (714) 229 -6740 Dana Point Public Works. ... .. . ... .. . . (949) 248 -3584 Fountain Valley Public Works . .. . ... .. . . (714) 593 -4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept .. . . . . . . . . . . . (714) 738 -6853 Garden Grove Public Works ............ (714) 741 -5956 Huntington Beach Public Works ......... (714) 536 -5431 Irvine Public Works ................. (949) 724 -6315 La Habra Public Services .............. (562) 905 -9792 La Palma Public Works .. ... ... ... ... . (714) 690 -3310 Laguna Beach Water Quality............ (949) 497 -0378 Laguna Hills Public Services............ (949) 707 -2650 Laguna Niguel Public Works ........... (949) 362 -4337 Laguna Woods Public Works............ (949) 639-0500 Lake Forest Public Works ... ... ... ... . (949) 461 -3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev ............(562) 431 -3538 Mission Viejo Public Works ............ (949) 470 -3056 Newport Beach, Code & Water Quality Enforcement ................(949) 6443215 Orange Public Works ................ (714) 532 -6480 Placentia Public Works ...............(714) 993 -8245 Rancho Santa Margarita . ... ... ... .. . . (949) 635 -1800 San Clemente Environmental Programs . .. . . (949) 361 -6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering. . ... .. . . (949) 2344413 Santa Ana Public Works . ... ... ... ... . (714) 647 -3380 Seal Beach Engineering ............. (562) 431 -2527 017 Stanton Public Works ............... (714) 379 -9222 x204 Tustin Public Works /Engineering.. ... ... .(714) 57P.3150 Villa Park Engineering ............... (714) 998 -1500 Westminster Public Works /Engineering . ... (714) 898 -3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering ............. (714) 961 -7138 Orange County Stormwater Program ... .... (877) 897 -7455 Orange County 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877 - 897 -7455) On -line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form w w w. o c w a t e r s It e d s. c o m For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897 -7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com UCCE Master Gardener Hotline: (714) 708 -1646 To report a spill, call the Orange County 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897- 7455). For emergencies, dial 911. The tips contained in this brochure provide useful information to help prevent water pollution while landscaping or gardening. If you have other suggestions, please contact your city's stormwater representatives or call the Orange County Stormwater Program. L IO Printed on Recycled Paper at Your Front Door P R O 1 E C T L POMA10n P R E V E N T 1 0A Never allow gardening products or polluted water to enter the street, gutter or storm drain. General Landscaping Tips ■ Protect stockpiles and materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps or secured plastic sheeting. ■Prevent erosion of slopes by planting fast - growing, dense ground covering plants. These will shield and bind the soil. ■Plant native vegetation to reduce the amount of water, fertilizers, and pesticide applied to the landscape. ■Never apply pesticides or fertilizers when rain is predicted within the next 48 hours. Garden & Lawn Maintenance ■Do not overwater. Use irrigation practices such as drip irrigation, soaker hoses or micro spray systems. Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. ■ Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead, dispose of green waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or recycling it through your city's program. ■ Use slow - release fertilizers to minimize leaching, and use organic fertilizers. ■ Read labels and use only as directed. Do not over -apply pesticides or fertilizers. Apply to spots as needed, rather than blanketing an entire area. ■ Store pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals in a dry covered area to prevent exposure that may result in the deterioration of containers and packaging. ■ Rinse empty pesticide containers and re -use rinse water as you would use the product. Do not dump rinse water down storm drains. Dispose of empty containers in the trash. ■ When available, use non -toxic alternatives to traditional pesticides, and use pesticides specifically designed to control the pest you are targeting. For more information, visit www.ipm.ucdavis.edu. ■ If fertilizer is spilled, sweep up the spill before irrigating. If the spill is liquid, apply an absorbent material such as cat litter, and then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. ■Take unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center to be recycled. Locations are provided below. For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897 -7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com. To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Reporting Hotline at 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897 - 7455). For emergencies, dial 911. The Tips contained in this brochure provide useful information about how you can keep materials and washwater from entering the storm drain system. If you have other suggestions for how water and materials maybe contained, please contact your city's stormwater representative or call the Orange County Stormwater Program. IV L �,- . The OO cean Begins at Your Front Door P R SS O J E C T POBLt%10" P R E V E N T 1 O N Never allow materials or washwater to enter the street or storm drain. Before the Project ■ Schedule projects for dry weather. ■ Store materials under cover, with temporary roofs or plastic sheets, to eliminate or reduce the possibility that the materials can be carried from the project site to streets, storm drains or adjacent properties via rainfall, runoff or wind. ■ Minimize waste by ordering only the amount of materials needed to complete the job. ■ Take measures to block nearby storm drain inlets. During the Project ■ Set up and operate small mixers on tarps or heavy drop cloths. ■ Do not mix more fresh concrete or cement than is needed for the job. ■ When breaking up pavement, pick up all chunks and pieces and recycle them at a local construction and demolition recycling company. (See information to the right) ■ When making saw cuts in pavement, protect nearby storm drain inlets during the saw - cutting operation and contain the slurry. Collect the slurry residue from the pavement or gutter and remove from the site. Clean -Up ■ Dispose of small amounts of dry concrete, grout or mortar in the trash. ■ Never hose materials from exposed aggregate concrete, asphalt or similar treatments into a street, gutter, parking lot, or storm drain. ■ Wash concrete mixers and equipment in designated washout areas where the water can flow into a containment area or onto dirt. Small amounts of dried material can be disposed of in the trash. Large amounts should be recycled at a local construction and demolition recycling company. (See information below) ■ Recycle cement wash water by pumping it back into cement mixers for reuse. spills ■ Never hose down pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use an absorbent material such as cat litter to soak up a spill, then sweep and dispose in the trash. ■ Clean spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated dry soil in trash. ■ Immediately report significant spills to the County's 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 714 -567 -6363 or log onto the County's website at www.ocwatersheds.com and fill out an incident reporting form. Preventing water Pollution at your commercial /industrial site Clean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. However, many landscape and building maintenance activities can lead to water pollution if you're not careful. Paint, chemicals, plant clippings and other materials can be blown or washed into storm drains that flow to the ocean. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. You would never pour soap or fertilizers into the ocean, so why would you let them enter the storm drains? Follow these easy tips to help prevent water pollution. Some types of industrial facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State General Industrial Permit. For more information visit: www. swrcb. ca .gov /stormwater /industrial.html For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897 -7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24 -Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1- 877 -89 -SPILL (1- 877- 897- 7455). For emergencies, dial 911. RECYCLE USED OIL Ow IV Printed on Recycled Paper r' P R E V E N T I O N Landscape Maintenance ■ Compost grass clippings, leaves, sticks and other vegetation, or dispose of it at a permitted landfill or in green waste containers. Do not dispose of these materials in the street, gutter or storm drain. ■ Irrigate slowly and inspect the system for leaks, overspraying and runoff. Adjust automatic timers to avoid overwatering. ■ Follow label directions for the use and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides. ■ Do not apply pesticides or fertilizers if rain is expected within 48 hours or if wind speeds are above 5 mph. ■ Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet of waterways. ■ Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped onto the surface. ■ If fertilizer is spilled on the pavement or sidewalk, sweep it up immediately and place it back in the container. Building Maintenance ■ Never allow washwater, sweepings or sediment to enter the storm drain. ■ Sweep up dry spills and use cat litter, towels or similar materials to absorb wet spills. Dispose of it in the trash. ■ If you wash your building, sidewalk or parking lot, you must contain the water. Use a shop vac to collect the water and contact your city or sanitation agency for proper disposal information. Do not let water enter the street, gutter or storm drain. ■ Use drop cloths underneath outdoor painting, scraping, and sandblasting work, and properly dispose of materials in the trash. ■ Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for mixing paint and cleaning tools. ■ Use a damp mop or broom to clean floors. ■ Cover dumpsters to keep insects, animals, rainwater and sand from entering. Keep the area around the dumpster clear of trash and debris. Do not overfill the dumpster. ■ Call your trash hauler to replace leaking dumpsters. ■ Do not dump any toxic substance or liquid waste on the pavement, the ground, or near a storm drain. Even materials that seem harmless such as latex paint or biodegradable cleaners can damage the environment. ■ Recycle paints, solvents and other materials. For more information about recycling and collection centers, visit www.oclandfiUs.com. ■ Store materials indoors or under cover and away from storm drains. ■ Use a construction and demolition recycling company to recycle lumber, paper, cardboard, metals, masonry, carpet, plastic, pipes, drywall, rocks, dirt, and green waste. For a listing of construction and demolition recycling locations in your area, visit www.ciwmb.ca.gov/recycle. ■ Properly label materials. Familiarize employees with Material PPS Safety Data Sheets. POBLJ-10" P R V I i I ON t� NYC: B lean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. Fats, oils and grease from restaurants and food service facilities can cause sewer line blockages that may result in sewage overflow into your facility and into storm drains. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways and should never contain washwater, trash, grease or other materials. You would never dump oil and trash into the ocean, so don't let it enter the storm drains. Follow these tips to help prevent water pollution. Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: Tips for the Food Service Industry 10.4 Food Waste Disposal ■ Scrape food waste off of plates, utensils, pots, food preparation and cooking areas and dispose of it in the trash. ■ Never put food waste down the drain. Food scraps often contain grease, which can clog sewer pipes and result in sewage backups and overflows. Grease & Oil Disposal • Never put oil or grease down the drain. Contain grease and oil by using covered grease storage containers or installing a grease interceptor. • Never overfill your grease storage container or transport it without a cover. • Grease control devices must be emptied and cleaned by permitted companies. • Keep maintenance records on site. ■ For a list of oil /grease recycling companies, contact the CIWMB at www. ciwmb .ca.gov /foodwaste /render.httn or contact your local sanitation district. Minor Spill Cleanup • Always use dry cleanup methods, such as a rag, damp mop or broom. • Never hose a spill into the street, gutter or storm drain. Major Spill Cleanup • Have spill containment and clean- up kits readily available, and train all employees on how to use them. • Immediately contain and clean the spill using dry methods. • If the spill leaves your site, call (714) 567 -6363. Dumpster Cleanup ■ Pick up all debris around the dumpster. ■ Always keep the lid on the dumpster closed. ■ Never pour liquids into the dumpster or hose it out. Floor Mat Cleaning • Sweep the floor mats regularly, discarding the debris into the trash. • Hose off the mats in a mop sink, at a floor drain, or in an outdoor area that can contain the water. ■ Never hose the mats in an area where the wastewater can flow to the street, gutter or storm drain. Washwater Disposal • Dispose of washwater in a mop sink or an area with a floor drain. • Never dispose of � washwater in the street, 1P1�. ' E E " 1-OBN+ION gutter or storm drain. P. E V E H i 1 C N i� Appendix C Land Use Consistency Analysis Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 1 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU 1.5 Economic Health Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine - oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high - quality community services. Policy LU 2.2 Sustainable and Complete Community Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self - sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. Policy LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, . districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would allow for the construction and operation of a new office building. As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, it would provide approximately 67 construction workers and 53 professional jobs. Therefore, the proposed project would support the provision of adequate office opportunities that would provide construction and operation employment and stimulate the local economy. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would allow for the construction and operation of a new office building that would provide short-term and long -term employment opportunities for area residents. The construction and operationjobs provided by the proposed project could potentially be fulfilled by the local workforce residing in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the proposed project would enable Newport Beach to continue as a self- sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for employment in the real estate management field. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would amend the General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable development square. footage. The proposed project would be an office building within the existing developed Kell Center Newport Planned Community, which encompasses a large portion of the City's business and employment district. Furthermore, it would blend in with the existing architectural characteristics. Therefore, it would maintain Newport Beach's pattern of business and employment districts in that area. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would amend the General Plan and Kell Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable development square footage, and would allow for the infill development of one new office building on a site that is currently occupied by an office building and 84 stalls of surface parking. The proposed amendments would slightly increase density/intensity in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, but would be largely consistent with surrounding land use designations and existing zoning, and would be consistent with the density of the proposed land use designations and the surrounding business district. As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, and Section XVII, Utilities and Service Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram Page 2 of 14 have adequate infrastructure and public services and would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. Furthermore, as discussed in Section XVI, Transportation and Traffic, of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the slight increase in trips that would result during the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant deterioration of surrounding intersections or the roadway network. Therefore, the proposed project would result in complementary type, form, and scale of the existing neighborhood, and would be adeauatelv served by the existing infrastructure and oublic services. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. As discussed in Section VIII (e) and (f), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist the proposed project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) jurisdiction of John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, the proposed project is within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. The proposed project includes construction of a three -level office building with a maximum height of 50 feet, on a site that is approximately 42 feet above mean sea level (AES Due Diligence 2004). The proposed project does not require notification to the FAA in accordance with Section 77.13 of the FAR because the proposed project would not be more than 200 feet above ground level and not more than 206 feet above mean sea level; the project would not create any imaginary surfaces with any of the specific slope characteristics identified within Section 77.13; the proposed project is not a highway; and the proposed project is not a modification to an existing airport. As discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project is exempt from filing the Form 7460 -1 notice, a referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review is required because of the location of the project site within the AELUP Planning Area and because of the nature of the required City approvals (i.e,. General Plan amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). The proposed project would comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's John Wayne AELUP. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards to promote the safety of persons on the ground while reducing risks of serious harm to aircraft crews and passengers that may need to make emergency landings in the immediate airport vicinity. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Policy Consistency Analysis LUl depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depicts specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LUI (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities /intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities /intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is not included in Table LU 1, are specified on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15. These are intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation or as otherwise specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). The density /intensity ranges are calculated based on actual land area, actual number of dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and development potential in areas where the General Plan allows additional development. To determine the permissible development, the user should: a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU 15 and Table LUI to identify the permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use classification. Where densities /intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the density/intensity. c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to determine the precise development limits. d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may Policy LU 5.4.1 Site Planning Require that new and renovated office and retail development projects be planned to exhibit a high - quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the following: ■ Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces ■ Incorporation of extensive on -site landscaping that emphasizes special features such as entryways ■ Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual continuity of surface parking lots ■ Common signage program for tenant identification and wayfinding ■ Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity ■ Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and Page 3 of 14 The project site is located in the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach. The project site is designated as Mixed Use Horizontal2 (MU -142) per the General Plan Land Use Element. The development limit for the project site is identified in Table LU2 of the General Plan Land Use Element as Anomaly Number 2. The development limit for Anomaly Number 2 is 1,060,146 gross square feet, as identified in Table LU2. The project site is currently zoned PC -15, Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The project site is located within a development site identified as Professional and Business Office Site B in the Kell Center Newport Planned Community. The Allowable Building Area for Office Site B is 967,803 square feet as defined by the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Kell Center Newport Planned Community text amendment to increase the allowable development square footage on the project site. The General Plan Amendment would increase the development limit in General Plan Anomaly Location 2 by 11,544 gross square feet, and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would increase the allowable building area in Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet. The General Plan Amendment and the Kell Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would accommodate the land use development of the proposed office building that is consistent with the land use designation and zoning of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would be located within an existing "campus environment' in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community office park. The development site is located adjacent to a landscaped retarding basin, which is used as a common open space area by the neighboring businesses. It also includes a walkway around the perimeter. Special features include aesthetically diverse architectural elements such as rocks, stones, living walls, reflective glass, aluminum panels, and canopy elements. The proposed project would use the existing site access off of Von Karman Avenue, which would be appropriately signed with the proposed building's address. Therefore, the proposed office building would exhibit a high - quality and cohesive campus environment. Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 4 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis pedestrians. Policy LU 5.4.2 Development Form and Architecture The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that new development of business park, office, and supporting buildings The proposed project would be designed to convey a unified and high - quality be designed to convey a unified and high - quality character in consideration of the following principles: character. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, Figure 2 -7 and Section I, ■ Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of Aesthetics in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed architectural building style of the office building would be aesthetically diverse and would used textures ■ Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the orientation to public spaces composition of the building. The proposed office buildings would incorporate a ■ Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. ■ Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color Equipment, such as heating ventilation and air conditioning units, will be screened palette from the public view due to the height of the buildings. All equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of the equipment. The ■ Clear identification of entries through design elements parking structure would be located on the lower level of the proposed office ■ Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character building under the two stories of office space; therefore, architectural treatment of ■ Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their primary parking structures would be consistent with their proposed building. commercial or office building. Policy LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. The proposed project would not interface between differing neighborhoods, districts, or corridors. As discussed above in Policy LU 3. 1, it would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding office park. It would blend in with the existing character and architectural style of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, The proposed office building would be compatible with the existing campus office colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the p ark scale, density, and varying architectural styles. As discussed in Section I(c), use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive Aesthetics, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind blend in with the existing character of the area and surrounding land uses. The patterns. maximum height of the office building would be approximately 50 feet above the original grade. The proposed architectural style of the building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition of the building. The proposed office building would incorporate a mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. Therefore, as the proposed project is located in a fully developed planned community and the architectural components would blend in with the existing office - complex character of the area Policy LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto Any lighting associated with the proposed project would not add significant Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 5 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of amounts of lighting to the project area and would be similar to the existing lighting their location. in the area. Policy LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the The proposed project would fit in with the area topography and would not disrupt property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and the existing drainage patterns, as described in Sections VI, Geology and Soils, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. distinguishes Newport Beach. The project site is fully developed with surface puking, has flat topography, and is generally void of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of Newport Bay and therefore would not affect any relationships to the bay and coastline. The proposed project is located within an existing build urban office complex environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Newport Beach's natural setting. Policy LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a The proposed project would be integrated into the Koll Center Newport Planned quality environment and compatible land uses. Community and would be consistent with the surrounding land uses as discussed in Policy LU 3.1. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed and landscaped to be aesthetically diverse and blend in with the existing character of the campus office park, ensuring a quality environment as discussed in Policy LU 5.4.2. The proposed project would provide for the development of the existing distinct business park, integrated to ensure a quality of environment and compatible land uses. Policy LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height The maximum height of the proposed project would be approximately 50 feet above restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that the original grade. The proposed project would comply with all height restrictions residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Regulations, and specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The proposed project does not include residential development and therefore would not be subject to the 65. dBA CNEL noise contour specific by the 1955 JWA Master Plan. GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policy CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following As discussed in Section XVI(a), Traffic and Transportation, in the Initial Study level of service standards: A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted Environmental Checklist, construction and operation of the proposed project would B. LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area shared with Irvine generally represent an increase of less than 2% of the existing AM and PM trips on the roadway network. It would not create substantial traffic to downgrade the level of service LOS at any of the intersections analyzed within the Initial Stud Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 6 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis Environmental Checklist. Surrounding intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service, and the minimal traffic generated from the proposed project would not downgrade the LOS at any intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would continue to accommodate projected traffic at the designated LOS. Policy CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide The proposed project would encourage the use of alternative transportation. The facilities that support such alternate modes, project site is not located near bus transit. Policy CE 7.1.1 Required Parking The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, The new office building located would provide adequate parking spaces; 12 located guests, business patrons, and visitors. on the first level of the proposed office building and 30 located in an open surface parking lot on proposed Parcel 2. Parcel I (the existing building) would provide 29 parking spaces. Therefore, a total of 71 stalls would be provided with the proposed project and the existing building. Section III of the General Parking Requirements of the Koll Center Newport Community Plan requires 1 parking space for every 225 square feet. Based on this requirement, the proposed project would result in a shortage of three parking spaces. However, Section III of the General Parking Requirements also allow for the decision making body (e.g.: the planning commission) to approve 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. Based on this requirement the proposed project would provide adequate, convenient parking for guests, employees, and business patrons with the 42 stalls allocated to parcel two and the 29 stalls allocated to parcel one. Policy CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The proposed project would not include a parking management program. Currently there is a parking attendant at the entrance to the business park area which requires a ticket to park and payment to leave. The proposed project would include sufficient parking spaces, as discussed above in CE 7.1.1. Therefore, site design would provide an adequate and safe parking configuration. GENERAL PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water — efficient landscaping and The proposed project would include design features for water conservation. irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. Efficient landscaping features would be incorporated, including landscaping timers and recycled water for all landscaping as required by the City of Newport Beach and water conservation measures in the bathroom fixtures. Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 7 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in See Response to Policy NRI.I above. The proposed project would establish the use both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities. of water conservation devices. The proposed project would implement the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would protect the Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including water quality of receiving waters from stormwater runoff. Furthermore, the Final coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. WQMP would be required for approval as part of the issuance of building and grading permits and will demonstrate that all of the best management practices (BMPs) discussed in the Final WQMP will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Policy NR 3.2 Water Pollution Prevention The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy HB 8.2) The proposed project would implement the Preliminary WQMP, which would promote pollution prevention methods during the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. Policy NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge The proposed project would be incompliance with all objectives, water quality Elimination System. (Policy HB 8.4) standards, and best management practices established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan as discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm drain system (MS4) permit through the preparation of a Preliminary and Final WQMP incorporating best management practices for operation. MM WQ -1 requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention program for construction. The proposed project would not directly discharge surface water to the bay, and would control runoff from the site. Best management practices would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan during construction to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains. Therefore, the proposed project would promote pollution prevention and minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural waters. Policy NR 3.5 Natural Water Bodies The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. (Policy HB 8.5) There are no natural water bodies in the general vicinity of the project site. The retarding basin in the project vicinity is part of the existing storm drain system of the City. This system discharges into various receiving waters, one being San Diego Creek. The proposed project's compliance with the requirements outlined above in Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 8 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy NR 3.4 would minimize and avoid degradation of natural bodies. Policy NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and The proposed project has prepared a Preliminary WQMP to maintain water quality post - construction. (Policy HB 8.9) and control stormwater runoff during the operation of the project and a Final WQMP would be required for approval as part of the grading and building permits for the proposed project. Furthermore, MM WQ -1 would maintain and control stormwater quality during construction. Policy NR 3.10 Best Management Practices The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, The project applicant has prepared a Preliminary WQMP and a Final WQMP would businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy FIB 8.10) be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of grading and building permits for the proposed project. The Preliminary WQMP is described in Section IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist and includes BMPs such as those listed below. • Educate property owners, tenants, and occupants regarding the management of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in landscaping and gardening practices, and the impacts of littering and improper water disposal. • Manage common area landscapes, including fertilizer /pesticide usage consistent with Management Guidelines for the Use of Fertilizers per DAMP. • Provide a spill contingency plan. • Control litter in common areas.. • Prohibit the discharges of fertilizers, pesticides, and wastes to streets or storm drains. • Prohibit blowing or sweeping of debris into street or storm drains. • Prohibit hosing down any paved surfaces where the result would be the flow of non - stormwater into the street or storm drains. • Prohibit vehicle washing, maintenance, or repair on site by employees, customers, or the public. • Inspect and maintain catch basins. • Provide regular dry sweeping of debris and grass clippings instead of using blowers or hosing. Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 9 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the The proposed project would be required to obtain a NPDES permit and to combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System implement MM WQ -1, which will provide source control during construction (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design activities. Further discussion of water quality and construction and operation source and source control measures. (Policy HB 8.11) control is included in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. Policy NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and The proposed project would maintain and clean the parking lots to remove debris cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. (Policy HB 8.17) and contaminated residue. The Preliminary WQMP requires street sweeping private streets and parking lots.. Policy NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention The WQMP identifies additional BMPs to control the volume of stormwater facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. (Policy HB 8.19) generated and maintain water quality. These include, but are not limited to, pavement detention, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff- minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter. (See Appendix B for the location of all the BMPs proposed). These additional BMPs are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff. . Policy NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of The proposed project would replace an existing impervious surface parking lot and and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area some pervious ornamental landscaping with the impervious surface of an office of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy HB 8.20) building. As described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces.. The Preliminary WQMP includes BMPs such as pavement detention through the use of porous pavement, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff- minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter. (See Appendix B for the location of all the BMPs proposed). The porous parking pavement is meant to minimize the directly connected impervious areas. Therefore, the proposed project would minimize the creation of more impervious surface over the existing conditions to the maximum extent practicable. Policy NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, in the Initial Study Environmental materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize Checklist, a mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled air pollutants. based on an estimate of construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing assumptions. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account: Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 10 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis • combustion emissions from operating onsite construction equipment, • fugitive dust emissions from moving soil on site, and • mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel. As discussed in Section I11(b), Air Quality, of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would not create substantial air pollutant emissions. The proposed project would comply with all rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for control of dust and minimization of air pollutants. Policy NR 18 The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, in the Initial Study Environmental resources. Checklist, the project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A record search conducted on March 16, 2010 determined that no prehistoric or historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the project area. No historical shuctures are depicted in the project site on the 1896 and 1901 USGS Santa Ana 30 minute topographic quadrangles, or on the 1965 USGS Tustin 7.5 minute quadrangle, indicating there is no potential for historical archaeological resources associated with early settlement. The project site has undergone grading for construction of the existing surface parking lot and adjacent building, and for development of other adjacent buildings and the stormwater system and retarding basin. Ground disturbances from these previous developments likely would have inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources present. Therefore; there are no important archeological resources located at the project site. The project site is situated on late Pleistocene marine deposits that have been cut to form a marine terrace commonly known as Newport Mesa (Morton and Miller 1981, California Division of Mines and Geology 1997). These deposits can be highly fossiliferous, containing vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil specimens (Stadum 2010). The proposed project would involve limited grading, to a depth of approximately 5 feet to prepare for the building foundations, however a geotechnical report prepared for the project indicated that parcel is underlain by approximately 5 feet of fill (TGR Geotechnical 2008). Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any paleontological resources; however, Mitigation Measure CR -I is incorporated to prevent the destruction of any unknown paleontological resource. Policy NR 18.1 New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and See above for Policy NR 18 regarding rotection and preservation of archaeological Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 11 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such and paleontological resources. resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CE A. Policy NR 24.2 Energy- Efficient Design Features The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Promote energy - efficient design features. Per the California Building Code, Title 24, 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards, the proposed project would include energy - efficient design features where feasible. GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT Policy S 8.6 John Wayne Airport Traffic Pattern Zone The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Use the most currently available John Wayne Airport (JWA) Airport Environs As discussed in Section VIII(e), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by JWA operations. In Study Environmental Checklist, the most current John Wayne Airport AELUP was particular, future land use decisions within the existing JWA Clear Zone /Runway use d as a planning resource for evaluation the land use compatibility and land use Protection Zone (Figure SS) should be evaluated to minimize the risk to life and Ai intensity in areas affected by John Wayne Airpor[ operations. The proposed project property associated with aircraft operations. would comply and would be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's John Wayne AELUP. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards to promote the safety of persons on the ground while reducing risks of serious harm to aircraft crews and passengers that may need to make emergency landings in the immediate airport vicinity. The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. In addition to existing regulations, the General Plan identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation - related hazards, and lists policies S8.1 through S8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident (City of Newport Beach 2006b). GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT Policy N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards The proposed project would be compatible with the noise environment and would shown in Table N3. comply with Tables N2 and N3. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of an office building. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would comply with all interior and exterior noise standards as required during building plan review and approval by the City prior to construction. Policy N 1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Applicants for proposed projects that require environmental review and are, Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 12 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as As discussed in Section XII, Noise, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 may conduct a field survey, noise measurements were taken in March 2010 to identify the existing noise levels at the measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to provide project site. The results of the short-term sound level measurements are evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise summarized in Table 3 -7 in Section XII, Noise, of the Initial Study Environmental exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic Checklist. Measured noise levels during daytime hours in and around the project site speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine ranged from 60 to 63 dBA L., Therefore, the proposed project does not need the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable exterior or interior noise attenuation as these are acceptable levels for office noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning buildings. considerations are taken into account. Policy N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses As discussed in Section XII, Noise, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs noise levels produced by the proposed project during construction and operation when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development would not result in significant impacts on sensitive receptors. impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. CNEL (dBA) dBA increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant Policy N 3.1 New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, As discussed in Section XII(e), Noise, in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, as guides to future planning and development decisions. the proposed project is located within approximately 0.5 mile from John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan shows the existing 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 shows that the proposed project site is located approximately 0.25 - 05 mile outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne airport (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Policy N 4 Minimization of Nontransportation- Related Noise The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Minimized nontransportation - related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. See response to Policy N 1.1 and 3.1 above. Policy N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the Sensitive noise receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, stationary noise sources. All heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment and air conditionin e ui ment. would be appropriately screened and centrally located on the roof surfaces. Appendix C. Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 13 of 14 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy N 4.3 New Commercial Developments The proposed project is consistent with this policy Require that new commercial developments abutting residentially designated Currently, there are no residentially designated properties abutting or within the properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project would not include a loading generating features specific to the development [o the extent feasible. area. The trash enclosure would be enclosed and away from sensitive land uses. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to minimize exterior noise impacts to the extent feasible. Policy N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or The proposed project would comply with the noise ordinance limits on construction construction activity adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results activities. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the from in -home hobby or work related activities. surrounding land uses, which do not include residential areas. Furthermore, as identified in the project description, construction hours would be limited to daytime hours specifically identified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Policy N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. As identified in the project description and Section XIL Noise, of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, Title 10, Chapter 10.28, Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code specifies permitted hours for construction activities. Construction or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity will only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity will occur on Sundays or federal holidays. Appendix D Noise: Terminology, Field Sheets, and General Plan Land Use Compatibility Matrix Noise Terminology Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. It may be loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound typically associated with human activity that interferes with or disrupts the normal noise - sensitive ongoing activities of others. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance and suitability of the noise in a particular setting, the time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. The response to vibration is similar: First, the vibration needs to be of sufficient magnitude to be perceived, and, second, it typically would have to interfere with a desirable activity to cause annoyance. Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium such as air that are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz); intensity describes the sound's level, volume, or loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound frequency is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure wave passes a fixed point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the drum vibrates at a certain number of times per second. Vibration of the drum skin at a rate of 100 times (or cycles) per second generates a sound pressure wave that is said to be oscillating at 100 Hz, and this pressure oscillation is perceived as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the best human ear. Sound from a tuning fork contains a single frequency and may therefore be referred to as a pure tone. However, most sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of frequencies differing in individual sound levels. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid -range frequencies. This frequency- dependent modification is called A- weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. For informational purposes, typical community sound levels are presented in Figure 2. A sound level of 0 dBA is the approximate threshold of human hearing. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels. When evaluating noise increases in the environment, the following relationships to quantifiable increases are used as a basis for assessing impacts. • A change of 1 dBA is difficult to perceive in the outside environment. • In the outside environment, a 3 dBA change is considered noticeable ■ An increase of 5 dBA is readily perceived as "louder' and is generally required before a change in community response would be expected. ■ A 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of noise Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, a simple rule of thumb is useful in dealing with sound levels: If a sound's physical intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dB plus 60 dB equals 63 dB, and 80 dB plus 80 dB equals 83 dB. As mentioned earlier, however, a perception of doubling of sound level requires about a 10- decibel increase. Although the A- weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor called the Leq (equivalent sound level is used to describe the average acoustical energy in a time - varying sound. LeQ is the energy -mean A- weighted sound level present or predicted to occur during a specified interval. It is the "equivalent" constant sound level that a given source would need to produce to equal the fluctuating level of measured sound. It is often desirable to also know the range of acoustic levels of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the Lmax and L,,,i„ noise descriptors. They represent the root - mean - square maximum and minimum obtainable noise levels measured during the monitoring interval. The Lmj,, value obtained for a particular monitoring location represents the quietest moment occurring during the measurement period and is often called the acoustic floor for that location. Likewise, the loudest momentary sound during the measurement is represented by L..x. To describe the time - varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors Ljo, LSO, and L90 (or other percentile values) may be used. They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded 10, 50, and 90 percent, respectively, of the time during the measured interval. The percentile descriptors are most commonly found in nuisance noise ordinances to allow for different noise levels for various portions of an hour. For example, the L50 value would represent 30 minutes of an hour period, the L25 would be associated with 15 minutes of an hour, and so on. Of particular interest in this analysis are other descriptors of noise that are commonly used to help determine noise /land use compatibility and to predict an average community reaction to adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic- generated and industrial noise. One of the most universal descriptors is the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). As recommended by the state health department and state planning law, planning agencies use this descriptor. The Ldn noise metric represents a 24 -hour period and applies a time - weighted factor designed to penalize noise events that occur during nighttime hours, when relaxation and sleep disturbance is of more concern than during daytime hours. Noise occurring during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is penalized by adding 10 dB to the measured level. In California, the use of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is still permitted (and is used by the City of Moreno Valley). CNEL is similar to Ldn except CNEL adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Ldn and CNEL are approximately equal to the Leq peak hour under normal traffic conditions (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] Field Sheets START FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA PROJECT: Pres Office Building PROJ. # 00873.09 —to, iNT c r^_ut0-4k END DATE / TIME: Jones & Stokes METEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: TEMP: Sl °F HUMIDITY: %R.H. WIND: CALM LICKT MODERATE VARIABLE WINDSPEED9' _ ` MPH DIR: N NE E SE S SW k)NW STEADY GUSTY SKY: SUNNY CLEAR O�/R rr�� ) PRTLY CLOUDY FOG RAIN OTHER: ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS: INSTRUMENT: c„ n H-- TYPE:2 SERIAL #: D CALIBRATOR: fin-,. �La.� CALIBRATION CHECK: PRE -TEST dBA SPL POST -TEST113 ,9 dBASPL SERIAL #: 6 IN WINDSCREEN SETTINGS: AWEIGH ED SLO FAST FRONTAL ,fiAQM�I OTHER: REC # START END La Lmax L I Lea Lso t OTHER: (TYPE?) COMMENTS: PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: ROADWAY TYPE: _ TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: NB/E13 AIRCRAFT RAIL OTHER: _ -MIN SPEED #2 COUNT SPEED SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB AUTOS: MED. TRUCKS: HVY TRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: i SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR / DRIVING / OBSERVER —�, OTHER SOURCES: DI T. AIRl�� /RUSTLING LEAVES /DIST. BARKING DOGS �BM / DIST. INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDR LAYING / DIST. TRAFFIC / DIST. LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES / OTHER: ART FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA PROJECT: Pres Office Building PROJ. # 00873.09 005 END DATE/ TIME: Peter v A Jones & Stokes METEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: TEMP:C 7 OF HUMIDITY: 02 9 %R.H. WIND: CAL Ga11- MODERATE VARIABLE WINDSPEED:H4 MPH DI 1_ - -N NE E SE S SW C%NW STEADY GUSTY SKY: SUNNY CLEAR OVRCST CFfTLY CLOUQY FOG RAIN OTHER: ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS: INSTRUMENT: R Vz_ TYPE: TCj2 SERIAL #: 6 �o CALIBRATOR: C ;�/ -•2s0 CALIBRATION CHECK: PRE -TEST q,�4 dBA SPL SETTINGS: A -WEIGt SLOW FAST FRONTAL POST -TEST r-5.q dBA SPL �P.NDOM ANSI •- SERIAL #: 6 yy WINDSCREEN OTHER: REC # START END Len Lma ��• Lmm SAS h Lso L o Lto G.� S1.4 6a• i OTHER: (TYPE?) COMMENTS: PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: 'TRAFFIC AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL ROADWAY TYPE: __'l -- ' o v° TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB AUTOS: MED. TRUCKS: _ HVY TRUCKS: _ BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: (AM T OTHER: (pl—`u wNllli #2 COUNT SPEED NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR/ DRIVING [OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES: DIST. AIRCRAFT / RUSTLING LEAVES If DIST. BARKING DOGS / BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING / DIST. TRAFFIC / DIST. LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES / OTHER: PROJECT: Pros Office FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA PROJ. # 00873.09 Peter Hardle /TIME: lu c ^—$ -Z -- 1 0 — t Z> "' END DATE/ TIME: Jones &Stokes METEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: TEMP; �`j °F HUMIDITY: LI %R.H. WIND: ��yyC;A��LM IGH MODERATE VARIABLE WINDSPEED:�MPH DIR__:/.� N NE E SE S SW .� NW . STEADY GUSTY SKY: SUNNY CLEAR OVRCST PR [� -CCOU Y FOG RAIN OTHER: ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS: C/ INSTRUMENT: C----�I p �Z--- TYPE:6)2 SERIAL #: O 40 Z_ CALIBRATOR: ( r A L 2 4°o SERIAL #: CALIBRATION CHECK: PRE- -TESST�-� r dBASPL POST -TEST ((.o dBASPL WINDSCREEN SETTINGS: - WEIGHTED ' k_OW, FAST FRONTAL NDO SI OTHER: REC # STAR END Leq Lmy Lmin 5i Za t v• N 6 U; J.z Ji o _yso_ Lto OTHER: (TYPE ?) i a� COMMENTS Pi2 W�, W F 7 u u r t �IxJ�JOf7I�- Itc. /< J+-rt t�J- ✓1v�NC� uJYtW SOURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC C 1JNTSs. --"'�. PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: RAFF AIRCRAF RAIL INDUSTRIAL AMBIENT THER' C,0 o f I 1.) <( .� t, ROADWAY TYPE: -- - 4­01'9-c 9 -c O TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED #2 COUNT SPEED NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB AUTOS: MED. TRUCKS: HVY TRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR /DRIVING /OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES: DIST. AIRCRAFT / RUSTLING LEAVES / DIST. BARKING DOGS / BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING / DIST. TRAFFIC / DIST. LANDSCAPING ACTIVITIES / OTHER: t4 Y&4 ..j1 Site Photographs i Photograph IK Looking Photograph A-2. ST- I Looking North 1 y v A` r e rW s i IC� ,,,., Photographs A -I and A -2 Photograph A -3. ST- I Looking South Photograph A -4. ST -I Looking West ICF Photographs A -3 and A -4 Photograph A -5. ST -2 Looking West Photograph A -6. ST -3 Looking North IC� ,,,., Photographs A -5 and A -6 Photograph A -7. ST -3 Looking South Photograph A -8. ST -3 Looking West ICF INIFXNAiIF Photographs A -7 and A -8 Land Use Compatibility Matrix Noise Element Land Use Cateqories I Community Noise Equivalent Level XNEL) SOURCE: Newport Beach, 2006 Zone A: Clearly Compatible — Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible" —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible -New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Newport Beach General Plan N I I I I I 0] Cate ones Uses Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple Family A A B C C D D Residential .Mixed Use A A A C C C D ..... -. ......... Residential ......... Mobile Home A A B C C- D D ..... -. ........ Commercial Regional District ........ . - - -- Hotel Motel, Transient Lodging A A B i B G? G D Commercial Regional, Village Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special Commercial Industrial ' Office Building, Research and Development, A A A B B C D Institutional 1 Professional Offices, City Office Building ..... Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall P B B C C D , D D Institutional Civic Center I .......... ............. ........ ......... ......... ...,...- ------ Commercial Recreation Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go -cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club A A A B B D D .......... .......................................... Commercial General, Special . — -,, Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, A A A A B B B Industrial, Institutional Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Institutional .... Hospital Church Library, Schools Classroom A A B C C D Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife A A A A B C C Reserves Wildlife Habitat Agriculture (Agriculture A I A A A A A A SOURCE: Newport Beach, 2006 Zone A: Clearly Compatible — Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible" —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible -New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Newport Beach General Plan Appendix E Traffic Calculations Appendix E Traffic Calculations Existing Traffic Conditions of Surrounding Roadway Network Table E -1 identifies the Level of Service (LOS) at intersections within the general vicinity of the project site. All intersections are operating at LOS B or better in the AM Peak Hour and only one intersection (MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive) was operating at LOS D during PM peak hour. This intersection is a shared intersection between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, and is allowed to operate at LOS E according to the City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine Performance Criteria. Therefore, all intersections are currently meeting the performance criteria of both cities. Table E -1. Existing 2009 Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour V/C - LOS PM Peak Hour V/C — LOS Shared Between Newport Beach and Irvine MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr 0.50 —A 0.84 — D Yes MacArthur Blvd/Birch St 0.65 — B 0.75 — C No MacArthur Blvd/Von Karman Ave 0.37—A 0.53 — A No Jamboree Rd/Campus Dr 0.67 — B 0.73 — C Yes Jamboree Rd/Birch St 0.57 — A 0.65 — B No Jamboree Rd/MacArthur Blvd 0.59 — A 0.66 — B No Jamboree Rd/Bristol St N 0.57 — A 0.54 — A No Source: LSA 2009. Table E -2 identifies the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along Jamboree, MacArthur, and Von Karman. These roads were selected as they are assumed to be the roads construction workers and employees would access for the construction and operation of the proposed project. Table E -2. AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Roadway Segment AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Jamboree south of Campus 3766 4046 Jamboree north of Campus 3777 4171 Campus east of Jamboree 1128 1374 Campus west of Jamboree 1127 1721 Jamboree south of MacArthur 2301 2678 Jamboree north of MacArthur 2552 3208 MacArthur east of Jamboree 2874 2815 MacArthur west of Jamboree 2463 2381 MacArthur south of Von Karman 2476 2992 MacArthur north of Von Karman 1694 2130 Von Karman east of MacArthur 1182 1300 Source: LSA 2009. Table E -3 Estimated Percent Increase in AM Trips Associated with Construction Roadway Segment Existing AM Construction Phases Peak Hour Demolition Grading Construction, Traffic Volume (LSA 2009) Asphalting and Architectural Finishing Percent Increase with Percent increase Percent increase with 16 7.5 AM Trips with 7 AM trips AM trips Jamboree south of 3766 0.20% 0.19% 0.42% Campus Jamboree north of 3777 0.20% 0.19% 0.42% Campus Campus east of 1128 0.66% 0.62% 1.42% Jamboree Campus west of 1127 0.67% 0.62% 1.42% Jamboree Jamboree south of 2301 0.33% 0.30% 0.70% MacArthur Jamboree north of 2552 0.29% 0.27% 0.63% MacArthur MacArthur east of 2874 0.26% 0.24% 0.56% Jamboree MacArthur west of 2463 0.30% 0.28% 0.65% Jamboree MacArthur south of 2476 0.30% 0.28% 0.65% Von Karman MacArthur north of 1694 0.44% 0.41% 0.94% Von Karman Von Karman east of 1182 0.63% 0.59% 1.35% MacArthur Table E -4 Estimated Percent Increase in PM Trips Associated with Construction Roadway Segment PM Peak Construction Phases Hour Traffic Demolition Grading Construction, Volume Asphalting, and (LSA 2009) Architectural Finishing Percent Increase Percent Increase Percent Increase with 7.5 PM Trips with 7 PM Trips with 16 PM Trips Jamboree south of 0.19% 0.17% 0.40% Campus 4046 Jamboree north of 0.18% 0.17% 0.38% Campus 4171 Campus east of 0.55% 0.51% 1.16% Jamboree 1374 Campus west of 0.44% 0.41% 0.93% Jamboree 1721 Jamboree south of 0.28% 0.26% 0.60% MacArthur 2678 Jamboree north of 0.23% 0.22% 0.50% MacArthur 3208 MacArthur east of 0.27% 0.25% 0.57% Jamboree 2815 MacArthur west of 0.31% 0.29% 0.67% Jamboree 2381 MacArthur south of 0.25% 0.23% 0.53 % Von Karman 2992 MacArthur north of 0.35% 0.33% 0.75% Von Karman 2130 Von Kannan east of 0.58% 0.54% 1.23% MacArthur 1 1300 Table E -5 Estimated Percent Increase in AM Trips Associated with Operation Roadway Segment Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume (LSA 2009) Operation of Proposed Project Percent Increase with 19 AM Trips Jamboree south of Campus 3766 0.50% Jamboree north of Campus 3777 0.50% Campus east of Jamboree 1128 1.68% Campus west of Jamboree 1127 1.69% Jamboree south of MacArthur 2301 0.83% Jamboree north of MacArthur 2552 0.74% MacArthur east of Jamboree 2874 0.66% MacArthur west of Jamboree 2463 0.77% MacArthur south of Von Karman 2476 0.77% MacArthur north of Von Karman 1694 1.12% Von Karman east of MacArthur 1182 1.61% Table E -6 Estimated Percent Increase in PM Trips Associated with Operation Roadway Segment PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume (LSA 2009) Operation of Proposed Project Percent Increase with 18 PM Trips Jamboree south of Campus 4046 0.44% Jamboree north of Campus 4171 0.43% Campus east of Jamboree 1374 1.31% Campus west of Jamboree 1721 1.05% Jamboree south of MacArthur 2678 0.67% Jamboree north of MacArthur 3208 0.56% MacArthur east of Jamboree 2815 0.64% MacArthur west of Jamboree 2381 0.76% MacArthur south of Von Karman 2992 0.60% MacArthur north of Von Karman 2130 0.85% Von Karman east of MacArthur 1300 1.38% Appendix F Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Appendix F Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Introduction The California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) when approving or carrying out a project when a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identifies measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to less - than- significant levels. As lead agency for the proposed project, the City is responsible for adoption and implementation of the MMP. An IS /MND has been prepared for the project that addresses the potential environmental impacts, and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, an MMP is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented. This document plan lists each mitigation measure, describes the methods for implementation and verification, and identifies the responsible party or parties. Project Overview The project proponent proposes a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Kell Center Newport Planned Community text, as well as development of an 11,960- gross - square -foot single -tenant office building in the City of Newport Beach, California. Additionally, the proposed project includes a division of the existing parcel into two separate parcels and the preparation of a parcel map. The existing General Plan which identifies the development limit of Anomaly Number 2 as 1,060,146 gross square feet would be amended to increase the development limit by 11,544 gross square feet. The existing Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, which identifies the Allowable Building Area for Office Site B as 967,803 square feet would be amended to increase the allowable building area by 9,917 net square feet. These proposed amendments would increase the allowable building square footage to accommodate the development of a new 11,960- gross- square -foot office building. The project involves the demolition of an 84 -stall surface parking lot and some existing landscaping and the construction of one three -level office building. Additional details regarding the project description are contained in Chapter 2, "Project Description." PRES Office Building B M2010 F -1 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Monitoring and Reporting Procedures The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The City will be responsible for administering the MMP and ensuring that all parties comply with its provisions. The City may delegate monitoring activities to staff, consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation Table F -1 lists, by resource area, each mitigation measure included in the draft IS /MND. Certain inspections and reports may require preparation by qualified individuals and these are specified as needed. The timing and method of verification for each measure is also specified. PRIES Office Building B April 2010 F -2 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROJECT NAME: PRES Office Building B PROJECT LOCATION: 55,779 square feet located along Von Karman Avenue on Assessor's Parcel Number 445- 131 -05 in the City of Newport Beach, near the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project proposes to demolish and remove the existing 84 -stall surface parking lot and some existing landscaping to prepare the site for the construction of a new 11,960 - gross- square -foot office building. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Kell Center Newport Planned Community text amendment to increase the allowable building square footage of the project site from 1,060,146 gross square feet to 1,071,690 in the General Plan and from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet in the Kell Center Newport Planned Community text. LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner, (949) 644 -3236 APPLICANT: Michael Tong, PRES CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Michael Tong, (949) 261 7737 Table F -1. Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation Monitoring Agency & Monitoring Biological Resources 13I0-1 The removal of ornamental trees on site During Project construction shall not be scheduled during the avian construction contractor nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31) to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be F -3 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS W873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation Monitoring Agency & Monitoring determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area. Cultural Resources CR -1 Project plans shall specify that that a During Project construction qualified paleontologist shall be contacted in construction contractor the event that potential paleontological resources are discovered. During construction, the contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable F -4 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. Geology and Soils GEO -1 Prior to approval of grading permits, soil Prior to issuance City of Newport preparation measures to minimize expansion of grading permits Beach Building potential shall be identified by the applicant Department in construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture - conditioned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field inspections. GEO -2 Prior to approval of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport grading plans shall stipulate that all fill shall of grading permits Beach Building consist of non-expansive materials, Department F -5 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring moisture- conditioned to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport grading plans shall stipulate that wall of grading permits Beach Building backfill soils shall consist of granular, Department cohesionless backfill with sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index less than 20. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. Hydrology and Water Quality WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved of grading permits Beach Public Works by the City a SWPPP to be implemented Department during construction, which shall include BMPs to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: ■ Diversion of off -site runoff away from the construction site. F -6 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities. • Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -site transport of sediment. • Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. • Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. Noise N- l All noise - producing project equipment and During final City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines design and prior to Beach Code shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet plan check Enforcement silencers where appropriate, and any other approval shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing City of Newport features in good operating condition that Beach Building meet or exceed original factory Department specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing During grading, City of Newport equipment used on the proposed project that site preparation, Beach Code is regulated for noise output by a local, state, and construction Enforcement F -7 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation Monitoring Agency & Monitoring or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project City of Newport activity. Beach Building Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be During final City of Newport used instead of pneumatic or internal design and prior to Beach Code combustion— powered equipment, where plan check Enforcement feasible. approval City of Newport During grading, Beach Building site preparation, Department and construction N -4 Mobile noise - generating equipment and During, grading, City of Newport machinery shall be shut off when not in use. site preparation, Beach Code and construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas site preparation, Beach Code shall be located as far as practical from and construction Enforcement noise - sensitive receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -6 Construction site and access road speed During, grading, City of Newport limits shall be established and enforced site preparation, Beach Code during the construction period. and construction Enforcement City of Newport F -8 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring Beach Building Department N -7 The use of noise - producing signals, During, grading, City of Newport including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, site preparation, Beach Code shall be for safety warning purposes only, and construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -8 No project - related public address or music During, grading, City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent site preparation, Beach Code receptor. and construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -9 The onsite construction supervisor shall During final City of Newport have the responsibility and authority to design and prior to Beach Code receive and resolve noise complaints. A plan check Enforcement clear appeal process to the project proponent approval shall be established prior to construction City of Newport commencement that shall allow for During grading, Beach Building resolution of noise problems that cannot be site preparation, Department immediately solved by the site supervisor. and construction F -9 Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00873.09 ICF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: June 28, 2010 To: Nicole Williams, Project Manager From: Paul Schwartz, Biologist Subject: Summary of Biological literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments The above - referenced project site was reviewed for its potential to support special - status biological resources. A biological literature review was conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (PRES) Project site. Additionally, a qualified ICF International (ICF) biologist, Paul Schwartz, conducted a site visit on June 22, 2010. This memorandum provides a summary of the literature review and site visit conducted for the PRES project relative to potential impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act The PRES Project comprises 0.15 -acre and consists of the construction of an 11,960- square foot single tenant office building and is located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The Project site is located at Section 50, Range 9 West, and Township 6 South on the USGS Newport Beach topographic quadrangle. Literature Review Prior to conducting the field survey, a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2010) search was completed to detect special - status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area. The species list resulting from the search is provided in Table 1. Based on information from CNDDB (2010), 8 special- status plant species and 22 special- status wildlife species were initially evaluated for potential to occur within a 5 -mile radius of the PRES project site (Table 1). Habitats identified during field surveys, along with species distribution and habitat requirements, were used to determine which species could occur at the project site. As shown in Table 1, of the 31 species originally identified, 30 species were eliminated from further consideration because suitable habitat for these species was not present at the project site. Only the Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), a state species of special concern, was determined to have a low potential to occur onsite. 1776 Park Avenue, Suite 146 , Redlands, CA 92373 , 909.255.7171 , 909.255.7175 fax , idi.wm Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 2 Table 1. Special- Status Species with Potential to Occur within a 5 -mile Radius of the Project Site, based on CNDDB Records Likelihood of Species /Community Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Wildlife Mexican long - tongued bat SSC Desert and montane riparian, desert None. No suitable (Choeronycteris mexicana) scrub, desert succulent shrub, and habitat. pinyon- juniper habitats. In California, found mainly in San Diego County, in urban habitats. Roosts in caves, mines, and buildings. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SSC Habitat includes grasslands, None. No suitable shrublands, woodlands, and forests. habitat. Roosts in caves, crevices, mines, hollow trees, and buildings. Western mastiff bat (Eumops SSC Open semi -arid to and habitats, Low potential to perotis californicus) including conifer and deciduous roost in the woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, ornamental trees on chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff site. faces, buildings, trees, and tunnels. Yuma myotis SA Open forests and woodlands with None. No suitable (Myotisyumansis) adjacent open water. habitat. Coastal cactus wren SSC; NCCP Arid portions of westward draining None. No suitable (Campylorhynchus slopes. habitat. brunneicapillus sandiegenensis) Coastal California gnatcatcher FE, SSC, Obligate resident of and coastal None. No suitable (Polioptila californica NCCP scrub. habitat. californica) Coastal whiptail None Coastal sage scrub, grasslands and None. No suitable (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) riparian woodlands. habitat Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii FE, SE, Riparian habitat (willows, dense None. No suitable pusillus) NCCP valley foothill riparian habitat, lower habitat. portions of canyons). Long -eared owl (Asio otus) SSC Riparian, conifer, oak, and desert None. No suitable woodlands adjacent to grassland, habitat. meadows, or shrubs. Southern California rufous- None; Sparse, mixed chaparral and coastal None. No suitable crowned sparrow (Aimophila NCCP scrub, especially coastal sage scrub. habitat. ruficeps canescens) White tailed kite - nesting Full Nests in riparian trees (oaks, willows None. No suitable (Elanus leucurus) Protection and cottonwoods). habitat. Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 3 Likelihood of Species /Community Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Coast patch -nosed snake SSC Shrubby, brushy vegetation. None. No suitable (Salvadora hexalepis habitat. vlrgultea) Coast horned lizard SSC, NCCP Valley - foothill hardwood, conifer, None. No suitable (Phrynosoma bloinvillii) riparian, and grassland habitats. habitat. Northern red - diamond SSC; NCCP Chaparral, woodland, and and desert None. No suitable rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber habitats in dense vegetation and habitat. ruber) rocky areas. Orangethroat whiptail SSC Coastal scrub, chamise - redshank None. No suitable (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) chaparral, mixed chaparral, and habitat. valley- foothill hardwood habitat. Rosy boa (Charina trivirgatal) NCCP Desert and chaparral habitats in None. No suitable southern California, in coastal areas, habitat. found in rocky chaparral- covered hillsides and canyons; in deserts, found on scrub flats with cover and in the mountains. Two - striped garter snake SSC Aquatic. Associated with permanent None. No suitable (Thamnophis hammondii) or semi - permanent bodies of water. habitat. Coast Range newt (Taricha SSC Coastal drainages; lives in terrestrial None. No suitable torosa torosa) habitats, migrating over 1 km to habitat. breeding sites (ponds, reservoirs, slow- moving streams). Northern leopard frog SSC Uncommon and localized in None. No suitable (Lithbates pipiens) California; highly aquatic, occurring habitat. in or near quiet permanent and semi- permanent water in various habitats. Western spadefoot (Spea SSC; NCCP Primarily grasslands; occasionally None. No suitable hammondiQ valley - foothill hardwood woodlands. habitat. Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus FT; SSC Endemic to Los Angeles Basin South None. No suitable santaanae) Coastal streams. habitat. San Diego fairy shrimp FE; NCCP Vernal pools in San Diego and Orange None. No suitable (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) Counties. habitat. Plants Allen's pentachaeta 113.1 In openings in valley and foothill None. No suitable ( Pentachaeta aurea ssp. grasslands and coastal scrub. habitat. allenii) Chaparral sand - verbena 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. None. No suitable (Abronia villosa var. aurita) habitat. Intermediate mariposa lily 113.2; Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and None. No suitable Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 4 Likelihood of Species /Community Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence (Calochortus weedii var. NCCP foothill grassland, woodland, lower habitat. intermedius) montane coniferous forest; occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of granitic or alluvial material. Many- stemmed dudleya 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and None. No suitable (Dudleyo multicoulis) foothill grassland; in heavy, often habitat. clayey soils or grassy slopes. Peninsular nolina (Nolina 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. None. No suitable cismontana) habitat. Not observed on site. San Fernando Valley Federal Coastal scrub, sandy soils. None. No suitable spineflower (Chorizanthe Candidate; habitat. parryi var. fernandina) SE; IBA Santa Ana River woollystar FE; SE; Coastal scrub, chaparral; in sandy None. No suitable (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. I.B.I. soils on river floodplains or terrassed habitat. sanctorum) fluvial deposits. Southern tarplant 113.1 Margins of marshes and swamps; None. No suitable (Centromadia parryi ssp. valley and foothill grassland. habitat. oustralis) Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 5 Likelihood of Species /Community Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Federal FE = Endangered FT = Threatened SC = Federal Species of Concern State SE = Endangered ST = Threatened SR = Rare SSC = State Species of Concern California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Categories 1A = List 1A species: plants presumed extinct in California. 1B = List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. = List 2 species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. = List 3 species: plants for which we need more information -Review List. 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution -Watch List. California Native Plant Society Threat Code extensions .1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat). .2 = Fairly threatened in California (20 %- 80% of occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat). .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). Source: California Department of Fish and Game 2010. Field Visit A field visit was conducted by Nicole Williams and Paul Schwartz on June 22, 2010. The weather conditions were sunny, with 5 -10% cloud cover and no wind. The entire project footprint was surveyed on foot to assess plant communities and potentially suitable habitat for special- status species. The project site consists of approximately 0.15 -acre and is comprised of a paved parking lot and a portion of lawn which supports turfgrass and ornamental plantings (sweetgum and eucalypyustrees). Additional areas adjacent to the project site include office buildings, a small man -made pond and a retention basin. The small pond and contains ornamental water lilies and is surrounded by sparsely planted ornamental umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.), which does not represent riparian vegetation. The retention basin is man -made and contains a small stand of southern cat -tail (Typha domingensis) and ornamental water lilies. The banks of the retention basin are vegetated with Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 6 turfgrass and ornamental planting such as African fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) and bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.). Plant and wildlife species observed during the field visit are provided in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Table 2. PRES Vascular Plant Species List Species Common Name Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Turf grass N/A Table 3. OPA Wildlife Species Species Common Name Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Anas platyrhynchos mallard Cathartes aura turkey vulture Plant communities were mapped according to definitions provided in the Orange County Habitat Classification System (OCHCS) (1992). No area of the project site supports natural communities. The following land use /plant communities are depicted in Figure 1: parks and ornamental plantings COCKS code 15.5) and urban COCKS code 15.1). Specifically, the project site contains 0.05 -acre of parks and ornamental plantings and 0.10 -acre of urban lands. Figure 2 contains photographs of the PRES project site and adjacent areas. The project site and surrounding area contain no native vegetation communities or native habitats. Additionally, the ornamental vegetation present on and adjacent to the project site has no connectivity to other larger open space areas. Based on the lack of native vegetation communities and native habitat at the project site and surrounding area, the literature review, the minimum habitat requirements of the western mastiff bat and the isolated nature of the vegetation within and adjacent to the project site, it was determined that the western mastiff bat has a low potential to roost in the ornamental trees within and adjacent to the PRES project site. No diagnostic sign of roosting by any bat species (presence of guano, odor, etc...) including the western mastiff bat was observed at the PRES project site during the June 22, 2010 field visit. Given the low potential for the western mastiff bat to occur on the project site and the low sensitivity ranking given to the western mastiff bat, impacts from the proposed project would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Summary of Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for PRES June 28, 2010 Page 7 Conclusions Based on the literature review and the field survey conducted on June 22, 2010, lCF has determined that the proposed project does not have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts to biological resources. Furthermore, there is no basis for the claims made in the letter dated June 7, 2010 by Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, that the project would result in adverse effects on birds that frequent the retention basin, including the brown pelican, or other migratory species. References California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. Life History Accounts and Range Maps, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx>. California Natural Diversity Database. 2010. RareFind 3, Version 3.1.0. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Gray, J. and David Bramlet. 1992. Habitat Classification System Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Planning. Santa Ana, CA. Attachment A Figure 1 §� Proposed Building Footprint = 6526 sq ft (0.15 acres) Figure 1 F Urban = 4541 sq ft (0.10 acres) Proposed Project Footprint FRNRT'..� Parks and Ornamental plantings = 1985 sq ft (0.05 acres) City of Newport Beach PRES Project Figure 2 This photograph depicts the project area within the parks and ornamental plantings vegetation community. Eucalyptus, sweetgum and turfgrass are depicted in this photograph. This photograph depicts a portion of the pond adjacent to the Project area. As the photograph depicts, the banks of the pond do not support any native riparian vegetation that would be adversely impacted through project implementation. This photograph depicts the man -made pond planted with ornamental Cyperus plantings.This small area of ornamental "riparian "vegetation does not constitute habitat with conservation value. This photograph depicts a portion of the pond adjacent to the Project area. As the photograph depicts, the banks of the pond do not support any native riparian vegetation that would be adversely impacted through project implementation. Figure 2 '�� Vegetation Footprint Area City of Newport Beach iHSeu�nnu�i PRES Project PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND STORMWATER TREATMENT SIZING REPORT For Pres USA Building Project 4300 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA Prepared for: PRES Inc. 4300 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 261 -7737 Prepared by: Westland Group Inc. 11118 Elm Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)989 -9789 Preparation Date July 16, 2010 5 C -21520 Exp. 9-30-11, CIVIL Or CAUL TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCUSSION AND METHODOLOGY SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY MAPS HYDROLOGY COMPUTER OUTPUTS: 2 YEAR HYDROLOGY - BEFORE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY - BEFORE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY - BEFORE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION 2 YEAR HYDROLOGY - AFTER DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, NOT INCLUDING FLOW REDUCTIONS DUE TO MITIGATION MEASURES 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY - AFTER DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, NOT INCLUDING FLOW REDUCTIONS DUE TO MITIGATION MEASURES 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY - AFTER DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, NOT INCLUDING FLOW REDUCTIONS DUE TO MITIGATION MEASURES CN VALUES AND AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATES & SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPHS PEAK FLOW MITIGATION VOLUME CALCULATION TREATMENT BMP FLOW CALCULATIONS TREATMENT BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS REVISED SITE BMP MAP CONCLUSION DISCUSSION AND METHODOLOGY The contents of this report will address to the mitigation of hydrologic and pollutants of concern. The Table of Contents outlines the various sections of hydrologic analyses, BMP treatment flow rates, the descriptions of various treatment and other structural BMPs to be used and finally a conclusion is drawn explaining why the results of the analyses and the various treatment/mitigation BMPs deployed will meet the regulatory standards. A Preliminary WQMP prepared by our office dated April 30, 2010 recommended the possible use of porous pavement as a mechanism to reduce site imperviousness and stormwater flowrate peak and volume. Presently, a geotechnical consultant is conducting a more in -depth screening of the feasibility of using site infiltration. Due to the presence of clayey soils and the concerns on possible soil swelling potential, even though an extensive subdrain system was previously proposed for the porous AC pavement, this report is now prepared without the use of site infiltration. Pending on the outcome of the above site infiltration screening protocol, a limited site infiltration BMP may still be introduced during the preparation of construction documents and final WQMP. But any infiltration BMP will be considered as an additional amenity and will not be a mandatory feature to achieve compliance with the City's MS4's NPDES Permit. The hydrology calculations include the 2 Year and 10 Year frequencies in order to evaluate the changes in time of concentration and flow volumes and determine if a HCOC (hydrologic conditions of concern) should be considered. A 100 Year frequency hydrology is also provided as the site storm drain system should also be designed to achieve flood protection. The 2/10/100 Year Before /After Development hydrology calculations were performed using the AES 2009 Rational Method Hydrology software and the hydrograph calculations were conducted using the AES "CHI" software. Both softwares are written per the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual. The results of the hydrology calculations are then summarized in a tabulation entitled "Summary of Hydrologic Analyses ". Also, the hydrology outputs should also be viewed together with the enclosed hydrology maps. As the site's imperviousness has been increased from 80.05% to 84.24 %, the calculations have shown that the peak flows have increased by a maximum of 5% for the storm frequencies considered. Using a "Cultec" stormwater underground chamber, the stored volumes have shown that the peak flows have been decreased to below pre - development levels. To address to site pollutants of concern, the water quality flow rates are computed and are used for the sizing of treatment control BMPs. The primary BMPs to be used are the Filterra and the Filterra Roof Drain System. Both systems have received TAPE and TARP approval and also have been approved for use by the City of Newport Beach. The manufacturer's engineering department participated in the sizing of the Filterra and their calculations and evaluations are included as a part of this report. The site BMP map previously submitted with the 4/30/2010 Preliminary WQMP report is now accordingly revised and attached herewith. SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS PROJECT: PRIES USA BUILDING DATE: 7/16/2010 FREQUENCY CONDITION 2YEAR BEFORE 2YEAR AFTER 10YEAR BEFORE 10 YEAR AFTER 100 YEAR BEFORE 100 YEAR AFTER PRIOR TO MITIGATION BY BMP TC TC DIFF PEAK FLOW* VOLUME* VOL DIFF MINS MINS CFS CF CF 9.10 1.11 4,334.00 0.16 79.00 8.94 1.17 4,413.00 8.73 2.05 8,263.00 0.09 101.00 8.64 2.14 8,364.00 8.47 3.18 0.05 8.42 3.32 HYDROLOGY MAPS X48 4 GRAPRIC SCALE l � � � 7 ers ax. r� 4n 4 O` O s 11711 �� Cie �� �•.� a.a I�.xw �4tY.,x � �F� r�� 0� HYDROLOGY STUDY BTTE EWMRVIOUS ��i x vV AREA 543.62.82 SF 1 �;y «s A •V' s a��� /�`�A �� x /x4 x49.6 /. o z oXr _�_ x49. ��\� \\ ;.y PERVIOUS A PERVIOUS AREA-6543.62 SF TOTAL-32799.44 SF PROP IMP = 80.05% /y =— -.� �/ \ .'� 6x51 �_ n�i' ��1 PROP PERV- 19.95% � -� R,y aaa � �r .x., �§g �i � .� ��S �o•� ON -93 f fry tl' �94 oI v' �� S� ` • Q / x50.4 s Z 49 i4� irySO� .� x718 -. RT 7�px ��f � /4g, 114 l ` •�\ ` or.e "(a• �- .,'Q,/ OA PGA ' %�y .�Ob°•g9 \`;�xx //` / x x. • \•moo \\ �,• �/� a 'r x s s, &iyey34 a P III • x0.5 / V i x5 J x52.8 \\�+�a $s+ — %a�i3R� n¢ ' �5 "s El d�4•.� � \��,18 � //� ,N� .X J � 0 �� ox881 P Q / N71,7 OE x511 G II 53.2 i X67 2 i X-f4 .5 pQ1•x A i �/ x.x c. II xi x I UA /0 � O p 011 4 5 9 � ; X111 50 -0-�3 k9 "a c P,AN PREPARED 8Y: WRstIAND G=p, Im. ,� •�� —•a y 5 PRES -USA BUILDING Dwc. NAME P10103 BD c -2,E2 w<E E <R R E 2,520 HYDROLOGY STUDY PROJECT P10103 N- s -. -„ _ -„ ✓A4 <rv,� nio. oec sum Em<u"x �x BEFORE DEVELOPMENT 4WD VON I(ARMANAV6NU8 ac No. IOF2 REVi5i0rv5 1' =20' -0' 510103 wenoo B[ACq N[WPORS CAL@OENIA owa, ry _ E. w,E mom mnfird,o / x48.4 P / � !moo o / GRAPHIC SCALE as .1 i����'�$ x4 wY 49. x4 Akin p2o �n O 0 O\ I , � I x�V -. �'' x49. �� \ X49 / 7 HYDROLOGY STUDY sm E18EM70DE 5 G x50 IMPERVIOUS AREA 28694 SF x r ! k ry 46 i PERVIOUS AREA 5367 SP Cp z` vim\ Enu V L " s mR' _ �A \ ! Q '�/ TOTAL 34063 SF 4 n° i 9� �\ ! i PROP IMP 84.24% / S gs ^xa zY /,k� z® �F '� q�' i A.�,� Q PROP PERU= 1576% / o \� / o� '�A9b /� x0.6 �� • ON= 94 y. x50.4 0• x71.8 .. cr`�br I�I �'� a` n t/ �jQJ�i .c Ql�� ° xp � x509 AS x nss�as q X50_b X0.9 1. o �` fi � "Ifl 9 A� 1 P� L q;fY mot' � d x\ �• / .'�zi d ��� x528 d� \4 -� /4. �g s4 ^Y x_ O, G 9 ���O' �A ox8�1 4 II �.r 53.2 x67.2 J,,AA'VO 4j49.5 Vow. P1 i�A1 1 526 PIAN PREPARED 8Y: WPS[{ANO MG NAME crouP, n<. •�� —•a PRES -USA BUILDING P10103 AD `s y 5 ��') NE HYDROLOGY STUDY PROJECT sz c -vo' w<E P10103 GEORGE R. CHM. RCE 2110 g Ems. s- -„ _ -„ AFTER DEVELOPMENT ✓A4 CMS oec sn- ac xo. I]IIOVQI EAElfANAVBNOC m'. 11 �x OF2 REVi5i0rv5 1' =20' -0' P10103 TlBfypgp NS1 N,2 =imnox C6.CMAYIRNIA w+a� Rm,a mio HYDROLOGY COMPUTER OUTPUTS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group ••,• :,••,••,••••,••,•,•••• DESCRIPTION OF STUDY,••, *'•• :, «,.,, «, «. «,. * Hydrology Study PRES USA Building * 2 Year Frequency * Existing Conditions FILE NAME: 10103E02.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:14 07/14/2010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: M I IIIIXe] ZKU01 [y:1111:L \ Its] f It4 Is] H:1iID USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.01810.01810.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 83.18 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 49.95 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.182 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.218 SUBAREATc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.18 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 49.95 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 211.45 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.748 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.33 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.37 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.32 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.61 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.66 Tc(MIN.) = 7.84 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.39 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.61 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.76 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.44 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00= 294.63 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.646 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.37 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.88 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.36 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.87 Tc(MIN.) = 8.71 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.11 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.18 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET)= 12.79 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.19 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.21 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00= 354.63 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.3 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.39 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 1.11 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 Tc(MIN.) = 9.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 204.00= 432.63 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 9.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.11 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04/01/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Hydrology Study PRIES USA Building " * 10 Year Frequency * Existing Conditions FILE NAME: 10103E10.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:19 07114/2010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: — *TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION MODEL * -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.01810.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED 17 [iIA9 J :Z�IN �.^E.9 tl:L�] � � r• P] H i PU�Q�i NP P7 H i GS ■Q�l FYK�] �] S"i » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 83.18 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 49.95 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]-'0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.182 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.977 SUBAREATc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.18 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 91 »» >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 49.95 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 211.45 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.191 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.33 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.67 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.45 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.30 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.43 Tc(MIN.) = 7.61 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.94 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.39 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.11 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.16 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.54 DEPTH"VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00= 294.63 FEET. 17 [ipPl •L'Z�ZN �'b9 y:U] w• � � P] H i PYiQ�i Nl � P7 H i GR14�1 FYK�] �] �:S » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 ' 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.013 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.37 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.61 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.25 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET)= 15.31 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.80 Tc(MIN.) = 8.41 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.05 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.93 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.32 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00= 354.63 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.9 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.03 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.05 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.32 Tc(MIN.) = 8.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 204.00= 432.63 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 8.73 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.05 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * Hydrology Study PRES USA Building * 100 Year Freqeuncy * Existing Conditions FILE NAME: 103100E.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:24 07/14/2010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: M I IIIIXe] ZKU01 [y:1111:L \ Its] f It4 Is] H:1iID USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.01810.01810.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 83.18 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 49.95 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.182 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 6.062 SUBAREATc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.18 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 033 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 49.95 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 211.45 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.926 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.33 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.04 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.56 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.46 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.26 Tc(MIN.) = 7.44 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.39 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.72 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.51 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.67 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00= 294.63 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 ' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.666 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.37 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.50 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.36 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.54 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.74 Tc(MIN.) = 8.18 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.55 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.18 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 20.52 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.43 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT'FT /SEC) = 0.36 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 103.00 = 354.63 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.55 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 3.18 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 8.47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 204.00= 432.63 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 8.47 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.18 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04/01/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group DESCRIPTION OF STUDY 'Hydrology Study FIRES USA Building ' 2 Year Frequency 'After Development Condition FILE NAME: 10103A2.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:07 07/13/2010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION. — *TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION MODEL * -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE." *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS < < <<< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 169.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 87:80 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.936 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.051 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS To LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 75 5.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 31 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 87.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 51.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.80 MANNING'S N =0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 0.81NCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 15.24 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.27 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 5.97 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00= 195.80 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 31 »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 47.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.85 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.27 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.82 Tc(MIN.) = 6.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00= 335.80 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.79 " 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.900 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.09 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 85.31 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.20 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.41 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.44 Tc(MIN.) = 7.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00= 421.11 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.23 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.83 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 50.02 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.339 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.180 SUBAREATC AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.34 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 50.02 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 192.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.778 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.28 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.34 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.40 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.89 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.28 Tc(MIN.) = 7.62 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA- AVERAGEDFp(INCH /HR)= 0.20 AREA- AVERAGEDAp= 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.55 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.48 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT -FT /SEC) = 0.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00= 274.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.667 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.70 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.10 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.10 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.91 Tc(MIN.) = 8.52 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES)= 0.55 AREA- AVERAGEDFm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.81 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.16 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.12 DEPTH- VELOCITY(FT'FT /SEC) = 0.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00= 334.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< » »> USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.09 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.81 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.42 Tc(MIN.) = 8.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 204.00= 412.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUEScc <cc TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.94 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 1.62 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.81 ** CONFLUENCE DATA " STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 0.41 7.23 1.832 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.2 200.00 2 0.81 8.94 1.621 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.5 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE " STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.15 7.23 1.832 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 2 1.17 8.94 1.621 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.17 Tc(MIN.) = 8.94 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 421.11 FEET END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 8.94 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.17 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE'" STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.15 7.23 1.832 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 1.17 8.94 1.621 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 I:1e1 oZ.l7:71TI I10Ie L'wkyj 1 :1GW9L'@r_1A 6969 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04/01/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group DESCRIPTION OF STUDY 'Hydrology Study FIRES USA Building ' 10 Year Frequency 'After Development Condition FILE NAME: 10103A10.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:14 07/1312010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION. — *TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION MODEL * -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE." *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS < < <<< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 169.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 87:80 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.936 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.679 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS To LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 75 5.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 31 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 87.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 51.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.80 MANNING'S N =0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.0INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 18.31 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.49 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 5.96 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00= 195.80 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 31 »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 47.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.51NCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.34 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.49 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.70 Tc(MIN.) = 6.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00= 335.80 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.66 " 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.445 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.09 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.74 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 31 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 85.31 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.2 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.71 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.74 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 421.11 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.04 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.34 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.74 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 50.02 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.339 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.910 SUBAREATc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.34 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 50.02 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 192.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.228 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.28 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.61 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.51 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.58 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.12 Tc(MIN.) = 7.46 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.00 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.92 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.63 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC) = 0.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00= 274.00 FEET. » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.038 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.27 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.20 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.69 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.83 Tc(MIN.) = 8.29 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA- AVERAGEDFp(INCH /HR)= 0.20 AREA- AVERAGEDAp= 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.49 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.59 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.25 DEPTH +VELOCITY(FT «FT /SEC) = 0.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 = 334.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » »> COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »> USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.0 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.69 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 1.49 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 8.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 204.00= 412.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.64 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.97 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.49 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 0.74 7.04 3.336 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.2 200.00 2 1.49 8.64 2.966 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.5 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.10 7.04 3.336 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 2 2.14 8.64 2.966 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.14 Tc(MIN.)= 8.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 421.11 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 8.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.14 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap As HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 2.10 7.04 3.336 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 2.14 8.64 2.966 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04/01/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ' Hydrology Study Pres USA Building ' 100 Year Frequency 'After Development Condition FILE NAME: 103A100.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:16 07/13/2010 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION. — *TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION MODEL * -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) II ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE." *USER- SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS < < <<< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 169.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 87:80 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.936 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.608 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS To LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.15 0.20 0.100 75 5.94 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.75 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 31 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 87.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 51.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.80 MANNING'S N =0.013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 8.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.31NCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 20.80 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.75 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 5.96 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00= 195.80 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 31 »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 47.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.2 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.69 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.75 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.63 Tc(MIN.) = 6.59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00= 335.80 FEET. 17 [iIA7 •L'Z�ZN �'b9 y:U] w• � � P] H i•Z�X1Q�i Nl � P7 H �•Z�X1Q�1 FYK�] �] �:➢ » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< MAINLINE TC(MIN.)= 6.59 + 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.282 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCSSOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.09 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.14 y [ilgq y:Z�IN �.'f.9 tl:L�] w• � � P] H i•1�X1Q�i N7 � P7 H i•Z�L ■Q�l FYK�] �] Sri » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< »» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 85.31 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.4 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.12 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 1.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 6.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00= 421.11 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.94 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.13 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR)= 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.14 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME -OF- CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 50.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 50.02 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)]* *0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc (MIN.) = 5.339 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.959 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCSSOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 75 5.34 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.32 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 50.02 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 192.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 *100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.964 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCSSOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.28 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR)= 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.95 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.60 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.74 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.00 Tc(MIN.) = 7.34 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 AREA- AVERAGEDFm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.54 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.17 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.43 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.72 DEPTH`VELOCITY(FT`FT /SEC) = 0.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00= 274.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 303.00 IS CODE = 91 » » >COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.60 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.050 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.030 MANNING'S N =.0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 « 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.691 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 SUBAREAAVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.96 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.31 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.57 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.76 Tc(MIN.) = 8.10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 AREA- AVERAGEDFm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.30 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.82 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.35 DEPTH «VELOCITY(FT«FT /SEC) = 0.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 303.00 = 334.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 41 » »> COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »> USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 78.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.3 INCHES PIPE- FLOWVELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.16 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.30 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 TC(MIN.)= 8.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 204.00= 412.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.42 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.59 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.30 "* CONFLUENCE DATA " STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.14 6.94 5.129 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.2 200.00 2 2.30 8.42 4.591 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.5 300.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE'* STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.25 6.94 5.129 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 2 3.32 8.42 4.591 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.32 Tc(MIN.)= 8.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 = 421.11 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 TC(MIN.)= 8.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.79 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR)= 0.02 AREA - AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = 0.20 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.32 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q To Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.25 6.94 5.129 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.7 200.00 3.32 8.42 4.591 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.8 300.00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS CN VALUES AND HYDROGRAPHS CN Calculation Before Development Condition Project PRIES USA Building Date: 7/13/2010 Engineer: Westland Group Pervious Area CN = 75 Percent Imperviousness = 80.05 CN Composite = 93 CN Calculation After Development Conditions Project PRIES USA Building Date: 7/13/2010 Engineer: Westland Group Pervious Area CN = 75 Percent Imperviousness = 84.24 CN Composite = 94 NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group Problem Descriptions: Area Average Low Loss Fraction PRES USA Bldg 2 Year Frequency Before Development * ** NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC II: TOTAL 24 -HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL -COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in. /hr.) YIELD 1 0.75 19.95 93. 0.200 0.845 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.75 AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in. /hr.) = 0.040 AREA - AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.155 Problem Descriptions: Hydrograph Volume FIRES USA Bldg 2 Year Frequency Before Development RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SOIL -LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH /HR)= 0.040 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.155 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.10 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.10 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.03 TIME VOLUME Q Q. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) 0.07 0.0001 0.02 Q 0.23 0.0003 0.02 Q 0.38 0.0005 0.02 Q 0.53 0.0008 0.02 Q 0.68 0.0010 0.02 Q 0.83 0.0012 0.02 Q 0.98 0.0015 0.02 Q 1.14 0.0017 0.02 Q 1.29 0.0019 0.02 Q 1.44 0.0022 0.02 Q 1.59 0.0024 0.02 Q 1.74 0.0027 0.02 Q 1.89 0.0029 0.02 Q 2.05 0.0032 0.02 Q 2.20 0.0034 0.02 Q 2.35 0.0037 0.02 Q 2.50 0.0039 0.02 Q 2.65 0.0042 0.02 Q 2.80 0.0044 0.02 Q 2.96 0.0047 0.02 Q 3.11 0.0049 0.02 Q 3.26 0.0052 0.02 Q 3.41 0.0055 0.02 Q 3.56 0.0057 0.02 Q 3.71 0.0060 0.02 Q 3.87 0.0063 0.02 Q 4.02 0.0065 0.02 Q 4.17 0.0068 0.02 Q 4.32 0.0071 0.02 Q 4.47 0.0074 0.02 Q 4.62 0.0077 0.02 Q 4.78 0.0079 0.02 Q 4.93 0.0082 0.02 Q 5.08 0.0085 0.02 Q 5.23 0.0088 0.02 Q 5.38 0.0091 0.02 Q 5.53 0.0094 0.02 Q 5.69 0.0097 0.02 Q 5.84 0.0100 0.02 Q 5.99 0.0103 0.02 Q 6.14 0.0106 0.02 Q 6.29 0.0109 0.02 Q 6.44 0.0112 0.03 Q 6.60 0.0115 0.03 Q 6.75 0.0119 0.03 Q 6.90 0.0122 0.03 Q 7.05 0.0125 0.03 Q 7.20 0.0128 0.03 Q 7.36 0.0132 0.03 Q 7.51 0.0135 0.03 Q 7.66 0.0138 0.03 Q 7.81 0.0142 0.03 Q 7.96 0.0145 0.03 Q 8.11 0.0149 0.03 Q 8.27 0.0152 0.03 Q 8.42 0.0156 0.03 Q 8.57 0.0160 0.03 Q 8.72 0.0163 0.03 Q 8.87 0.0167 0.03 Q 9.02 0.0171 0.03 Q 9.18 0.0175 0.03 Q 9.33 0.0179 0.03 Q 9.48 0.0183 0.03 Q 9.63 0.0187 0.03 Q 9.78 0.0191 0.03 Q 9.93 0.0195 0.03 Q 10.09 0.0199 0.03 Q 10.24 0.0203 0.03 Q 10.39 0.0208 0.03 Q 10.54 0.0212 0.04 Q 10.69 0.0216 0.04 Q 10.84 0.0221 0.04 Q 10.99 0.0226 0.04 Q 11.15 0.0230 0.04 Q 11.30 0.0235 0.04 Q 11.45 0.0240 0.04 Q 11.60 0.0245 0.04 Q 11.75 0.0250 0.04 Q 11.90 0.0255 0.04 Q 12.06 0.0261 0.04 Q 12.21 0.0267 0.05 Q 12.36 0.0274 0.05 Q 12.51 0.0281 0.06 Q 12.66 0.0288 0.06 Q 12.81 0.0295 0.06 Q 12.97 0.0302 0.06 Q 13.12 0.0310 0.06 Q 13.27 0.0318 0.06 Q 13.42 0.0326 0.07 Q 13.57 0.0334 0.07 Q 13.73 0.0343 0.07 Q 13.88 0.0352 0.07 Q 14.03 0.0361 0.08 Q 14.18 0.0371 0.08 Q 14.33 0.0381 0.09 Q 14.48 0.0392 0.09 Q 14.63 0.0404 0.09 Q 14.79 0.0416 0.10 Q 14.94 0.0429 0.11 Q 15.09 0.0442 0.11 Q 15.24 0.0457 0.13 Q 15.39 0.0473 0.13 Q 15.55 0.0490 0.14 Q 15.70 0.0509 0.16 Q 15.85 0.0534 0.24 Q 16.00 0.0570 0.34 .Q 16.15 0.0657 1.06 . Q 16.30 0.0736 0.19 Q 16.45 0.0756 0.13 Q 16.61 0.0771 0.12 Q 16.76 0.0785 0.10 Q 16.91 0.0797 0.09 Q 17.06 0.0808 0.08 Q 17.21 0.0818 0.07 Q 17.36 0.0827 0.07 Q 17.52 0.0835 0.06 Q 17.67 0.0843 0.06 Q 17.82 0.0851 0.06 Q 17.97 0.0858 0.06 Q 18.12 0.0864 0.05 Q 18.27 0.0870 0.04 Q 18.43 0.0875 0.04 Q 18.58 0.0880 0.04 Q 18.73 0.0885 0.04 Q 18.88 0.0889 0.04 Q 19.03 0.0894 0.03 Q 19.18 0.0898 0.03 Q 19.34 0.0902 0.03 Q 19.49 0.0906 0.03 Q 19.64 0.0910 0.03 Q 19.79 0.0914 0.03 Q 19.94 0.0917 0.03 Q 20.09 0.0921 0.03 Q 20.25 0.0925 0.03 Q 20.40 0.0928 0.03 Q 20.55 0.0931 0.03 Q 20.70 0.0935 0.03 Q 20.85 0.0938 0.03 Q 21.01 0.0941 0.02 Q 21.16 0.0944 0.02 Q 21.31 0.0947 0.02 Q 21.46 0.0950 0.02 Q 21.61 0.0953 0.02 Q 21.76 0.0956 0.02 Q 21.92 0.0959 0.02 Q 22.07 0.0962 0.02 Q 22.22 0.0964 0.02 Q 22.37 0.0967 0.02 Q 22.52 0.0970 0.02 Q 22.67 0.0972 0.02 Q 22.83 0.0975 0.02 Q 22.98 0.0977 0.02 Q 23.13 0.0980 0.02 Q 23.28 0.0982 0.02 Q 23.43 0.0985 0.02 Q 23.58 0.0987 0.02 Q 23.73 0.0990 0.02 Q 23.89 0.0992 0.02 Q 24.04 0.0994 0.02 Q 24.19 0.0995 0.00 Q TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Nate: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0% 1446.9 10% 109.2 20% 27.3 30% 18.2 40% 9.1 50% 9.1 60% 9.1 70% 9.1 80% 9.1 90% 9.1 NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group. Problem Descriptions: Area Average Low Loss Fraction PRES USA Bldg. 10 Year Frequency Before Development * ** NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC II: TOTAL 24 -HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 3.68 (inches) SOIL -COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in. /hr.) YIELD 1 0.75 19.95 93. 0.200 0.907 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.75 AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in. /hr.) = 0.040 AREA - AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.093 Problem Descriptions: Hydrograph Volume FIRES USA Bldg. 10 Year Frequency Before Development RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SOIL -LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH /HR)= 0.040 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.093 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.73 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 10 5- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.34 30- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.72 1 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.95 3 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.59 6 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.20 24 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 3.68 TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.19 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.04 TIME VOLUME Q Q. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) 0.14 0.0002 0.04 Q 0.29 0.0006 0.04 Q 0.43 0.0011 0.04 Q 0.58 0.0015 0.04 Q 0.72 0.0019 0.04 Q 0.87 0.0023 0.04 Q 1.01 0.0028 0.04 Q 1.16 0.0032 0.04 Q 1.30 0.0037 0.04 Q 1.45 0.0041 0.04 Q 1.60 0.0045 0.04 Q 1.74 0.0050 0.04 Q 1.89 0.0054 0.04 Q 2.03 0.0059 0.04 Q 2.18 0.0064 0.04 Q 2.32 0.0068 0.04 Q 2.47 0.0073 0.04 Q 2.61 0.0077 0.04 Q 2.76 0.0082 0.04 Q 2.91 0.0087 0.04 Q 3.05 0.0092 0.04 Q 3.20 0.0096 0.04 Q 3.34 0.0101 0.04 Q 3.49 0.0106 0.04 Q 3.63 0.0111 0.04 Q 3.78 0.0116 0.04 Q 3.92 0.0121 0.04 Q 4.07 0.0126 0.04 Q 4.21 0.0131 0.04 Q 4.36 0.0136 0.04 Q 4.51 0.0141 0.04 Q 4.65 0.0146 0.04 Q 4.80 0.0151 0.04 Q 4.94 0.0157 0.04 Q 5.09 0.0162 0.04 Q 5.23 0.0167 0.04 Q 5.38 0.0173 0.04 Q 5.52 0.0178 0.05 Q 5.67 0.0184 0.05 Q 5.82 0.0189 0.05 Q 5.96 0.0195 0.05 Q 6.11 0.0200 0.05 Q 6.25 0.0206 0.05 Q 6.40 0.0212 0.05 Q 6.54 0.0218 0.05 Q 6.69 0.0223 0.05 Q 6.83 0.0229 0.05 Q 6.98 0.0235 0.05 Q 7.12 0.0241 0.05 Q 7.27 0.0247 0.05 Q 7.42 0.0253 0.05 Q 7.56 0.0260 0.05 Q 7.71 0.0266 0.05 Q 7.85 0.0272 0.05 Q 8.00 0.0279 0.05 Q 8.14 0.0285 0.05 Q 8.29 0.0292 0.05 Q 8.43 0.0298 0.06 Q 8.58 0.0305 0.06 Q 8.73 0.0312 0.06 Q 8.87 0.0319 0.06 Q 9.02 0.0326 0.06 Q 9.16 0.0333 0.06 Q 9.31 0.0340 0.06 Q 9.45 0.0347 0.06 Q 9.60 0.0354 0.06 Q 9.74 0.0362 0.06 Q 9.89 0.0369 0.06 Q 10.03 0.0377 0.06 Q 10.18 0.0385 0.07 Q 10.33 0.0393 0.07 Q 10.47 0.0401 0.07 Q 10.62 0.0409 0.07 Q 10.76 0.0417 0.07 Q 10.91 0.0426 0.07 Q 11.05 0.0434 0.07 Q 11.20 0.0443 0.07 Q 11.34 0.0452 0.07 Q 11.49 0.0461 0.08 Q 11.64 0.0470 0.08 Q 11.78 0.0480 0.08 Q 11.93 0.0489 0.08 Q 12.07 0.0500 0.09 Q 12.22 0.0511 0.11 Q 12.36 0.0524 0.11 Q 12.51 0.0538 0.11 Q 12.65 0.0551 0.11 Q 12.80 0.0565 0.12 Q 12.94 0.0579 0.12 Q 13.09 0.0594 0.12 Q 13.24 0.0609 0.13 Q 1138 0.0624 0.13 Q 13.53 0.0640 0.13 Q 13.67 0.0656 0.14 Q 13.82 0.0673 0.14 Q 13.96 0.0690 0.15 Q 14.11 0.0708 0.15 Q 14.25 0.0727 0.16 Q 14.40 0.0746 0.17 Q 14.55 0.0766 0.17 Q 14.69 0.0788 0.18 Q 14.84 0.0810 0.19 Q 14.98 0.0834 0.21 Q 15.13 0.0860 0.22 Q 15.27 0.0888 0.24 Q 15.42 0.0918 0.26 .Q 15.56 0.0950 0.27 .Q 15.71 0.0985 0.31 .Q 15.85 0.1031 0.47 .Q 16.00 0.1098 0.65. Q 16.15 0.1256 1.97. Q 16.29 0.1396 0.37 .Q 16.44 0.1433 0.25 Q 16.58 0.1462 0.23 Q 16.73 0.1488 0.20 Q 16.87 0.1511 0.18 Q 17.02 0.1531 0.15 Q 17.16 0.1550 0.15 Q 17.31 0.1567 0.14 Q 17.45 0.1583 0.13 Q 17.60 0.1599 0.12 Q 17.75 0.1613 0.12 Q 17.89 0.1627 0.11 Q 18.04 0.1640 0.11 Q 18.18 0.1652 0.08 Q. 18.33 0.1661 0.08 Q 18.47 0.1671 0.08 Q 18.62 0.1680 0.07 Q 18.76 0.1688 0.07 Q 18.91 0.1696 0.07 Q 19.06 0.1705 0.07 Q 19.20 0.1712 0.06 Q 19.35 0.1720 0.06 Q 19.49 0.1727 0.06 Q 19.64 0.1734 0.05 Q 19.78 0.1741 0.06 Q 19.93 0.1748 0.06 Q 20.07 0.1755 0.05 Q 20.22 0.1761 0.05 Q 20.36 0.1768 0.05 Q 20.51 0.1774 0.05 Q 20.66 0.1780 0.05 Q 20.80 0.1786 0.05 Q 20.95 0.1792 0.05 Q 21.09 0.1797 0.05 Q 21.24 0.1803 0.05 Q 21.38 0.1808 0.05 Q 21.53 0.1814 0.04 Q 21.67 0.1819 0.04 Q 21.82 0.1824 0.04 Q 21.97 0.1830 0.04 Q 22.11 0.1835 0.04 Q 22.26 0.1840 0.04 Q 22.40 0.1845 0.04 Q 22.55 0.1850 0.04 Q 22.69 0.1854 0.04 Q 22.84 0.1859 0.04 Q 22.98 0.1864 0.04 Q 23.13 0.1868 0.04 Q 23.27 0.1873 0.04 Q 23.42 0.1877 0.04 Q 23.57 0.1882 0.04 Q 23.71 0.1886 0.04 Q 23.86 0.1890 0.04 Q 24.00 0.1895 0.04 Q 24.15 0.1897 0.00 Q TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0% 1440.4 10% 113.5 20% 26.2 30% 17.5 40% 8.7 50% 8.7 60% 8.7 70% 8.7 80% 8.7 90% 8.7 NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Analysis prepared by: George Chan - Westland Group Problem Descriptions: Area Average Low Loss Fraction PRES USA Bldg 2 Year Frequency After Development Condition * ** NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC II: TOTAL 24 -HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL -COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in. /hr.) YIELD 1 0.75 15.76 94. 0.200 0.860 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.75 AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in. /hr.) = 0.032 AREA - AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.140 Problem Descriptions: Hydrograph Volume FIRES USA Bldg 2 Year Frequency After Development Condition RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SOIL -LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH /HR)= 0.032 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.140 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.94 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.10 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.03 TIME VOLUME Q Q. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) 0.06 0.0000 0.02 Q 0.21 0.0003 0.02 Q 0.36 0.0005 0.02 Q 0.50 0.0007 0.02 Q 0.65 0.0010 0.02 Q 0.80 0.0012 0.02 Q 0.95 0.0014 0.02 Q 1.10 0.0017 0.02 Q 1.25 0.0019 0.02 Q 1.40 0.0022 0.02 Q 1.55 0.0024 0.02 Q 1.70 0.0026 0.02 Q 1.85 0.0029 0.02 Q 1.99 0.0031 0.02 Q 2.14 0.0034 0.02 Q 2.29 0.0036 0.02 Q 2.44 0.0039 0.02 Q 2.59 0.0041 0.02 Q 2.74 0.0044 0.02 Q 2.89 0.0047 0.02 Q 3.04 0.0049 0.02 Q 3.19 0.0052 0.02 Q 3.34 0.0054 0.02 Q 3.48 0.0057 0.02 Q 3.63 0.0060 0.02 Q 3.78 0.0062 0.02 Q 3.93 0.0065 0.02 Q 4.08 0.0068 0.02 Q 4.23 0.0071 0.02 Q 4.38 0.0073 0.02 Q 4.53 0.0076 0.02 Q 4.68 0.0079 0.02 Q 4.83 0.0082 0.02 Q 4.97 0.0085 0.02 Q 5.12 0.0088 0.02 Q 5.27 0.0091 0.02 Q 5.42 0.0093 0.02 Q 5.57 0.0096 0.02 Q 5.72 0.0099 0.02 Q 5.87 0.0102 0.02 Q 6.02 0.0105 0.02 Q 6.17 0.0109 0.03 Q 6.32 0.0112 0.03 Q 6.46 0.0115 0.03 Q 6.61 0.0118 0.03 Q 6.76 0.0121 0.03 Q 6.91 0.0124 0.03 Q 7.06 0.0128 0.03 Q 7.21 0.0131 0.03 Q 7.36 0.0134 0.03 Q 7.51 0.0138 0.03 Q 7.66 0.0141 0.03 Q 7.61 0.0144 0.03 Q 7.95 0.0148 0.03 Q 8.10 0.0151 0.03 Q 8.25 0.0155 0.03 Q 8.40 0.0159 0.03 Q 8.55 0.0162 0.03 Q 8.70 0.0166 0.03 Q 8.85 0.0170 0.03 Q 9.00 0.0173 0.03 Q 9.15 0.0177 0.03 Q 9.30 0.0181 0.03 Q 9.44 0.0185 0.03 Q 9.59 0.0189 0.03 Q 9.74 0.0193 0.03 Q 9.89 0.0197 0.03 Q 10.04 0.0201 0.03 Q 10.19 0.0206 0.03 Q 10.34 0.0210 0.04 Q 10.49 0.0214 0.04 Q 10.64 0.0219 0.04 Q 10.79 0.0223 0.04 Q 10.93 0.0228 0.04 Q 11.08 0.0233 0.04 Q 11.23 0.0237 0.04 Q 11.38 0.0242 0.04 Q 11.53 0.0247 0.04 Q 11.68 0.0252 0.04 Q 11.83 0.0257 0.04 Q 11.98 0.0263 0.04 Q 12.13 0.0268 0.05 Q 12.27 0.0275 0.06 Q 12.42 0.0281 0.06 Q 12.57 0.0288 0.06 Q 12.72 0.0296 0.06 Q 12.87 0.0303 0.06 Q 13.02 0.0310 0.06 Q 13.17 0.0318 0.06 Q 13.32 0.0326 0.07 Q 13.47 0.0334 0.07 Q 13.62 0.0343 0.07 Q 13.77 0.0351 0.07 Q 1191 0.0360 0.07 Q 14.06 0.0370 0.08 Q 14.21 0.0380 0.08 Q 14.36 0.0390 0.09 Q 14.51 0.0401 0.09 Q 14.66 0.0413 0.10 Q 14.81 0.0425 0.10 Q 14.96 0.0438 0.11 Q 15.11 0.0452 0.12 Q 15.26 0.0467 0.13 Q 15.40 0.0483 0.14 Q 15.55 0.0501 0.14 Q 15.70 0.0519 0.16 Q 15.85 0.0545 0.25 Q 16.00 0.0581 0.35 .Q 16.15 0.0669 1.08. Q 16.30 0.0747 0.20 Q 16.45 0.0768 0.13 Q 16.60 0.0783 0.12 Q 16.75 0.0797 0.10 Q 16.89 0.0809 0.09 Q 17.04 0.0820 0.09 Q 17.19 0.0830 0.08 Q 17.34 0.0839 0.07 Q 17.49 0.0848 0.07 Q 17.64 0.0856 0.06 Q 17.79 0.0863 0.06 Q 17.94 0.0871 0.06 Q 18.09 0.0877 0.05 Q 18.23 0.0883 0.04 Q 1838 0.0889 0.04 Q 18.53 0.0894 0.04 Q 18.68 0.0898 0.04 Q 18.83 0.0903 0.04 Q 18.98 0.0907 0.04 Q 19.13 0.0912 0.03 Q 19.28 0.0916 0.03 Q 19.43 0.0920 0.03 Q 19.58 0.0924 0.03 Q 19.73 0.0928 0.03 Q 19.87 0.0931 0.03 Q 20.02 0.0935 0.03 Q 20.17 0.0939 0.03 Q 20.32 0.0942 0.03 Q 20.47 0.0945 0.03 Q 20.62 0.0949 0.03 Q 20.77 0.0952 0.03 Q 20.92 0.0955 0.03 Q 21.07 0.0958 0.03 Q 21.22 0.0961 0.02 Q 2136 0.0964 0.02 Q 21.51 0.0967 0.02 Q 21.66 0.0970 0.02 Q 21.81 0.0973 0.02 Q 21.96 0.0976 0.02 Q 22.11 0.0979 0.02 Q 22.26 0.0982 0.02 Q 22.41 0.0984 0.02 Q 22.56 0.0987 0.02 Q 22.70 0.0989 0.02 Q 22.65 0.0992 0.02 Q 23.00 0.0995 0.02 Q 23.15 0.0997 0.02 Q 2130 0.1000 0.02 Q 23.45 0.1002 0.02 Q 23.60 0.1004 0.02 Q 23.75 0.1007 0.02 Q 23.90 0.1009 0.02 Q 24.05 0.1011 0.02 Q 24.19 0.1013 0.00 Q TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) _______________________ 0% 1448.3 10% 107.3 20% 26.8 30% 17.9 40% 8.9 50% 8.9 60% 8.9 70% 8.9 80% 8.9 90% 8.9 NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Problem Descriptions: Area Average Low Loss Fraction PRIES USA Bldg 10 Year Frequency After Development NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC II: TOTAL 24 -HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 3.66 (inches) SOIL -COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in. /hr.) YIELD 1 0.75 15.76 94. 0.200 0.918 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.75 AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in. /hr.) = 0.032 AREA - AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.082 SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04/01/2009 License ID 1312 Problem Descriptions: Hydrograph Volume FIRES USA Bldg 10 Year After Development RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.75 SOIL -LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH /HR) = 0.032 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.082 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.64 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 10 5- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.34 30- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.72 1 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.95 3 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.59 6 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.20 24 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 3.68 TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.19 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.04 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) 0.02 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.16 0.0002 0.04 Q 0.30 0.0006 0.04 Q 0.45 0.0011 0.04 Q 0.59 0.0015 0.04 Q 0.74 0.0019 0.04 Q 0.88 0.0024 0.04 Q 1.02 0.0028 0.04 Q 1.17 0.0032 0.04 Q 1.31 0.0037 0.04 Q 1.46 0.0041 0.04 Q 1.60 0.0046 0.04 Q 1.74 0.0050 0.04 Q 1.89 0.0055 0.04 Q 2.03 0.0059 0.04 Q 2.18 0.0064 0.04 Q 2.32 0.0068 0.04 Q 2.46 0.0073 0.04 Q 2.61 0.0078 0.04 Q 2.75 0.0082 0.04 Q 2.90 0.0087 0.04 Q 3.04 0.0092 0.04 Q 3.18 0.0097 0.04 Q 3.33 0.0101 0.04 Q 3.47 0.0106 0.04 Q 3.62 0.0111 0.04 Q 3.76 0.0116 0.04 Q 3.90 0.0121 0.04 Q 4.05 0.0126 0.04 Q 4.19 0.0131 0.04 Q 4.34 0.0136 0.04 Q 4.48 0.0141 0.04 Q 4.62 0.0147 0.04 Q 4.77 0.0152 0.04 Q 4.91 0.0157 0.04 Q 5.06 0.0162 0.04 Q 5.20 0.0168 0.05 Q 5.34 0.0173 0.05 Q 5.49 0.0178 0.05 Q 5.63 0.0184 0.05 Q 5.78 0.0189 0.05 Q 5.92 0.0195 0.05 Q 6.06 0.0201 0.05 Q 6.21 0.0206 0.05 Q 6.35 0.0212 0.05 Q 6.50 0.0218 0.05 Q 6.64 0.0224 0.05 Q 6.78 0.0230 0.05 Q 6.93 0.0235 0.05 Q 7.07 0.0241 0.05 Q 7.22 0.0248 0.05 Q 7.36 0.0254 0.05 Q 7.50 0.0260 0.05 Q 7.65 0.0266 0.05 Q 7.79 0.0272 0.05 Q 7.94 0.0279 0.05 Q 8.08 0.0285 0.05 Q 8.22 0.0292 0.06 Q 8.37 0.0298 0.06 Q 8.51 0.0305 0.06 Q 8.66 0.0312 0.06 Q 8.80 0.0319 0.06 Q 8.94 0.0326 0.06 Q 9.09 0.0333 0.06 Q 9.23 0.0340 0.06 Q 9.38 0.0347 0.06 Q 9.52 0.0354 0.06 Q 9.66 0.0362 0.06 Q 9.81 0.0369 0.06 Q 9.95 0.0377 0.06 Q 10.10 0.0385 0.07 Q 10.24 0.0392 0.07 Q 1038 0.0400 0.07 Q 10.53 0.0408 0.07 Q 10.67 0.0417 0.07 Q 10.82 0.0425 0.07 Q 10.96 0.0434 0.07 Q 11.10 0.0442 0.07 Q 11.25 0.0451 0.08 Q 11.39 0.0460 0.08 Q 11.54 0.0469 0.08 Q 11.68 0.0478 0.08 Q 11.82 0.0488 0.08 Q 11.97 0.0498 0.08 Q 12.11 0.0509 0.10 Q 12.26 0.0521 0.11 Q 12.40 0.0534 0.11 Q 12.54 0.0547 0.11 Q 12.69 0.0561 0.12 Q 12.83 0.0575 0.12 Q 12.98 0.0589 0.12 Q 13.12 0.0604 0.12 Q 13.26 0.0619 0.13 Q 13.41 0.0634 0.13 Q 13.55 0.0650 0.14 Q 13.70 0.0667 0.14 Q 13.84 0.0683 0.14 Q 13.98 0.0701 0.15 Q 14.13 0.0719 0.16 Q 14.27 0.0738 0.16 Q 14.42 0.0757 0.17 Q 14.56 0.0778 0.17 Q 14.70 0.0800 0.19 Q 14.85 0.0822 0.19 Q 14.99 0.0846 0.21 Q 15.14 0.0872 0.22 Q 15.28 0.0900 0.25 Q 15.42 0.0931 0.27 .Q 15.57 0.0964 0.27 .Q 15.71 0.0999 0.31 .Q 15.86 0.1045 0.48 .Q 16.00 0.1113 0.66. Q 16.14 0.1270 1.99. Q 16.29 0.1411 0.38 .Q 16.43 0.1448 0.25 Q 16.58 0.1477 0.23 Q 16.72 0.1503 0.20 Q 16.86 0.1526 0.18 Q 17.01 0.1547 0.16 Q 17.15 0.1565 0.15 Q 17.30 0.1583 0.14 Q 17.44 0.1599 0.13 Q 17.58 0.1615 0.13 Q 17.73 0.1629 0.12 Q 17.87 0.1643 0.11 Q 18.02 0.1657 0.11 Q 18.16 0.1668 0.08 Q 18.30 0.1678 0.08 Q 18.45 0.1687 0.08 Q 18.59 0.1696 0.07 Q 18.74 0.1705 0.07 Q 18.88 0.1713 0.07 Q 19.02 0.1721 0.07 Q 19.17 0.1729 0.06 Q 19.31 0.1737 0.06 Q 19.46 0.1744 0.06 Q 19.60 0.1751 0.06 Q 19.74 0.1758 0.06 Q 19.89 0.1765 0.06 Q 20.03 0.1772 0.06 Q 20.18 0.1779 0.05 Q 20.32 0.1785 0.05 Q 20.46 0.1791 0.05 Q 20.61 0.1797 0.05 Q 20.75 0.1803 0.05 Q 20.90 0.1809 0.05 Q 21.04 0.1815 0.05 Q 21.18 0.1821 0.05 Q 21.33 0.1826 0.05 Q 21.47 0.1832 0.05 Q 21.62 0.1837 0.04 Q 21.76 0.1842 0.04 Q 21.90 0.1848 0.04 Q 22.05 0.1853 0.04 Q 22.19 0.1858 0.04 Q 22.34 0.1863 0.04 Q 22.48 0.1868 0.04 Q 22.62 0.1872 0.04 Q 22.77 0.1877 0.04 Q 22.91 0.1882 0.04 Q 23.06 0.1887 0.04 Q 23.20 0.1891 0.04 Q 23.34 0.1896 0.04 Q 23.49 0.1900 0.04 Q 23.63 0.1905 0.04 Q 23.78 0.1909 0.04 Q 23.92 0.1913 0.04 Q 24.06 0.1917 0.04 Q 24.21 0.1920 0.00 Q TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0% 1442.9 10% 112.3 20% 25.9 30% 17.3 40% 8.6 50% 8.6 60% 8.6 70% 8.6 80% 8.6 90% 8.6 NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS (C) Copyright 1989 -2009 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 16.0 Release Date: 04101/2009 License ID 1312 Problem Descriptions: Low Loss Fraction PRIES USA Bldg 100 YearFrequency After Development NON - HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC II: TOTAL 24 -HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 5.63 (inches) SOIL -COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in. /hr.) YIELD 1 0.78 15.76 94. 0.200 0.945 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.78 AREA - AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in. /hr.) = 0.032 AREA - AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.055 Problem Descriptions: Hydrograph Volume FIRES USA Bldg 100 YearFrequency After Development RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.78 SOIL -LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH /HR) = 0.032 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.055 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.42 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 100 5- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.52 30- MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.09 1 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.45 3 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.43 6 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 3.36 24 -HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 5.63 TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.31 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL -LOSS VOLUME(ACRE -FEET) = 0.05 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) 0.00 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.14 0.0003 0.06 Q 0.28 0.0010 0.06 Q 0.42 0.0017 0.06 Q 0.56 0.0024 0.06 Q 0.70 0.0031 0.06 Q 0.84 0.0038 0.06 Q 0.98 0.0045 0.06 Q 1.12 0.0052 0.06 Q 1.26 0.0059 0.06 Q 1.41 0.0066 0.06 Q 1.55 0.0073 0.06 Q 1.69 0.0080 0.06 Q 1.83 0.0087 0.06 Q 1.97 0.0094 0.06 Q 2.11 0.0102 0.06 Q 2.25 0.0109 0.06 Q 2.39 0.0116 0.06 Q 2.53 0.0124 0.06 Q 2.67 0.0131 0.06 Q 2.61 0.0139 0.07 Q 2.95 0.0146 0.07 Q 3.09 0.0154 0.07 Q 3.23 0.0162 0.07 Q 3.37 0.0170 0.07 Q 3.51 0.0177 0.07 Q 3.65 0.0185 0.07 Q 3.79 0.0193 0.07 Q 3.93 0.0201 0.07 Q 4.07 0.0209 0.07 Q 4.21 0.0217 0.07 Q 4.35 0.0225 0.07 Q 4.49 0.0234 0.07 Q 4.63 0.0242 0.07 Q 4.77 0.0250 0.07 Q 4.91 0.0259 0.07 Q 5.05 0.0267 0.07 Q 5.19 0.0276 0.07 Q 5.33 0.0284 0.07 Q 5.47 0.0293 0.08 Q 5.62 0.0302 0.08 Q 5.76 0.0310 0.08 Q 5.90 0.0319 0.08 Q 6.04 0.0328 0.08 Q 6.18 0.0337 0.08 Q 6.32 0.0346 0.08 Q 6.46 0.0356 0.08 Q 6.60 0.0365 0.08 Q 6.74 0.0374 0.08 Q 6.88 0.0384 0.08 Q 7.02 0.0393 0.08 Q 7.16 0.0403 0.08 Q 7.30 0.0413 0.08 Q 7.44 0.0422 0.09 Q 7.58 0.0432 0.09 Q 7.72 0.0442 0.09 Q 7.66 0.0453 0.09 Q 8.00 0.0463 0.09 Q 8.14 0.0473 0.09 Q 8.28 0.0484 0.09 Q 8.42 0.0494 0.09 Q 8.56 0.0505 0.09 Q 8.70 0.0516 0.09 Q 8.84 0.0527 0.10 Q 8.98 0.0538 0.10 Q 9.12 0.0549 0.10 Q 9.26 0.0561 0.10 Q 9.40 0.0572 0.10 Q 9.54 0.0584 0.10 Q 9.68 0.0596 0.10 Q 9.83 0.0606 0.10 Q 9.97 0.0620 0.11 Q 10.11 0.0632 0.11 Q 10.25 0.0645 0.11 Q 10.39 0.0658 0.11 Q 10.53 0.0671 0.11 Q 10.67 0.0684 0.11 Q 10.81 0.0697 0.12 Q 10.95 0.0711 0.12 Q 11.09 0.0724 0.12 Q 11.23 0.0739 0.12 Q 11.37 0.0753 0.12 Q 11.51 0.0767 0.13 Q 11.65 0.0782 0.13 Q 11.79 0.0797 0.13 Q 11.93 0.0813 0.14 Q 12.07 0.0829 0.14 Q 12.21 0.0847 0.18 Q 12.35 0.0868 0.18 Q 12.49 0.0889 0.18 Q 12.63 0.0910 0.19 Q 12.77 0.0932 0.19 Q 12.91 0.0955 0.20 Q 13.05 0.0978 0.20 Q 13.19 0.1001 0.20 Q 13.33 0.1025 0.21 Q 13.47 0.1050 0.22 Q 13.61 0.1076 0.22 Q 13.75 0.1102 0.23 Q 13.90 0.1129 0.24 Q 14.04 0.1157 0.25 Q 14.18 0.1187 0.26 .Q 14.32 0.1217 0.27 .Q 14.46 0.1249 0.28.Q 14.60 0.1282 0.29 .Q 14.74 0.1317 0.31 .Q 14.88 0.1354 0.32 .Q 15.02 0.1393 0.35 .Q 15.16 0.1435 0.37 .Q 15.30 0.1480 0.41 .Q 15.44 0.1529 0.44 .Q 15.58 0.1582 0.47 .Q 15.72 0.1640 0.53. Q 15.86 0.1715 0.76. Q 16.00 0.1820 1.05. Q 16.14 0.2067 3.21. . Q 16.28 0.2289 0.62 .0 16.42 0.2349 0.42 .Q 16.56 0.2396 0.39 .Q 16.70 0.2438 0.34 .Q 16.84 0.2475 0.30 .Q 16.98 0.2509 0.27 .Q 17.12 0.2539 0.25 .Q 17.26 0.2567 0.23 Q 17.40 0.2594 0.22 Q 17.54 0.2618 0.21 Q 17.68 0.2642 0.20 Q 17.82 0.2664 0.19 Q 17.96 0.2686 0.18 Q 18.11 0.2706 0.17 Q 18.25 0.2723 0.13 Q 18.39 0.2739 0.13 Q 18.53 0.2753 0.12 Q 18.67 0.2767 0.12 Q 18.81 0.2781 0.12 Q 18.95 0.2794 0.11 Q 19.09 0.2807 0.11 Q 19.23 0.2819 0.11 Q 1937 0.2831 0.10 Q 19.51 0.2843 0.10 Q 19.65 0.2854 0.10 Q 19.79 0.2865 0.09 Q 19.93 0.2876 0.09 Q 20.07 0.2887 0.09 Q 20.21 0.2897 0.09 Q 2035 0.2907 0.09 Q 20.49 0.2917 0.08 Q 20.63 0.2927 0.08 Q 20.77 0.2937 0.08 Q 20.91 0.2946 0.08 Q 21.05 0.2955 0.08 Q 21.19 0.2964 0.08 Q 2133 0.2973 0.08 Q 21.47 0.2982 0.07 Q 21.61 0.2990 0.07 Q 21.75 0.2999 0.07 Q 21.89 0.3007 0.07 Q 22.03 0.3015 0.07 Q 22.17 0.3024 0.07 Q 22.32 0.3032 0.07 Q 22.46 0.3039 0.07 Q 22.60 0.3047 0.07 Q 22.74 0.3055 0.07 Q 22.88 0.3062 0.06 Q 23.02 0.3070 0.06 Q 23.16 0.3077 0.06 Q 23.30 0.3084 0.06 Q 23.44 0.3091 0.06 Q 23.58 0.3099 0.06 Q 23.72 0.3106 0.06 Q 23.86 0.3112 0.06 Q 24.00 0.3119 0.06 Q 24.14 0.3126 0.06 Q 24.28 0.3129 0.00 Q TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0% 1448.2 10% 117.9 20% 25.3 30% 16.8 40% 8.4 50% 8.4 60% 8.4 70% 8.4 80% 8.4 90% 8.4 PEAK FLOW MITIGATION VOLUME CALCULATION Hydrograph Storage Volume For Peak Flow Mitigation Time Q Volume Q cutoff Volume (hours) (cfs) (AC Ft.) (cfs) (AC Ft.) 15.30 0.41 15.44 0.44 0.0049 0.0049 15.58 0.47 0.0053 0.0053 15.72 0.53 0.0058 0.0058 15.86 0.76 0.0075 0.0075 16.00 1.05 0.0105 0.0105 0.0105 16.13 3.18 0.0229 0.0229 This is the flow 0.0229 16.14 3.32 0.0024 0.0024 volume between 0.0024 16.15 3.18 0.0019 0.0019 16.09 and 16.23 0.0019 16.26 1.05 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 16.28 0.62 0.0209 0.0209 16.42 0.42 0.0060 0.0060 16.56 0.39 0.0047 16.70 0.34 0.0042 16.84 0.30 0.0037 0.1200 0.1074 0.0571 *Adjust peak flow to match Q100 from rational After development, Q100 Peak = 3.32 CFS Before development, Q100 Peak = 3.18CFS Volume below the 3.18 CFS = 0.0042 AC Ft Volume to mitigate = 0.0002 AC Ft or 8 CU. Ft Using the minimum size Cultec Model PAC 150, Storage Available = 24.91 CF Hence, the Q100 peak is reduced to below before development levels as only 8 CF of storage is required to mitigate the Q100 peak to predevelopment level and the minimum storage provided is 24.91 CF and exceeds 8 CF Using a single Cultec Model Pac 150, it can be readily established that the peak Q10 and Q2 will be similarly mitigated to less than predevelopment levels. TREATMENT BMP FLOW CALCULATIONS 111.1Md\I�L IAQlr:l1L IZlL`1 well] IG\1000K PROJECT: PRES -USA BUILDING, NEWPORT BEACH, CA DATE: 7/13/2010 THE AREA FROM THE PROPOSED ROOF -TOP = 6,526 SF OR 0.150 ACRES % PERVIOUS = 0 C VALUE = 0.9 STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN FLOW = 0.2 x A x C = 0.027 CFS THE AREA FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AREA = 3,868 SF OR 0.089 ACRES % PERVIOUS = 38 C VALUE = 0.43 STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN FLOW = 0.2 x A x C = 0.008 CFS The pollutants of concern for the site: Bacteria & Viruses Heavy Metals Pesticides Organic Compounds Sediment TREATMENT BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS July 15, 2010 George Chan f i lie r fa Westland Group 11118 Elm Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dioretention Systems System Sizing and Preliminary Plan Review of Filterra PRES -USA Building — Newport Beach, CA Thank you for submitting water quality information for the PRES -USA Building project in Newport Beach, California. Filterra bioretention systems have been proposed to provide water quality for this site. The PRES -USA Building project is an appropriate application for the Filterra bioretention system. The Filterra was developed to serve the ultra -urban environment, providing high removal efficiencies for pollutants including sediment, oil and grease, heavy metals, phosphorus, and nitrogen. The Filterra bioretention system has been approved by some of the most restrictive water quality control agencies in the United States. The City of Newport Beach, California is among the approving agencies. In Newport Beach, the Filterra is approved at the standard treatment rate of 100 inches per hour. The current hydrology plan shows two Filterra units serving this site. Preliminary review of the two applications is addressed below: Rooftop Treatment (At Northeast Side of Building) According to SUSUMP/DAMP guidelines, this 0.15 -acre drainage area has a water quality flow rate of 0.027 cfs. This assumes a runoff coefficient of 0.9 and a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. A 6.5'x4' Filterra Roofdrain unit will meet this treatment requirement. Please note that the outside dimensions of this unit are approximately 7.5'x5'. A peak flow (Qloo) of 0.750 cfs was provided by the engineer. The 6.5'x4' Filterra Roofdrain unit plumbed with 6" diameter internal piping can accommodate up to 1.15 cfs in bypass. Manufactured by Americast T: (804) 798 -6068 A M E R I CAST 11352 Virginia Precast Road F: (804) 798 -8400 notjust concrete. concrete solutions. Ashland, VA 23005 E: design @filterra.com www.fiiierra.com The inlet and outlet pipe will connect to the Filterra Roofdrain unit at couplings embedded in the vault wall during fabrication. Thus, inlet and outlet piping must approach the unit perpendicular to the wall. The invert elevation of the inlet must be 16" below the elevation of the surface of the top slab and the invert elevation of the outlet must be 4' -1" below the elevation of the surface of the top slab as shown in the attached detail drawing. The Filterra Roofdrain system should be free- draining, even when the detention system shown downstream is full. The Filterra Roofdrain top slab is not designed for a traffic load. Emergency bypass relief should also be provided at the rooftop downspout. Parking Lot Treatment (Near Southwest Corner of Building) According to SUSUMP/DAMP guidelines, this 0.09 -acre drainage area has a water quality flow rate of 0.016 cfs. This assumes a runoff coefficient of 0.9 and a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. A 6.5'x4' Filterra Sump unit will meet this treatment requirement. Please note that the outside dimensions of this unit are approximately 7.5'x5'. A peak flow (Qioo) of 0.430 cfs was provided by the engineer. The 6.5'x4' Filterra Sump unit is designed to bypass peak flow internally. The Filterra Sump unit with a 24" curb opening inlet can accommodate up to 2.00 cfs in bypass. The outlet pipe for this type of Filterra unit does not have to approach the unit perpendicular to the vault wall. Up to 45 degrees of deflection can often be accommodated. The invert elevation of the outlet must be 4' -0" below the elevation of the surface of the top slab as shown in the attached detail drawing. The Filterra Sump system should be free - draining. The Filterra Roofdrain top slab is not designed for a traffic load. Conclusion The preliminary plan review concluded that one 6.5'x4' Filterra Roofdrain unit and one 6.5'x4' Filterra Sump unit would meet the local regulatory requirements for stormwater quality, treatment capacity, and high flow bypass for the PRES -USA project. Operational consistency of the Filterra units is contingent upon the systems being installed correctly and according to the plans, as well as regular maintenance being performed. Installation Help documents will be forwarded to the Buyer at time of order. The Filterra Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual will be made available upon request. Manufactured by Americast T: (804) 798 -6068 A M E R I CAS T 11352 Virginia Precast Road F: (804) 798 -8400 notjust concrete. concrete solutions. Ashland, VA 23005 E: design @filterra.com www.fiiierra.com Please contact me if you have any questions with regard to this information. Thank you. Sincerely, Jay Holtz, PE Filterra Bioretention Systems 503- 367 -9764 Manufactured by Americast T: (804) 798 -6068 A M E R I CAS T 11352 Virginia Precast Road F: (804) 798 -8400 not just concrete. concrete solutions. Ashland, VA 23005 E: design @fitterra.com www.fifterra.com A L I 0 CLEANOUT COVER CAST IN TOP SLAB PVC PIPE (BY CONTRACTOR) . M r________v__________v - ______r I I I I l_ PLAN VIEW TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB SPLASH BLOCKS 6" I I y J-{ I PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) TOP SLAB 'a- �� - i ■ • • �I II °II °II °11��I- If= 11 -11=. '_ • Ilk 11 =11= 11= ISRII= 11= 11 =11 =' 'I � I IIk;II= II =11� II=11= II= II =11: . � 1I 11= 1I= IL;�IICJI =,1I J1=,A I 117=�11 = 117 =�11 11=117=�11=117=�11�, ill MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST PERFORATED RDR UNDERDRAIN STONE RO • BY AMERICAST I °IL' °IL° FILTER MEDIA 11= llgllp PROVIDED BY AMERICAST I= II =11.- 1I= 11.�IIR �"11 �11= III= II'd1IE PVC PIPE (BY CONT SECTION A —A ODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTED DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIF FILE FORMAT. WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA DATE: 07 -15 -10 DWG: 6.5x4 ROOF 0 ,(�Xlmeggzno7. R DRAIN CONFIGU AT ON ��Q��a® a p,:;eh,CzlmnyA,»cacos, WITH 6" PVC PIPED IN DANA 6 527327 7' -6" TREHAR 2 MEN MBE r - - -- - -- BYPASS 2" PVC I CHAMBER CONDUIT p DODO OOp� °Q (NP) �DO0p0�0 �Op�DoQ 0 �°op °a w L TOP FACE FLOW FLOW OF CURB PLAN VIEW PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB TOP SLAB Ilk 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11 =11= :II =11= I I I= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11 =11 =1 Ilk 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= �.II =11= I 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= II! =11 =1 Ilk 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= i'I =11. I 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= 11= ;II =;11 SECTION A -A ENERGY DISSIPATION LAYER FRAME & SOLID COVER CAST IN TOP SLAB ° FILTERRA FLOW CONTROL WEIR (PATENT PENDING) OUTLET PIPE DATE: 07 -16 -10 1 DWG: FTSUMP654 -CI 0 6.5'x4' PRECAST FILTERRA flk�nrff SUMP UNIT CURB INLET US PAT 165,277,124174 Co,, igh, 02007 by A.enc w AND 6,569,321 REVISED SITE BMP MAP .E I. mn3I,o I I GRAPHIC SCALE I Ch zD 20 - IN I ) 1 {IV c 397 LG. x I . 3.6 x 1 ,x., i#'• .gyp FP' / / e°" \ \\ O \ 1 Aea � �f x`z r / / v / v" `� \ I r j < f A, &` `� m 0 m e x-//' �° I .. `\ CITY OF �no �'2 VICINITY NI /�P % `4'xn/ �� K ® .,flk !• ��' l8' 0 /�' NEWPORT BEACH -so o No SCALE 4A x96 \ o A� , �,. AN .N- / ��/ // 4 // i /' O , i l Lry� s ,_ \b\ 9` \\ '• / 'C ROUTINE NON STRUCTIONRUAL BMP5 � / �•a try 8 EIDF II3N roP PwPlxn ouNEEI IrN,.NIS. accvP.wrs xx w7mrc �rvGnDxB a / 0° ds J° I �1 ,. dfi ... •d".,ss / /\ p. G / / ' NO9 LOMMN MFA WIOS:ME NAWLFMENI I% / / A9 9Lt.y Ills •� / � e2 NO1 BYP WINRNWtf • x Lo d XD X/� // m¢ ss ax mwuw¢ (IM DewoPUVm MIT COMP rI O <9.8 �A6 / / / Ij SPN fPMw6iMV fl.W // � i �d;C'p\ d��X \ /� /SS � \ / // OXVMWI6 WnflW50RLl03YflE C%RLLWLE XIO MXROflN flAE LWC bPFNIN1.111[N 9. I, /H& ITT. NCI,, L °19. \r�/ 19.6 4 T.xO 3 l WNUDN NINA CPICI.IS NSRCIIOX SIIREi SWEEPN6 PNNArt SIFEES NID PNFlX6 N6 ROUTINE STRUCTIONRUAL BMPS ,/ ��v� A„ /:� s '1 /• exw,of sroAM DPxx ssrtM suruNC w3 swxrcE y I 1 9 G6WN III Cd Olftll 1PISI III WFSIE 11I.E ANNO IA 1.1 PoIWIIII I NKITI. 91 "'N.". 561EN5 MD Cf51GX.YU.1fA LDN50.VPIgX.9WAI LDN11d1W5. m135E WXI,CL / ry\\ IR1Ifi1pN WYCYMC 1ND IN ~zv \. iv ® VA /s x "� r V NE`'•rr \ �r \\ d + � G SITE DESIGN BMPS O uxmaE x'aECnr mxx¢Im wPExaaus mas rycuss) (c -3xloe efoucnop �+ Ve- �\ TREATMENT CONTROL BMP'8 v \'[ •� \ y X6]2 PIxWS W,REVPL 3EIPRwN N E DION. 3 SHOT 2 UTRY A CATOOli RIpiM fnXTAL I N STE 2 moue emulExnox sslEU n Dow CO SHOT z. nrzwn alw esm ONE rcrxl . Dx sIm / QAty / s o Q b :' xsq 39 -03 FL 6E ;r ' �}4;`. .D6x 56.5 x °EV PIAN PREPARED 8Y: MD W BMPMAP MG NINE P10103BMP c -zl sso' cc o LEONGE N. CHM. NCE 21KO ­ _ _„ (REVISED 7/I6/1010) PROJECT P10103 y Eq. s -w -n y ��<u,Idax 4300 VON KARNIAN AVENUE NEWPORT BEACA CALIFORNIA o.I :G� aI Ma. 10F2 rttx REV410rv5 w /,e/x 1' =20' -0' P10103 owa, rvo. .E I. mn3I,o DETAIL 1 CULTEC PAC 150 DETAM NOT TO SG DETAEL4 FII.TERRA SUMP UNIT CURB INLET NOT TO SCALE DETAM 2 CULTEC RD 100 DETAEL NOT TO scat 1 4 _ ° r !L L _- �1 r i ..m1 DETAEL4 FII.TERRA SUMP UNIT CURB INLET NOT TO SCALE DETAM 2 CULTEC RD 100 DETAEL NOT TO scat (TOR WMCNANCE @ PURCHASE INTO. AST W'h ALTERRACOM OR cw. (677)345 -1450) FILTERRA ROOF DRAIN SC ONE r i ..m1 8 — (TOR WMCNANCE @ PURCHASE INTO. AST W'h ALTERRACOM OR cw. (677)345 -1450) FILTERRA ROOF DRAIN SC ONE CONCLUSIONS 1. From the Summary of Hydrologic Analyses tabulation above, it can be readily calculated that the 2 year post development TC (time of concentration) has been shortened by 1.76% (0.16/9.1 x 100% = 1.76 %) and the 10 year post development TC (time of concentration) has been shortened by 1.03% (0.09/8.73 x 100% = 1.03 %). Per Section 2.2.4.1 (Page 2 -7) of Technical Guidance Document (TEG) for the Preparation of Conceptual /Preliminary and /or Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) dated May 24, 2010, HCOC will exist if the TC of post - development runoff for the 2 year 24 hour storm event is less than the TC of the pre - development condition by more than 5 %. Since the 1.76% is less than the 5% threshold, no HCOC will occur as a result of this development. Similarly, the storm volume difference for the before and after development for 2 year and 10 year frequencies are less than 2% (less than the 5% allowable threshold) 2. From the Summary of Hydrologic Analyses tabulation above, it can be observed that the after development peak flows are nearly identical to pre - development levels. However, a "minimum" size Cultec stormwater underground chamber is added and the peak flows are considerably lessened for all storm frequencies. Not including in the calculations are the potential stormwater storage within the soil media and evapotranspiration potential of the proposed Filterra units. 3. The site infiltration feasibility screening is currently being conducted by a geotechnical consultant. Should site infiltration be allowed without adverse effects, the Client may elect to add an infiltration element below the Cultec stormwater chamber to augment the effects of stormwater peak flow and volume mitigation. 4. The use of porous pavement as first suggested may not be feasible pending on the outcome of the geotechnical feasibility screening. However, this report has proved that the site water quality and quantity compliance can be achieved without the reliance on site infiltration BMPs. Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for PRIES Office Building B Project City of Newport Beach Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of a new office building located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California. The project applicant, Professional Real Estate Services, Inc., proposes to develop an approximately 11,960 gross square foot office building comprised of three levels: two levels of office space above a ground -level parking structure, and subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels. Approximately 25 stalls of the existing surface parking lot and some existing landscaping would be demolished for the development of the proposed project. Development of the proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: • Amendment to City of Newport Beach General Plan. The General Plan amendment would increase the development limit in General Plan Anomaly Location 2 by 11,544 gross square feet for an allowable development limit of 1,071,690 gross square feet. • Amendment to Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community text amendment would increase the allowable building area in Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet for an allowable building area of 977,720 net square feet. • Tentative Parcel Map. The parcel map would divide the existing parcel into two separate parcels. Parcel one would include the existing office building and surface parking spaces, and parcel two would include the proposed office building, parking structure and surface parking spaces. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental evaluations, and standard construction and engineering practices, requiring review and reevaluation of future projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The MND is available for a 20 -day public review period beginning May 19, 2010 and ending June 7, 2010. Copies of the document are available for review at the Newport Beach Planning Department, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can also be accessed online at: http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1347. Any written comments on the proposed project should be sent to the attention of Janet Johnson Brown at the address listed below, and must be received no later than June 7, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. The City's Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to consider this item at a regular meeting to be held on July 22, 2010, at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. For additional information, please contact Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3236 or at ibrownta-�newportbeachca.gov. Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attachment No. CC 3 Planning Commission Staff Reports Dated August 5 and August 19, 2010 58 54 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Pi AAING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 5, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: PRES Office Building B - (PA2007 -213) 4300 Von Karmen Avenue • General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 (County Tentative Parcel Map No. 2008 -123) APPLICANT: Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES, Inc.) PLANNER: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, jbrown @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes development of a new three -story office building. The following approvals are requested or required in order to Implement the project as proposed: 1. A General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit in Anomaly Location 42 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet. 2. An amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet. 3. A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. 4. An exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change in the off - street parking requirement of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. — (Attachment No. P01) recommending that the City Council: 55 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 2 a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 ; and c. Approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006; and d. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -006, subject to findings and conditions; and e. Approve the requested exceptions to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards relative to minimum site area and off - street parking requirements. 5 ( PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 3 VICINITY MAP h�' f Project Site - _ � x R i GENERAL PLAN ZONING UE �.r7— � x_- t C 'y 3 - r � �— � 3. Fv✓ _ i3 a+�� lz e �� ,� ��ix 3- fir• ��F } r�',� r� xy4�ia� c. �4. �. rJ —�. —. �.. Ii j Z ✓— _ w LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE PC-15, Koff Center Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 Commercial office building and ON -SITE Newport Planned (MU H2) surface parking community NORTH MU -1­12 PC Commercial office SOUTH MU PC Commercial office EAST MU PC Light Industrial WEST MU PC Commercial office, rivate club 5� PRE$ Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Project Settina The existing 55,779 - square -foot (1.28 acres) project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach, the within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, a 180 -acre master planned campus office park. The site is currently developed with the existing PRES Office Building A, a 6,850- gross - square -foot single - story office building, and surface parking lot comprised of 84 off - street parking spaces. Surrounding land uses include commercial office buildings to the north and south of the project site, light Industrial uses to the east, and a private club and commercial office buildings to the west across Von Kerman Avenue, Project Description The project site is located in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, within an area identified as Anomaly Location 42 on the Land Use Plan. Anomaly Location #2 is comprised of several parcels of land, and establishes a precise development limit of 1,060,146 gross square feet ( "GSF ")t for this area. The applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use Element to allow for an 11,544 -GSF Increase in the development limit to implement development of the proposed new office building. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community land use plan identifies the project site as Professional & Business Office Site B ( "Office Site B "), and limits the allowable building area to 967,803 net square feet ( "NSF ")2. An amendment to the planned community text to Increase the allowable building area by 9,917 NSF is necessary to implement the proposed development of the new office building. A tentative parcel map Is proposed to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 would consist of approximately 32,395 square feet, and proposed Parcel 2 would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet. The proposed new office building would be located on Parcel 2, as depicted in the attached project plans (Attachment No. PC2) In order to implement the proposed project, the applicant requests an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which ' The amount of existing square footage in Anomaly Location 02 was verified at the time of the comprehensive General Plan update in 2006. 2 The amount of existing square footage in Professional rt Business Office Site B was verified during the processing of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003. ' I PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 5 require a minimum site of area of not less, than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 NSF to one space for each 250 NSF: The applicant proposes to develop an 11,960 -GSF office building comprised of two levels of office space over a ground -level parking structure. The new office building would be located east of the existing office building in an area of the existing surface parking lot. Detailed project plans (Attachment No. PC2) have been prepared by the applicant for the proposed new office building. These plans have been provided for informational purposes only, and are not under consideration as part of the proposed project 3 Background The project site was originally developed in 1974 as a restaurant with the associated required off - street parking. The site was subsequently acquired by the applicant, and in 2005 the building was renovated and converted from restaurant use to office use. In 2006, the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development standards were amended in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -003. These amendments granted the transfer of development rights and unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A. As a result of the amendments, a restaurant use is no longer a permitted use of the project site. The project site is occupied by the existing 6,652 -NSF office building, which is used by the applicant as the corporate headquarters office for PRIES, and an 84 -space parking lot. Based on the off - street parking .requirement of one space for each 225 NSF, 30 parking spaces are required for the existing office use, with 54 surplus parking spaces remaining. The applicant has stated the site was selected not only for its unique character and setting in the Koll Center, but because the conversion of the use from restaurant to office would allow for future growth of its successful commercial real estate brokerage services company. As such, the applicant requests an amendment to the General Plan and Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to implement the proposed development of a new office building on the project site. 3 Pursuant to Council Policy K 9 (General Plan) which provides procedures for amendments to the General Plan, detailed plans are not a required submittal item. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations require that a precise development plan be submitted by the developer to the Planning Director for review prior to the issuance of any building permits. 59 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 6 DISCUSSION Analysis Amendments to the General Plan and the Koff Center Newport Planned Community text are legislative acts. There are no required findings for approval or denial for such amendments established by either City or State Planning laws. However, when making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider whether or not a project is consistent with various declarative goals and policies of the General Plan, General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 ( "MU -1-12 "). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed - use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial office building is consistent with this designation. The General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail and airport - related businesses In the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4), and Includes goals and policies related to development In the City, and specifically In the Airport Area. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies is included Appendix C of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") on Pages C1 through C14 of Attachment No. PC3. The applicant requests to amend the General Plan to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 GSF in Anomaly Location #2, from 1,060,146 GSF to 1,071,690 GSF. In considering the proposed General Plan amendment to increase the allowable development limit, the Planning Commission should consider the following Land Use Element policies; LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing forre -use and infill with uses that are complamentary in type, farm, scale, and character. Changes in use andlor densllyAntenafty should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and Jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for Its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate Infrastructure and public services, Including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. (imp 1.1, 2.1, 6.1, 10,2, 16.2, f6.3,17,1, lal, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2) The applicant requests an amendment to the General Plan to increase development limits in order to continue operating and expand its business in this location. if the /' PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 7 General Plan amendment is approved, the project as proposed would be consistent with Policy LU 3.2 for the following reasons: The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. As described in the analysis included In the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. LU 6.95.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are Integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. (imp 1. f, 2.1) The proposed General Plan amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 6.15.1 . specific to the Airport Area for the following reason: The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a now commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the toll C_ enter Newport Planned Community. Staff believes the proposed project can be found consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, and supports the proposed General Plan amendment. If this proposed General Plan amendment is approved, Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) of the General Plan Land Use Element would be updated to reflect a maximum development limit of 1,071,690 GSF. See Attachment No. PC4 for draft changes to Land Use Element. In PRE$ Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 8 Charter Section 423 {Measure S) Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of any major General Plan amendmAt to the General Plan. A major General Plan amendment is one that significantly increases allowed density or intensity by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. These thresholds apply to the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 80 percent of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood (defined as a Statistical Area as shown in the General Plan Land Use Element) and adopted within the preceding ten years. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed amendments to the General Plan be reviewed to determine if a vote of the Newport Beach electorate would be required. This policy includes a provision that all General Plan amendments be tracked as "Prior Amendments" for ten years to determine if minor amendments in a single Statistical Area cumulatively exceed the thresholds indicated above. The project site for which the General Plan amendment is proposed Is located within Statistical Area L4 of the General Plan Land Use Element, and would result In an Increase o €11,544 GSF of non - residential floor area. Based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A -18 (single- tenant office), the proposed project is forecast to generate an additional 21 a.m. peak hour trips and 20 p.m. peak hour trips. There has been one prior amendment approved within Statistical Area L4 since adoption of the 2006 General Plan, which was adopted on January 9, 2007. Table 1 below shows the area and peak hour trips analysis for the prior amendment and the proposed project: As indicated in the above table, the proposed General Plan amendment does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold, and does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold. Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter, Section 423 are exceeded. If the proposed General Plan amendment is, approved by City Council, the amendment will become a prior amendment thatmill be tracked for ten years for any proposed future amendments. (2 u'tation Prior Amendment 19,212.8 sq ft (80 %) 34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) 33.04 a.m. trips (80 °l0) GP2006 -096 Proposed 11,644 sq.ft, (100 %) 20.54 a.m. trips (100 %) 10.86 p.m. trips (100 %) Amendment Total 30 756.8 s .ft. 54.73 a.m. trips 52.89 D.m. trips As indicated in the above table, the proposed General Plan amendment does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold, and does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold. Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter, Section 423 are exceeded. If the proposed General Plan amendment is, approved by City Council, the amendment will become a prior amendment thatmill be tracked for ten years for any proposed future amendments. (2 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 9 It should be noted that a second request for a General Plan amendment appears on the August 5, 2010, Planning Commission meeting agenda. None of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 would be exceeded if both requests are granted by the City Council, as demonstrated in Table 2 below; ;.jam =� :�..., :,:;;�.?���;�- ��:�_:t7�tvile.�• C aFtlb'.A,7 � �,x-' �T; om� �� �-Ps e akt�:rAlt'%`" a tet_n� —oaf m ::>���"�i I":e�ar" r 'N ip ,RaY t eS(p,�. 2lns o- Nome= r3 A , � ,, :�C1 .e .�.,a� � hzSp-_ y�•.� P$ -'Y Prior Amendment 19,212.8 sq.ft. (80 %) 34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) 33.04 a.m. trips (80 "k) GP2006.096 This Proposed Amendment 9,235.2 8%ft. (80 %) 16.43 a.m. trips (80 0%) 15.88 p.m. trips (80 0%) GP2007 -009 Proposed Amendment 11,544 sq.ft. (100 %) 34.63 a.m. trips (100 %) 46.17 p.m. trips (100 %) GP2008 -007 Total 139,992 s .ft. 1 88.25 a.m. trips 85.08 p.m. trips Planned Community Text Amendment The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards were adopted by the City Council on August 14, 1972. The applicant is requesting to amend Part II ( "Commercial ") of Section I ( "Site Area and Building Area ") of the planned community text to Increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 NSF to 977,720 NSF. The applicant proposes to develop a new 9,917 -NSF office building on the project site east of the existing office building in an area where there are currently surplus parking spaces. The proposed change in allowable building area affects the Statistical Analysis data for Office Site 8, which has been revised accordingly. The proposed changes to Part II, Section I of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text are shown on Attachment No. PC5. In order to implement the project, the applicant has requested an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards with regard to the minimum site area; and the General Parking Requirement standards.. No other exceptions have been requested or are necessary to implement the proposed project. Exception to Minimum Site Area The applicant requests an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 55,779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Proposed. Parcel 1 would consist of 63 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 10 approximately 32,395 square feet, and proposed Parcel 2 would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet. Section III of Part II ("General Development Standards for Commercial Land ") of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community provides that the Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. In order for the exception to be granted, the Planning Commission must find the following facts: Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property In the vicinity because: o The area In which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND). • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than other lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karman: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karman: 23,065 square feet; and 4040 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). 2. Finding: That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. Facts in Support of Finding: The Development Considerations are provided on Page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center. The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shall include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials 2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 4- PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) . August 5, 2014 Page 11 3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and /or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for Informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans winch would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit. If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: • A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B. • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the site. The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. • The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. Staff believes the facts support the above required findings and recommends the exception to the minimum site area be granted. General Parking Requirement Standards Per the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards, the parking requirement for Business & Professional.Office uses is one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area (NFA). The applicant has requested to lower the parking requirement to one space for each 250 NFA. The General Parking Requirement standards provide that the parking requirement may be lowered to one space for each 250 square feet of NFA upon review and approval of the modification committee. In this case, the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council Is the.decision -maker for the proposed project, and therefore has the. authority to review and approve the request. The General Parking Requirement standards state that adequate off - street shall parking be provided to accommodate all parking needs for a site, with the intent of eliminating (05 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 12 the need for any on- street parking. As proposed, a total of 71 parking spaces would be provided where 75 parking spaces would be required for the existing 6,652 -NSF office building and proposed new 9,917 -NSF office building. The off - street parking requirement of one space for each 250 square feet of NFA is consistent with the regulations in Chapter 20.66 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") for business and professional office use classifications. if the exception to reduce the off - street parking requirement were granted, the intent of providing adequate off - street parking would be met. Staff recommends the exception be granted. If the exception to the minimum site area of less than 30,000 square feet is granted, and the off - street parking required is lowered to one space for each 250 square feet of NFA, staff believes the project as proposed meets the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. The development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments. Tentative Parcel Map The applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. In approving a tentative parcel map, the decision - making body must make all of the following findings per Section 19.12.070 of Title 19 of the NBMC. Staff believes the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following facts support the findings required pursuant to Section 19.12.070 to grant approval of a tentative parcel map: Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map. Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot. parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and the MU -112 land use designation. 2. Finding :. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. 29 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 13 Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koil Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements Is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts In Support of Finding: The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 65,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. 6. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. in this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially (07 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 7213) August 5, 2010 Page 14 equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be Incorporated on the final parcel map. 6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development Incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts In Support of Finding: Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. 7. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there Is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project Is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located within a specific plan area. 8. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check' and inspection process. 110# 1 s PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 15 9. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 66584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. 10. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board ('RWQCB "). Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. 11. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts In Support of Finding: The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone. Environmental Rev! A MND has been prepared for the proposed project by ICF Jones & Stores, an environmental consulting firm, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Attachment No PC3. Based on the analysis in the MND, six categories were identified which the .project would have potentially significant impacts, as follows: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology /Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Utilities and Service Systems. Specific mitigation measures have been prepared to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, and are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "). The MND was circulated for a 20 -day public review period on May 19, 2010, and concluded on June 7, 2010. Staff has received four comment letters from agencies, and one comment letter. from a law firm representing the Meyers Properties N1 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 5, 2010 Page 16 Corporation, which represents the adjacent property at 4320 Von Karman Avenue. This letter raised a variety of issues'regarding the adequacy of the environmental document prepared for the proposed project related the following categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, and Transportation and Traffic. An Errata to the MND (Chapter 4) has been prepared lo address minor modifications to the MND. The changes are related to the CEQA Issues that were raised in the public comment letters received. No new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no new mitigation measures have been added to the MMRP. Comment letters are attached as Attachment No, PC5. Summary Staff believes the proposed General Plan amendment does not conflict with the declarative goals and policies of the General Plan, and the proposed project can be found consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project does not exceed any of the thresholds established by Charter Section 423. Staff believes the amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text can be supported. If the exceptions to the minimum lot size and off - street parking requirements are granted, the project as proposed would be consistent with the Development Considerations and the intent the planned community development standards, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding office development. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of the MND, and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007- 009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2007 -006, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2010 -00t subject to the attached findings and conditions (Attachment No. PC1) Alternatives The Planning Commission may approve the draft resolution and recommend City Council approval of the proposed project as requested, approve a revised project, continue the Item, or deny the project, Should the Planning Commission choose to approve a revised project, staff will return at a date certain with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. MKI PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 6, 2010 Page 17 Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Ja et 4dhn on Brown ocia tanner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PCs PC 6 Submitted b Patrick J. Alford Planning Manager Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions Project plans Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Land Use Element Text Changes Planned Community Text Changes Comment Letters -I -7z Attachment No. PC I Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions -73 W RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007 -009, APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006, APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005, AND APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2007 -213) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS, 1. An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect to property located at 4300 Von Kerman Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 Of Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit for Anomaly Location f#2 of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet. 2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross - square -foot office building. 3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed- Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1­12). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone, 5. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 75 Planning Commission Resolution No. _, PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pape 2 of 19 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 -day public comment, period beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the .Planning Commission In Its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant Impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigaton Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental Impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision for recommendation was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. . The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and Is identified as Anomaly Location #2. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 ( "MU- HT). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial business plaza is consistent with this designation. -76 Planning Commission Resolution No. _, PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 3 of 19 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character, The policy states that changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only In those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for Its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit in Anomaly Location #2 from 1,060,146 gross square feet to 1,071,690 gross square feet Is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in., the area. The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits . would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. As described in the analysis Included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections In the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.1 provides for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods .that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is consistent with this policy as follows: The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. "77 Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 4 of 19 4. Charter Section 42$ requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold, and does not create any new dwelling units. 5. The General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies, 6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet'to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments. 7. The granting of the exception to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land Into two separate parcels, comprised of approximately 32,395 square feet, and approximately 23,383 square feet can be made subject to the facts in support of following findings: A. Finclincr That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. A.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because: • The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND). r Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 5 of 19 The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. • The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than other lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Kerman: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Kerman: 23,065 square feet; and 4040 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). B. Findina: That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to Insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center, The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shall include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials 2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 3. Landscaped. Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and/or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit. B.2. Facts in Support of Finding: If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: -7Q Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 6 of 19 • A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B. • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the site. • The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. • The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. 8. The granting of the exception to the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet can be made because this parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66 of the NBMC, and adequate off - street parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided. 9, A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development. of the new office building has been prepared in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative Intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: A. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed Project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and the MU -H2 land use designation. B. Fin_ ding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. — PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 7 of 19 Facts In Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koil Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site. C. Fin, ding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision If an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project altematives identified. In the environmental Impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements Is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding,* D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public Improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the M i Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page8of19 Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be compiled with. E. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E.1 The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map. F. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 {Williamson Act),, the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. G. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined In Section 11000.5 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. i Planning Commission Resolution No. _, PRES Office Building B {PA2007 -213} Paae 9 of 19 Facts in Support of Finding: GA The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site Is not located within a specific plan area. H. • F in : That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: H.1 The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and Inspection process, That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the'City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Findino: 1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. J. Finding: That the discharge of waste fPom the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board rR WQCB'). Facts in Support of Findina: J.1 The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer 83 Planning Commission Resolution No. — PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pape 10 of 19 system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. K. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there. is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects. the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2008 -007 to increase the maximum allowable development for Anomaly Location #6 from 34,500 gross square feet to 46,044 gross square feet. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2009- 001 to amend the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase in the allowable building area for Professional & Business Office Site F from 24,300 net square feet to 42,646 net square feet. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "B." 10 Planning Commission Resolution No.. " PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pacie 11 of 19 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael.Toerge, Secretary 85 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i $� � i i i Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRPS Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 12 of 19 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program No. MifigatiohMeasure: 1310 -1 The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not During construction Project be scheduled during the avian nesting season construction (approximately February 1 through August 31) contractor to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February I and August 31, a preconshuelion survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction, If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shalt occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area. - CR -I Project plans shall specify that that a qualified During construction Project paleontologist shall be contacted In the event Outt construction potential paleontological resources are contractor discovered. During construction, the contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shalt not be resunned until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treahnent measures may hneludc salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are uncarthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with petmmnentretrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended V (D f Time Frmnefor Responsible V VerifieationofCompliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation& Monitoring I Monitoring A enc - -._ — - Z7 - $i`al V (D f Planning Commission Resolution No. _--, PRE$ Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paqe 13 of 19 No. Mitigation Measure 71me Frame for Implementation& Responsible Monitoring Verilieatioil of Compliance. Initials Date Remarks grading permits Beach Building MonifmJn A etc consist of granular, cohesionicss backfill with Itemized inventory of specimens, shall be smtd equivalent greater than 30 and on expansion prepared and shall signify completion of the index less than 20. The characteristics ofdne fill program to mitigate impacts on paleontological soil shall be evaluated by the geotcchndcal resources. consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to preparation measures to minimize expansion grading permits Beach Build potential shall be identified by the applicant in Department construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material Is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisntre•condifloned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field Prior to approval of grading permits, Ole grading Prior to issuance of City of Nert plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of grading permits Beach Butir non•expansivo materials, moisture - conditioned Department to near optimum If eoliesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geoteeimicai consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to moot grading plan GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that wail. backfill soils shall grading permits Beach Building consist of granular, cohesionicss backfill with Department smtd equivalent greater than 30 and on expansion index less than 20. The characteristics ofdne fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotcchndcal consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meat gradin fans ecifications. iiiol'ii =.. -_TNiatexi'aali`.;:i: Y... gy:atlzi... ,..__Q..ty -. — - - - — - WQ• 1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance of City of Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved by the grading permits Beach Public City a SWPPP to he implemented during Works construction, which shall include BMPs to Department prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from i Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paste U of 19 No, . Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation& Responsible Monitoring Verificat{on of Compliance Initials Date Remarks vehicles using internal combustion engines shall and prior to plan moultoriniz A ens be equipped with mufflers, air -lnlet silencers or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater shields, or other noise - reducing features in good protection requirements, and may include, but City of Newport operating condition that meet or exceed original not be limited to, the following measures: Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package' • Diversion of oft site runoff away from the Department equipment (e.g., are welders, air compressors) construction site. shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as features that are readily available for that type of soon as feasible following grading activities, equipment. • Installation of perhueter straw wattles to N -2 All mobile and fixed noise- pmduclug equipment prevent off -site transport of sediment. City of Newport used on the proposedprojeetthat Is regulated for • Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand Beach Code .. noise output by a local, state, or federal agency bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while ht the dams in paved ivadways. course of project activity. • Provision of specifioations for construction City ofNewport waste handling and disposal. Beach Building ' • Training of subcontractors on general site Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used housekeeping, City ofNewport N -I All noise - producing project equipment and During final design City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines shall and prior to plan Beach Code be equipped with mufflers, air -lnlet silencers check approval Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing features in good City of Newport operating condition that meet or exceed original Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package' Department equipment (e.g., are welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise- pmduclug equipment During grading, site City of Newport used on the proposedprojeetthat Is regulated for preparation, and Beach Code .. noise output by a local, state, or federal agency construction Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while ht the course of project activity. City ofNewport Beach Building ' Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used During finnl design City ofNewport instead of pneumatic or internal combustion— and prior to plan Beach Code powered equipment, where feasible. check approval Enforcement During grading, site City of Newport preparation, and Beach Building construction Department N-0 Mobile noise-generating equipment and During, grading, site City of Newport machinery shall be shut off when not in use. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement i Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -< No. ; - Nittgation Measure ... Time Frame for Responsible Veriiicatioil of Compliance Hnitials Date Remarks Implementation& Monitoring Monitoring Agency City of Newport Beach Building Department N -5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, site City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be preparation, and Beach Code located as for as practical from noise-sensitive construction Enforcement receptors. City of Newport Beach Building De artment N -6 Constructionsile and access road speed limits During, grading, site City of Newport shall be established and enforced during the preparation, and Beach Code constriction period. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -7 The use of noise- producing signals, Including During, grading, site City ofNewpoil horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for preparation, and Beach Code safety warning purposes only. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Dc artinont N-8 No project - related public address or music During, grading, site City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -9 The onsite construction supervisor shall have the During final design City of Newport responsibility and authority to receive and and prior to plan Beach Code resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process check approval Enforcement to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall During grading, site City of Newport allow for resolution of noise problems that preparation,' and Beach Building cannot be immediately solved by the site construction Department all elvisor. 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. — PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 16 of 19 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP NO. NP2010 -005 A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyorlengineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the. City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarlicle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shalt comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyorlengineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner, unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, -Public Works and Fire Codes, 4. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the property, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department. 7. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 8. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, 9. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work may be required.at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. IN Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pane 17 of 19 10. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site Is damaged by the private work, public works improvements Including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and alley /street reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 11. An encroachment agreement . shall be applied for and approved by_the Public Works Department for all non - standard - improvements within the public right-of-way and /or extensions of private, non- standard improvements Into the public right -of -way fronting the development site. 12. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements If It is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 13. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28,090 of the Municipal Code unless It is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 14. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first plan check. The study recommendation(s) shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading the existing City sewer lateral shall be borne by the applicant. 16. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer lines along the southerly property lines. (Note: The new easements do, not appear to impact the proposed development.) 16. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 17. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 18. The parking layout and circulation Is subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD- 806 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -8. 19. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so It does not impact the overall circulation of the site. 20. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. H Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pape 18 of 19 21. All existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 22. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 23. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronfing the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be either infernally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 24. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval-of the Newport Business Plaza including, but not limited to, the General Plan. Amendment No. GP2007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007.006, and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the Indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements. prescribed In this condition. 26. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. G2 Planning Commission Resolution No. „_, PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Mitigation Measures 26. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A") for the project. q3 Attachment No. PC 2 Project Plans 95 1 1i P hA I i y ] / LSD architects 3 Vicinity Map Nr8 lA1pLAW 5CHULTZ Applicant Profes4ond Rem Estate Smmca; roc. - }- 4300 Van Kerman Ars:ue l 4 •v Newport Coach, CA 92660 Mon. (949) 261 7757 Pox (949) 442 1925 e •- _ .y J 1 _ Cm:o[t: MI[Faal Tpng D B1' rrJ�] y Owner OCE DEp AIJRTMExT Professional Real Eatat. Wvlaee, Inc. A,—` 1300 Van Korman Averwe �( r Newpo,t Beach CA 92660 1 Phone: < 1 ]] i Fax: 949 <A 19 S ic 26 , 0 2 25 <rY -` C ) ( 7 wi S ..amaac Michael rang 16 tiD1D r t AUG Contact Information K L. dlaw ScM1aHa Architect. 3111 Span, A- OR� _ Carona Day Ma, CA 92625 �j ai/P SL � . Conn. (949) 645 9982 row (949) 645 9554 O� )r� fantact Craig Schutz !`QTY { J� i PRIES - Office Building l Apt, - " 1 le 4910 Von Karmen Avenue I 1. t:3;k - Newport Beech, CA 82860 08.8147 CIbe R.vlww 08 C9 01.211.7 client n.vlew C8 CS 7.28.7 client Revew CA CS 06.18.07 Client R. Wsr DK CS, 019.267 CUal Review DH Ca 0824.08 VE R.vIMOIe CS CS "21.08 Bldg Cod. Revlew DK CB =19,08 General plan M JW CS Amendment 08.06.09 WA R.vW.nA DK CS Perspective 2 Contact Information 08.08010 Spheral Plan C6 Ds 08.11.09 SPA Revisions 08 JB 7.2849 WA Revisions C9 A Code Review Legal Description Building Statistics Architectural ewin WAMVWnhe s cs CmaWctian: Trya W Parcel 1, Portal Mop 50 -40 (Rmubdlvielon No. 430) EA-1r. Non Is ... A 1 +2): Parcel 1: P-awl 2: Total: A,1W _ PnI Date and Vldnlly Mop EKtMw Rating: Nor Rated Lot SNA — EfNtlnq PmcN: 55.]]9.16 ai Unahongetl 32.395.93 sf 2J.383.25 e1 55.]]9.18 .f 4. Wt — Site Plan rndwa: SprinNwtl with Monitoring $,I— Net Flow Area: 6.552 e1 9.917 el 5.652 e1 9.917 s• 16.569 s1 A.2W — Porting and Loar Le 1 plans E ewtar. 0umey Complionl Gosa Roo, Ma: 6.850 of 11,960 el' 6.550 sl ^1,960 sf 18,810.( A201 — Upper and Roof U Plans 4600Ib C ... fit, Project Description (M.. -. S) AJW - soum and wear Daeanona O- Le,seY Buelneae L}wp B Cr.. Flom Neo: 6.850 at 10,433 N 6.BW of f0,43J el 17285 a1 Me HpAant F HVre1,t to be emoted Altion 150' al the MB A r apeat to amend Vro Gel Pion Lund Use (0neral pan Amw,d) .5.301 — North and East Bamtlwa in. Hwa to be located an the acme stele Demme and Poll Center Planned Community Tart Bulltlln9 CovrtcOa: R% 23.95F 20.63% 28.54% q.4011 — euiltling Section at Ne N..t as the Now mdn. to livers. the allowable Was area for Pmlesalonol Building Height. I. -1' 4]' -10 1 /4r W -1" 47' -10 1/4' Code Cwnpllonee: 2007 Califmnb BuOd'mg Cotle and BusFap OMCe Slta B by 11,544 8'000 aauore LmtlaeopMg (Rj: ]4.J5 3063% R$5% 24.4J Encroachment Forfeit: An enwoo.hmnt pintail k repuieo im all wino 1set and 9,916.5 net apuore fast 1n ndn to PavMy (F): SJ.J% 54.]2.[ M.W$ 60.68%'' mwmles wlthe the oubrc ,ight -m -war. maem. u. ron.wanar a a J -star' all.. Civil Imprownmle: All Impravmnla shall cmnicy, with the City. s,fiL Ott° Note: 418s1 Cron met rsnoretl bone (E) ¢trv[ture, Tus: 4'8al F 1',54461 = 11.9600! dbianw repulremen4 City Standard 110 —L building' 'T16. % Includes mea nee f Bulltlln 1 al 1 — Exi¢ling V.I. Carrollton. Plan 0n— d6— tlminaga All m —sits awlI droll hyra, spin the latent 9 9 wnNope, oe ...d for porting /dridng Clty woler Ouollly rqu4emnb. (Based c1, 1/250) ftpuir'd Provitle8 Told: PennH Mdtllflcotlm: ReWealed modlflcatlm for inceoae In PaMNg Rwn Building Description Pa�kln�ar the CCR'a 1 stall per 125 wauai. Mt I. the City o! g p Unwwretl — Oh site: 27 Stais a St. ". a S1.16 Newport Swch 3 reculrement of 1 stall Per 250 eoveed — on alt.: 0 Sldb 0 Stalb 0 Stolle y 'set. Construction o (2) stores cl t new tales (S) weer o e (1) story ri nmlatl of Paronq Parcel 2: Tenlatiw Parma Mop: RUauat for isotopes Parcel Mop taking the lot of two (2J atarlee of office apace owr one (1) story pohlnq Unww,ed — On site: 2B Stolle 30 Stolle W Stalls 55,>]8.10e no NKENg It bra two parcels. Parcel 1 aim °!u ^' fuvereo — pl alto: 13 Stdb 12 StaPe 12 9boy .5.100 SZS95.Wef, Paine' 2 = 2J.JBJ23at ]1 Stale Piling to Net 4eo: 250 ],950 n I fi h el et N ollowrbly —e J2( Jetp06s Gists ..e�xn gma.7 Existing Lot Area "Y'®'�w' Aw c 55.71915 ao. 11 _ -- Code Review 8 Description 5 1 Building Statistics 1 Sheet Index ce- Black Cop Smooth Steel Travel Integral Cab, Paeler Smooth Steel Trams Integral Celer, Neater Stalnlaee Steel Pogade TO. Pmal l Gen. 197.00 Y TO Pmol ev. +9 . Te,E. 66 0 Elw. +06.80' Y Block Cap Stov Wooer Smooth Seel Tavel Imam.,, Color Plaster clay, 1713. T Sm-'n Steel Travel h,so ld Color charter Bbce Can W.IISM 0 Stone veneer Lomas -� +9el . r 0 Smooth Steel Trowel mbgml Color Plasm, Dashed Line Oenstes Eyidting Code 1 2 1 West Elevation es W-f-0 I smaatn SeN Trowel Imaand Cdar clasher at Mlall —icvl Screen Soinlne Seel an".. Blots Cap Stan. veneer ToPam�d a Elev. +97.00' T O Pa&It O 1. Ebv. #9].80 Y 0 r lay. #90. 0 El-. +86.80' Y Smooth Steel Towel 11.11 Cdor Plaster Metal Louvers Th.mdd llevetilt�� Black Cop Stony Veneer Stone Wrote, Sttantl &O A EV 15SW�� Eateriar Plaster Wotar Factors F's! Leve A lev. 149.0 � Black Polder- Coaled Steel Tmilca Estate, Plaster Planter bashed we Denotes E'atlng Grade I I South Elevation LSarchitects LAIDLAW SCHU= MES - Croce Building 4810 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beech, CA 92680 aYetlanam.rn 004107 Client Ravbw C8 CS 0720.07 Cllant Renew CS C11 072807 Clam Revbw On CB 011.19,07 chant All OK CIS 0x18,07 Gain Revbw OK CS 08,24.08 ME Pevlelane CS CS n.xWa Bldg Cade Review DK CB 120e08 General Plan DK, JW C8 Amendment 08.06.09 GPA Revlalane OK C8 06.0809 General Plan CS C8 Amerdmsat 089,09 OPA Revisions CB 711 0129.08 GPA Revellore C6 JB 04.07.10 GPA Rmlams. CS CS 0810.10 GPA ReobLene CS C9 �� A.300 ... 61vr4 �nn 1.0 all F ?rev. - Y er. ca. a:ec Nml Leve A �xfr -Cmlc9 S.e � :crd�a n.rp 4 J EmE m. :lei ux. w9'n ..v1o�Flae(er Se_e„ 4... S .ev +539J 5'.vr- vevc-: 2 1 East Elevation Seale: lie' °r -o• ap v T 27—La ,'v - ff -i.. aEPc S Ll UI IILJ LI LI i31v'4 Lev 'l-Fl =v - 4e�e Y A 599� - � � Smvcth ci:e I F v.e1 Irte9ml 0aenec _ , e ll E.yrna -de 7 North Elevation S-11.'Irr -1• -o• LS❑architects LAIDLAIA 9CflaLTZ PRES - office Building 4310 Von Korman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 ?.rzafl- 06 3' A7 Clenl Revlev CS CS 0]20.01 Cl ienl Revlev CS CS 07,26 07 Client Redew DK CS 08.1.1.01 Clienl Redem DK CS 09.361.1 Mani Revew DK CS 03.24.00 W R.Oslnns as CS 11.21.09 Bid, Code ReNev DK CS 12De.06 General Plan OK, JW CS Amendment 03.05.09 CPA Revisions OK CS 06.06.09 General Plan CS CS Amendment 0611.09 CPA Reviaions CS JB 01.23.09 CPA Revisions CS JB 04.01.10 C.A Rev BOna CS CS 00110.10 GPA RZ:One CS CS °� A.301 µ N_ LSarchitects LAJMAw WHULrz PRES - Offioe Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach. CA 82660 a qft� Legal Description 31 Vicinity Map Cvvllt Rehr Architectural w.abw llv,: Ip[ .3 Applicant Glyl'n y: Nfr (POrca 1.21' MAT WF9, P�Ca a` Pra,Nlmtl Aa E. . Sw.i[aL Ine. A'. P,.,I D.I. o.a 1 Ir Yoe Erlg4r RDI:,q Non ..I. 4Z Vr� A- P , 6i. - Ee:al:n9 P ^'cN. 6 .1 Ywyrwpea l2 5.9] al W,-TT.- 23.5.25 f Yepwl Beech. CA 93660 - S rNYlwv $pNYlwea .im Mmrld'o9 Sw- Pomr (919) 261 ]]D fw'. (909) 44 1925 " "' 9.01) 0 Canlwt: Yknvd )vrp 4200 - ParYinp Ta L.w LeW Plm. JeMr G-., Cdepllont =4 Capulty Project Description Uwv .lod xee 6.850 d II.900 .1 6.850 0 (YV®e. 5> 11.960 cl Owner - - -' - - -' `' vtl Betl Eetate �N.cw. lure. Gimp fled xm- 6.650 al 1043) a 6.650 .1 1 UO] Ym Nwmm Avenue 1300 A.LM - 8euu ma Wevt nm0rnf �. N)bml: v. N)O'onl le m I- n. 150' 01 Ine ne Ve.pwl 949 G 92660 (6grwa Pl.n Amena) (919) 371 ]>D fqr. (949) 442 1925 A.WI - Nwlll ma Eve D.MId. maN. Ny6rwt le 6v bc.tM dI M. mma alb ..�Ie[l: Vklrod imq a+9aN0 Co-': In 21,957 20.630 Aa.ux Contact Information f„ .I Ole iYNI a U. Rr. erwin. -man. s•.1: x 1wN 1 _t I" 19' -10 '/A- PII seccna A, Cbmv Od Yo, w, G 93625 �f C.d. C'dngMibwv. 200) Cdilwnb e+YJnq Cca. Pnmv. (9a9) 605 9962 fag: (9 <.) 615 955A ima>vvp6q 01): 26.M M621 J1.an 24.43 [vntgI Gag S Win B I Perspective 12 1 Contact information LSarchitects NIB LAIDLAW SCHULTZ Code Review Legal Description Building Statistics 072007 Cvvllt Rehr Architectural w.abw llv,: Ip[ .3 1`-. 1. -. vx CO -AD (Nea,MirMT No 'Jo) Glyl'n y: Nfr (POrca 1.21' MAT WF9, P�Ca a` rot A'. P,.,I D.I. o.a 1 Ir Yoe Erlg4r RDI:,q Non ..I. 11AA,, M t7 , 6i. - Ee:al:n9 P ^'cN. 6 .1 Ywyrwpea l2 5.9] al W,-TT.- 23.5.25 f .1 al A,un - S.ie 14- S rNYlwv $pNYlwea .im Mmrld'o9 Sw- 6106 0079 a.v4r CK C8 Ne! fed xvu 6.652 a 9.917 41 6.652 cl 9.01) 0 Ig569 .1 4200 - ParYinp Ta L.w LeW Plm. JeMr G-., Cdepllont =4 Capulty Project Description Uwv .lod xee 6.850 d II.900 .1 6.850 0 (YV®e. 5> 11.960 cl 10.610 vl 4101 - Uppw vne Nool LeM Pl.ns Ikmp.ncy Su.meb G,.up 0 CS a Gimp fled xm- 6.650 al 1043) a 6.650 .1 1003 al 17.203 p1 A.LM - 8euu ma Wevt nm0rnf �. N)bml: v. N)O'onl le m I- n. 150' 01 Ine ne A K'q✓we 10 mnene 1178 Cenba P Lme Uw (6grwa Pl.n Amena) A.WI - Nwlll ma Eve D.MId. maN. Ny6rwt le 6v bc.tM dI M. mma alb D-t wa Nd Cwtw PI -d 0--i" 3.., a+9aN0 Co-': In 21,957 20.630 Aa.ux AAOO - B.tlaN9 Svclbn .I Ole iYNI a U. Rr. erwin. w N .. n'_W..M.. wm Id R.leef:ml/ But(m9 Neglrt: W -I W -t0 1/1 W -I' 19' -10 '/A- C.d. C'dngMibwv. 200) Cdilwnb e+YJnq Cca. . Burners Onk. Stv 9 er 11.5AA q[. pgme ima>vvp6q 01): 26.M M621 J1.an 24.43 = ncrm[n 1 Pwmll: anawtMnwl pwm" iv rm . lq dl .dk V,AtN wMN w. am[ .ynt -m_..y Iwl ma 9.918.7 1781 s9uwe Nei In wM 1e 9m5n9 (frl: 5].); SIYK AA.90; 80.86R•• Civil AO lm eYdnoa.le II. m.wrnb .I . J -aver eMb mpravwnwN: -%. 0170) I." vita th. Cllje .'A TWA ISWW I GYy Stg d M10-L - ,,3179- Molt a 416,1 Goss dw rwnovM hem (E) 11rv1 r 0wt' .111 4 4 11.544.1 - 11. %0.I 1 al 1 - [atlNq sOe Cmpllims Rm W ^�- eta- bcnapd AO .n -al. aan.9e plat [ampr) .yn Ihv l.lwl 'FOdr9[ Yrtlueep wn fiuiSmO InM.m, ap ucM W paYinq/blAnq City Mvlr GMUr sy :b r ^weu1v 5 0 ) La M l. WwBuilding amlt Y.aak.li.n: RNI.M �Unrvca COa I >25 lea al 'S p.w Description m - GI ta 21 S.. " S.. 20 w:me r 1 a pa, 35C)"y 9wunge e l lJ ) or. 6anq wm C . - ado- o se. o saN o sIAt Na. mpp. r, . imtofM Pod Wd e oM1 M vw9N9 vi z . .ppdea 6 $I1tlq b 91Wa _ T 110 2 s: M N ss)M.IG a c n SIaN I2 Sta. . ]2.395.9!,'. 1' -.. 2 21%NM25A1. ]1 p11. ,w .g le Net A- 250.1 /aalaT ,1a'N - 1).650 1781 .1 0.6 . I'm M .I alO.cON-6.652(.)el -f 1,p96a1(mea) Existing Lot Area s1]]917 w n 7 1 Code Review 8 I Description 6 1 Building Statistics 1 Sheet Index PRIES - Office Building 6310 Von Kalman Avenue Newport Beach. CA 82880 07.3003 C4M a6.Nr C9 072007 Cvvllt Rehr CS OS 93.57.03 N D7 CIw014rNr M OK W 07.1103 CIIAM OK Cs 0917 03 11AA,, M t7 OK CS 03210 VE Yi MMYw! W W 6106 0079 a.v4r CK C8 *csD Y2.OB D7 011l.rtl 8103 OK JW W 0606.09 AeA 6eM7 WA MYWOIw DN CS 07.07.08 ow1Y YYn W GS 0603.09 WA R OPA 9AVMaM CS a 0)39.09 0➢A S.W.1OY CB Js DA.D).10 CPA K..NBKe C9 W F -IN We 'Sul - - - - /J' epeflY Link l I� Ja 1 s �J 26 -1 'E mC s' 3' 4 `\ 9 t. "'IREEj1 Tits, ` C I III I 1, dlj �01v>RU��0 "i f( ttmh on Imur \ Ir VI I I I __- - -- -- III Ld 6 { ,1 111 a a" rg P0N0 WA cF kElf I ]706 8T' -5' ^6vC .n5ADw <c an L f„ °h Client Resiths Easement Notes r08 E1 10' Prison Stam Drain Eoeeain't per Book 19n3 'age 573. IDM sees 15 Plotted CS CS Haman and Boez AIMCt the Subpc Noperly. Civil R E? a,!wle Seee. Easement per Beak 10413 Page 573 This Item Is Plotted Hereon — i- Deem Rmlew Bt�iik�'_4q nml]� E3 le' Pnw<e By- Elnhy- l Per Back 10113 Page 573 mie uem Pulled Hereon ON OS III VE Boundless �u���■ Proposed 10 Private Water Easenent as flown by Parca Mop, Boas V. -age 14. 1121.08 Bldg Code Revlew oK This Item u Plotted Herron and Jove Affect the Subject Proper, 208.08 ' Notes Corresponding to Schedule V I� M111 ILJJ Recall !M1e Alr Bpoce. Remrtled morcH 17. 1964 in Book 6965, Peg, 721 of Oifcial Records, oK CS Tnla Item Is annual in Nature and Don Affect in. Bub)st Pro, -" General Plan o- The Nolte'l Cenlalnetl In o ooeumnl Entitlea 'Perbabal Avyatlon Easement' History. Attentlment Nom F 17, 1964 In Book 6965 Page 721 of Offcip Records. This Item is Blanket in Nature Call INN CS .5 F- Covenants. Condition. and Imarllillane of $et north in iha Document R ... rand In Baas 10611 WA Ravlelana P0N0 WA cF kElf I ]706 8T' -5' ^6vC .n5ADw <c an L f„ °h �/ E3 ' \ E3 � I y' -- - -. �ur,e E2 title. Eki¢ting Parking Spaces o e Oenoled by Numbered Deaignofonv Ner Pocking Spotln art tlew[ed by o Numbered Deagnallon wilF o Circle Grcumwribetl ILaut the Onlgnalion. lm Stre 55J7g.1B zl r I 3 1 Site Plan f ` _ -- 9elaeled � Encmaare �_-\ .._ ❑ Line of Bullaing Overlong 'w (E) TmaM1 Endoaure to be Ralocotea Lot Sir. - 55.M'19 sf � n C �CJ�C�O FJ F' 1 — I --1 I�rl V N,Ty. LSI architects LAIDLAW SCHIILTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 0e 31.07 Client Resiths Easement Notes r08 E1 10' Prison Stam Drain Eoeeain't per Book 19n3 'age 573. IDM sees 15 Plotted CS CS Haman and Boez AIMCt the Subpc Noperly. Civil R E? a,!wle Seee. Easement per Beak 10413 Page 573 This Item Is Plotted Hereon — i- Deem Rmlew are Done Affect the Subject Property OS E3 le' Pnw<e By- Elnhy- l Per Back 10113 Page 573 mie uem Pulled Hereon ON OS and ones Anal the wend Property VE Boundless E4 Proposed 10 Private Water Easenent as flown by Parca Mop, Boas V. -age 14. 1121.08 Bldg Code Revlew oK This Item u Plotted Herron and Jove Affect the Subject Proper, 208.08 General Plan Notes Corresponding to Schedule V I� A A4 Pr flgnl Eeaement, Somelinee Into tl In as Aurelian Righla. In and to All ILJJ Recall !M1e Alr Bpoce. Remrtled morcH 17. 1964 in Book 6965, Peg, 721 of Oifcial Records, oK CS Tnla Item Is annual in Nature and Don Affect in. Bub)st Pro, -" General Plan o- The Nolte'l Cenlalnetl In o ooeumnl Entitlea 'Perbabal Avyatlon Easement' History. Attentlment Nom F 17, 1964 In Book 6965 Page 721 of Offcip Records. This Item is Blanket in Nature Call and oon Affect me Subkct Wworin CS .5 F- Covenants. Condition. and Imarllillane of $et north in iha Document R ... rand In Baas 10611 WA Ravlelana LJ Page 663 of Offeel Recwtle. Muillication(e) of Sold Consorts, Cmdilione, ona Roetddlma, 0k 07 to GPA Revlelam RaoMea In Bock 11066 Page 822 of Offaa. Be-,. this Item ie Blanket In Nature antl CB Does Affect the Subject Property 4 H An Easement for Sewer Urge and Right. Incedentol Thereto Recorded In Book 11112, Poge 1408 of Offkkl Records Thla Item b Pelted Haman and Does Affect the Sub*t Property. �LJ 'r An --art for Slarm Droln end fill Inclimild Tnercb Reeorhd In Book 11112, Page 1401 LJ of Off bid Raardz. This Item B Palled ..,.an and Does Aflal the Subject Property, o- An Eacemenl for Ingress and Egreas and Righla Infidel IDaeta, Recorded May 7. 1974 M Book 11137 Page 1025 of Dfficia: Records. ID5 tam is Platted Haman and Dos Atha the Sub pct PrepeAy. o- An Eo.mmenl fw Maondoring $itl - H antl Bcyde Trail and Right. Incidentd Thereto Recadeo May 7. 1974 m Bock 1137 Page 1026 of Omclal Ral Thai uem a Patted Hereon -a /� Does Affect the Subect Prop.rty. —L %I -T -JC— o- Covenant; Contlltians and Ratrktlen; ae List EMh in the DOfument Recerded In Bask �. HIP Page 1026 of official Records, This Item la Bl.umt In Naure and Data Aned the }}J�� saeject Prances fee emenl far I ndergrauna Eleclrlcel $upp'.y Sta -. antl Communlcatian State- and Rlgnla %An lf5— wcmeota Thereto. Recorded N Back 11224 Page 496 .I Ol Records. We ¢m I. Pmtl.d _- Haman and Does Affect the Subject Proper <v �/ E3 ' \ E3 � I y' -- - -. �ur,e E2 title. Eki¢ting Parking Spaces o e Oenoled by Numbered Deaignofonv Ner Pocking Spotln art tlew[ed by o Numbered Deagnallon wilF o Circle Grcumwribetl ILaut the Onlgnalion. lm Stre 55J7g.1B zl r I 3 1 Site Plan f ` _ -- 9elaeled � Encmaare �_-\ .._ ❑ Line of Bullaing Overlong 'w (E) TmaM1 Endoaure to be Ralocotea Lot Sir. - 55.M'19 sf � n C �CJ�C�O FJ F' 1 — I --1 I�rl V N,Ty. LSI architects LAIDLAW SCHIILTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 0e 31.07 Client Resiths ca r08 073007 �ry CS CS 012607 Civil R DK CS — i- �/ E3 ' \ E3 � I y' -- - -. �ur,e E2 title. Eki¢ting Parking Spaces o e Oenoled by Numbered Deaignofonv Ner Pocking Spotln art tlew[ed by o Numbered Deagnallon wilF o Circle Grcumwribetl ILaut the Onlgnalion. lm Stre 55J7g.1B zl r I 3 1 Site Plan f ` _ -- 9elaeled � Encmaare �_-\ .._ ❑ Line of Bullaing Overlong 'w (E) TmaM1 Endoaure to be Ralocotea Lot Sir. - 55.M'19 sf � n C �CJ�C�O FJ F' 1 — I --1 I�rl V N,Ty. LSI architects LAIDLAW SCHIILTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 0e 31.07 Client Resiths ca r08 073007 Cl ant Bell CS CS 012607 Civil R DK CS 08.19.07 Deem Rmlew OK OS 08.2e.D7 Client Basis. ON OS 0324.08 VE Boundless Cs Cs 1121.08 Bldg Code Revlew oK CS 208.08 General Plan 0K, JW CS Armnbtnent 0309o0 GPA Revlsl.. oK CS Da.Ob.OB General Plan CS OS Attentlment Call WA lent: na CS JB 0)2308 WA Ravlelana CS JB 0k 07 to GPA Revlelam ce CB ❑ l� A.101 e„rea knomen ,urw m --a-mu nonk ckke- I wnw i MM VN •fO 5--1 I 6._2. 6' -6' w 2 ° 2 4.100 ° AYq o a o 76._2. I ® I R'- �3 I 111114/ Ilfll , . ® L n' -1 a• A O O A.N/1 JaI 2 A 1 14_ ! k 2 Lower Level Plan 1 Parking Level Plan eeW.yr•7� L S architects LAIOLAW SCHLJ= PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 02660 FC'u. Me, Men 06.3LM Mont R.VW. ca CS 071;.07 Clem Review C6 CS 072047 COW Review OK CS 06.194) C1en[ Ravlew 0K CS 08.26.0) Clent Review 0K GS 09.2406 VE Revleiene 09 ca 1L2Wa Bloc Code Review OK C9 12.08.08 a,n,r.] Plan 11K. JW Ca Anw Onent 03.06.08 WA Rev alon. 0K C6 08.08106 O ... r.l Man CS CS AmeMnent n C8 JB 0723.06 OPA Favlelom CS JB 0407.10 Cm C3 Ca e i I oos WV — Lobby 01 1, N 5 � .1 _- L 6w - a I Up •i SZ = I � d19sh — om -- - -- - -_ mr -- O O A.N/1 JaI 2 A 1 14_ ! k 2 Lower Level Plan 1 Parking Level Plan eeW.yr•7� L S architects LAIOLAW SCHLJ= PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 02660 FC'u. Me, Men 06.3LM Mont R.VW. ca CS 071;.07 Clem Review C6 CS 072047 COW Review OK CS 06.194) C1en[ Ravlew 0K CS 08.26.0) Clent Review 0K GS 09.2406 VE Revleiene 09 ca 1L2Wa Bloc Code Review OK C9 12.08.08 a,n,r.] Plan 11K. JW Ca Anw Onent 03.06.08 WA Rev alon. 0K C6 08.08106 O ... r.l Man CS CS AmeMnent MUM aPA RevIW.M C8 JB 0723.06 OPA Favlelom CS JB 0407.10 OPA RWslo. C3 Ca 0.7 A.200 LsLarchitects LADLAWSCHIJLTZ I I i I i PRIES -Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 SL07 Cileat Review C8 C 01 820.07 Client R.,dr. CS 0726.07 CNM Rev :. C 08.13.07 C&me R.: X w M C: 00.20.07 Clent Rmvd.w m C: 03.2108 VE Raysions, CS C 1L2L08 Bldg Code Review M CS general d Anne.tmaart 09.06.08 GPA Revelons DK CS Moses General Plan CS CS Mandel 0.17.00 GPA Ral.hd.n. CS a 0723.09 QPA Revisions CS is A47.10 OPA Revinione CS CS �7A.201 2 A]00 A]OD 10'-• 2V-11• FIII MII Mm M2 -E7 17- LI r 1. 3i' -4" i II a- T-4' 00'-S' T K301 30' 2 2 2 Root Level Plan 1 Upper Level Plan LsLarchitects LADLAWSCHIJLTZ I I i I i PRIES -Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 SL07 Cileat Review C8 C 01 820.07 Client R.,dr. CS 0726.07 CNM Rev :. C 08.13.07 C&me R.: X w M C: 00.20.07 Clent Rmvd.w m C: 03.2108 VE Raysions, CS C 1L2L08 Bldg Code Review M CS general d Anne.tmaart 09.06.08 GPA Revelons DK CS Moses General Plan CS CS Mandel 0.17.00 GPA Ral.hd.n. CS a 0723.09 QPA Revisions CS is A47.10 OPA Revinione CS CS �7A.201 PRIES -Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 SL07 Cileat Review C8 C 01 820.07 Client R.,dr. CS 0726.07 CNM Rev :. C 08.13.07 C&me R.: X w M C: 00.20.07 Clent Rmvd.w m C: 03.2108 VE Raysions, CS C 1L2L08 Bldg Code Review M CS general d Anne.tmaart 09.06.08 GPA Revelons DK CS Moses General Plan CS CS Mandel 0.17.00 GPA Ral.hd.n. CS a 0723.09 QPA Revisions CS is A47.10 OPA Revinione CS CS �7A.201 0 SL07 Cileat Review C8 C 01 820.07 Client R.,dr. CS 0726.07 CNM Rev :. C 08.13.07 C&me R.: X w M C: 00.20.07 Clent Rmvd.w m C: 03.2108 VE Raysions, CS C 1L2L08 Bldg Code Review M CS general d Anne.tmaart 09.06.08 GPA Revelons DK CS Moses General Plan CS CS Mandel 0.17.00 GPA Ral.hd.n. CS a 0723.09 QPA Revisions CS is A47.10 OPA Revinione CS CS �7A.201 L S architects LAIDLAW SCHULTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 At. Celeauom W.avm Gen[ Pevlew ca Ca 0720.07 Gen[ Pevlew CB as 0720.07 Olen Review DK 08 00.0.07 Oenatee Wtlbn 01 Plonvevclutletl Irnm lolol NN Afeo ol— .1 - ml .Fall., NrvM.1 DK C9 06.20.07 Clem Pevlew DK CS 0324,08 VE Revisions CS CS 1t2L08 Bldg Code Pevew OK CS 12.08.08 e, I , eloi uam , ert•n b.m.m.. .m.w.q�.f mK ioe. DK, JW CS Arne Nmnt 03.06.06 BPA Revision$ DK Ca 06.0808 Genial Plan CS CS nM N d., Wl, 0.11 u.ed I.f n .I Ue builEingi ulillly eFOtla end p.fking'a Amend ent 06.17.06 GPs Revisions C8 JB 0723.08 WA Revision: CS JB 04,0)10 We Revlebm .mess. bi.... . tool.,` NeteI..nof fl he n ,voted lild1n, 2 Legend O 15' -0" 12 -10' 11' -9' 18 _0. •I � 11 x 20 _7' 2C._C ONE B' -6" i< 4 300.6 sq. ft. 15 / 10 '' -B 14 5 6 7 W-5. 15 3 4 3 Lower Level Area Summary - Net °e°'-7b' 1 Parking Level Area Summary - Net 8o1sVB'• ° ^' L S architects LAIDLAW SCHULTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 At. Celeauom W.avm Gen[ Pevlew ca Ca 0720.07 Gen[ Pevlew CB as 0720.07 Olen Review DK 08 00.0.07 Clent Review DK C9 06.20.07 Clem Pevlew DK CS 0324,08 VE Revisions CS CS 1t2L08 Bldg Code Pevew OK CS 12.08.08 General Ms. DK, JW CS Arne Nmnt 03.06.06 BPA Revision$ DK Ca 06.0808 Genial Plan CS CS Amend ent 06.17.06 GPs Revisions C8 JB 0723.08 WA Revision: CS JB 04,0)10 We Revlebm CB C8 A.202 LSlarchitects LAIDLAll SCRULII PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 Aree oelwruone 002000 Client Revbw CS vC8 0)10.0] oenalu N Pedllan of Glao ae[waea fn IOU et Aee ub - et seam, a CB 0)33.0] Olen! Revbw DK CS DK O.noe olam m..— se.m mni, mly m o¢al Client Revless DK CS 00.20.08 Client visions M elOctrical equipment used f- a of Pe InunCna malt, sews am Ponina m 178.b.0 Revisions Ca CS ,3000 onnote. port an cl W.. munted td—d. - j tote Net 4eo oe he P.opeaed euna, 120e 00 Oenerel Pdn Gen DKr JW CS AmenMment 030600 GPA Revlelona 2 Legend General Plen 15 -0• IY -10• 11-3� 16 -➢� Amendment 03.17.00 GPA Revlelona CS JB 07.23.08 WA Revlelona CS 'B 04.07.10 (i A Revbbm CS DS 0 sq. ft. open ., coulp , t ecna°cel IOoe f .U� / i 0, w s = 5 r 2j Roof Level Area Summary - Net Bawve•ea t Upper Level Area Summary - Net e°+w�••r� LSlarchitects LAIDLAll SCRULII PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 Aree oelwruone 002000 Client Revbw CS vC8 0)10.0] Chh.t Revbw CB 0)33.0] Olen! Revbw DK CS DK 03.130] Client Revless DK CS 00.20.08 Client visions OK CS 178.b.0 Revisions Ca CS ,3000 Bldg Code Review DK CS 120e 00 Oenerel Pdn Gen DKr JW CS AmenMment 030600 GPA Revlelona DK C3 08.0808 General Plen CS CB Amendment 03.17.00 GPA Revlelona CS JB 07.23.08 WA Revlelona CS 'B 04.07.10 (i A Revbbm CS DS ®'1 A.203 LSalrchitects LAIDLAW SCHULT2 PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 926130 Ns. OeWYSilpn WA1.W ClenlRevbw ��µCB 0.C8 0]]0.0] Dent Review Denoree Peni�� m hoo e.�weea r.om Nm=i Grces Areo wlculolion - Sloinep and '7walor eMlla we icy e r o 0]lEA] G \ant Review DK ON LB 00.13.07 Clent Re= �m�1�1o<iw on w.eiweic.�g. 00.28.0] Clent Review DK 08 03. 4.08 VE Revision 6wwr.. Paa un .1 6a..amea m0dil amt creaa Ares m De e.eemea awls ne. toe Bid, Coca Review DK Ls :1 12.0808 Generel Plan DK. JW C6 Amenrinnf 030608 2 Legend coca 06 Generel hen 16' -]" ArseMment 00117.08 GPA Revltlon Ca A 0723.D9 OPA Revision CB Ja .y BPA Revision 0a CS 6' -11' 848.84 sq. ft. , MOR 3t' -Y 2 Lower Level Area Summary - Gross (Measure S) 1 Parking Level Area Summary - Gross (Measure S) BOYwVe•aA• LSalrchitects LAIDLAW SCHULT2 PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 926130 Ns. OeWYSilpn WA1.W ClenlRevbw ��µCB 0.C8 0]]0.0] Dent Review 0a 0]lEA] G \ant Review DK ON LB 00.13.07 Clent Re= DK 08 00.28.0] Clent Review DK 08 03. 4.08 VE Revision C8 C8 toe Bid, Coca Review DK Ls :1 12.0808 Generel Plan DK. JW C6 Amenrinnf 030608 WA Revlelone DK LS coca 06 Generel hen cs ca ArseMment 00117.08 GPA Revltlon Ca A 0723.D9 OPA Revision CB Ja 04.07.10 BPA Revision 0a CS A.204 w�w 1 LSarchitects LAIUL nw SCHUOZ PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 ArwµGbWtlena 06.3'0/ clean Revlea CS °ca 07.20W GI.. ...... . —I .1 oI — sla'atl 4nm ryulal c.nm .aa wbulnllc — R 0", Elevotc. .Mn vhiplrn.... . en CS CS W.2807 CYent Revlea DK CS ee nmra edeae m Pew mlcubLbn on one Iwel anry. CYenl flevba DK C8 0020.07 OYent R.vba Oenoba .. Ar o! plea munled lb.11da laLal G. Meo of Ilra p.ppaved bulltlrnp. 03.2..00 VE Favlflom GS 09 112'D8 Bldg Coge flavba DK CS 120806 General Plan 2 Legend Amendment 03.06.D8 SPA Ravlelana DK CS / General Plan GS GS Amendnant 06.7.08 SPA RevBlorw ca JS 0723.00 SPA Pevlalona CS JB 0107.10 SPA Rrvlalon 'i 4 / .. 5279.14 sq. / 6 6 W �% • 33210 ft. _sq. r 3 1' -3 7' 6• V -11' 60•_5, 2 Roof Level Area Summary - Gross (Measure S) 1>c.le Da' *^' t Upper Level Area Summary - Gross (Measure S)' Ve' • 7b' LSarchitects LAIUL nw SCHUOZ PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 ArwµGbWtlena 06.3'0/ clean Revlea CS °ca 07.20W CYent P.A.. CS CS W.2807 CYent Revlea DK CS 08.0,07 CYenl flevba DK C8 0020.07 OYent R.vba DK 06 03.2..00 VE Favlflom GS 09 112'D8 Bldg Coge flavba DK CS 120806 General Plan DKr Jw CS Amendment 03.06.D8 SPA Ravlelana DK CS 0B.OB.OB General Plan GS GS Amendnant 06.7.08 SPA RevBlorw ca JS 0723.00 SPA Pevlalona CS JB 0107.10 SPA Rrvlalon Ca CS Z7 A.205 LSL architects LAIDLAW SCHULTZ 11 I'll PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 An. CAkWKOm A a W.3107 tn W 111, cb. aea k otol CS ce 0]20.0] Glen R.A.. CS CB r eon great Area rokuloh - S and C V Clant Rovlew DK C3 08.13.0] Clent Bevbw Elevator d o oc a an , < 0:28.07 Giant Revbw DK 08 03.24.08 aoal� ana hm e b— added m CS LS tt2L08 Bldg Goad Revlew DK CS ono bOn on ane nn' nly Oeoerel Plan DK. JW 08 Aunarroloont , Pardon N Olen iawarad 1*11 0306.08 BPA Revlaione DK CS 00.00.08 ®Denetoo Ir.ae- o.Ild'Il bbl oral Area cf In. PmPoeea cS ca Amendment 08.9.00 OPA Revbbne CS JB 0723.0: 2 Legend 2J' -10" 11' -9• 16' -J' BPA Revisions 3 j •m , 300.8 sq. ft. VON / z4sa s 4. ft. 30._7. / 4 _ / o 0' to 5 8 7 V -3• T -{ 6' -11' 60' -5' 2 1 Lower Level Area Summary - Gross (General Plan Amendment) m+- tiB'•1b' t Parking Level Area Summary - Gross (General Plan Amendment) Sea. W-7 -0' LSL architects LAIDLAW SCHULTZ 11 I'll PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92880 An. CAkWKOm g A.206 A a W.3107 pant Review CS ce 0]20.0] Glen R.A.. CS CB 0]28.0] Clant Rovlew DK C3 08.13.0] Clent Bevbw DK G3 0:28.07 Giant Revbw DK 08 03.24.08 VE la, lW.ne CS LS tt2L08 Bldg Goad Revlew DK CS ZO&D0 Oeoerel Plan DK. JW 08 Aunarroloont 0306.08 BPA Revlaione DK CS 00.00.08 Oenenl Plan cS ca Amendment 08.9.00 OPA Revbbne CS JB 0723.0: BPA R-Wone C8 JB 04.07.10 BPA Revisions GB cS g A.206 LS architects V IDLAW SCHUM PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82880 Anse L kWtl 083107 • Client Rvlew 9E Ca C8 0720.D7 mnmee poelian cl pion cm. d m im m Go stcv n s C3 C3 07.26.07 CBs' , . 1, Its .ncn o .1 .. ewe eve. o n.-e..no e�ele colowol o v =.e ava y Csenl Revlew DK CS 0616.07 Client Revlew Oemtee ".1— a oleo counted toworda lotol Gma bcu al the proposed bwlLmg 0324.08 VE R.vW. CS CS 6.2408 Bldg Code Review DK CB 12.08.08 Benerel Plan 2 Legend Amendment D' -10- 11•_9• tE'_]• 03.08.06 2 DK CZ D608.08 dense] Plan 7 Amentlment 08.17.06 aPA Revisions CS JB 072306 oPA Revlelene C8 JB 04.07.10 aPA Revisions CS ce I I / / 7 � tO i3 I 6 -111 B' 2 Roof Level Area Summary - Gross (General Plan Amendment) 1 Upper Level Area Summary - Gross (General Plan Amendment) 6e+. ^' • 7b• LS architects V IDLAW SCHUM PRES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82880 Anse L kWtl 083107 • Client Rvlew 9E Ca C8 0720.D7 Client Revlew C3 C3 07.26.07 CBs' 07 Csenl Revlew DK CS 0616.07 Client Revlew DK CS 0324.08 VE R.vW. CS CS 6.2408 Bldg Code Review DK CB 12.08.08 Benerel Plan M. dW CB Amendment 03.08.06 oPA Revisions DK CZ D608.08 dense] Plan C8 CS Amentlment 08.17.06 aPA Revisions CS JB 072306 oPA Revlelene C8 JB 04.07.10 aPA Revisions CS ce �� A.207 Bloµ Cap Smoatn Steel Travel Integmi Cabr Pweler Snooln Stul oval Integral co, Paster Slw,lm Steel Fbopola TO Pemxl y �In r99.�0 Y P ter. 194.4 TElev.O. W11 A . i91 4 Root "W'.7 3;iT Block Coo Slone Veneer Smooth Steel Trowel lo, l Cob- Plaster 9W. Le 4D.w 6V 0 Ele 5m..th Steel Trowel Integal Co., Plerte- Black C.P evCLem . a59.8g' Stone Veneer Lowem nNt Level A . k4TI HBO � Color 5[ttl newel Integra Color Pboter B.ehW One Dewtea Foisting Cmde 1 2 1 West Elevation ..I ^e' • 11 1 Smooth steel Trowel Inlegml Color Plaster of Mxhonleal Screen stalmew steel Flagpole Block Cao Stone Veneer SO Panwl GeV. +99.10 r.D. ParPar Jev. +844 T.O. Paraxl A Lev. +91 4 ➢' Y Pa.t "' } Bev. 69.a]' 1$ smooth SI.e1 Trowel blegrol Color Pbaler Ekv. 177.64 Bwav C., St... Vener cone v..... sery.na.wl _ 0_ Exterior PI-tor W.ter Feet— rat lwe A Elw. Mg2C�� Blank Powder -EPaed s<.I Trehls Eate.lor Pweln Plenler D..h.e une Del.. Existing CmGe 1 1 South Elevation 4ke4eVV-" LSarchitects LAIDLAW SCHIJLT PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 Eaw. 083W7 Cbnl R view CB Ca 0720.07 Review CB CB 0726.07 Civet Review 0K C8 O&M.W Meet Review OK C6 002,107 OXent Review OK OS 03.2408 VE Revw.. CS CS 1t 08 Bbg Code Review OK CS 0..O8,00 Benerel Me. OK, JW CR Amendment 08.08.00 BPA RBVI01ou UK CS 06.08.00 Benerel Plan CS CS Amendment 0617.01) (WA R..h0ane CB JB 0723.08 WA Revlelane C3 JB 04.07.10 BPA Revlelone CS CS . A.300 a�:rrru'ww: a id.�m e. LS architects LAIDLAWSCHULTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82880 avervn A.301 Meltable 08.3L0] CnenlRSVbw CS GCB BIac4 Cop Cllenl Rrvin CB CB 07.28.01 Clent Review DK C8 08.10.01 Cliant Revbw DK Cs 08.28.01 Stone Veneer DK CS 08.24.08 ME RavW.. CS CS n2L00 _ DK CS 12.08.08 — Melol Louvers A.ft.nt 0808-08 UPA Revlebne DK G8 08.08.02 Snivel Plen CS CS Smco In Steel Trowel 1, .1 Anerarnent 08.11.02 GPA R.vW.ne 08 JS 0123.02 aPA RevWO�e CS JS 04.01.0 Color Plaster al Mecnankol Screen CS cs BIpoC4 —Cap B9.t0 — EIw. :94.4 — TrI09. Pa am Iev. B].4'i — Poeder —Cwted SIM0 Handra.l TEIC, ♦59 as —4 Smooln Steel Towel Integral Cdor Ploeter �vB.BO' Stone Veneer Fr 1 L I — — —\ El— .9,00 4 4' w B' O.c' 'n,." Reel trowel IMegml S m, laster D-e .ol Ln. D-1- EviStng Grede 2 East Elevation mae M • *^' 11 uemaMCal screen Metal ckdding abc4 Cap To %,a-' A #99.10 Y — T Poreeett� A D _ I Cr, ♦914J'� To Porone! 1. ,I gqq by LFE ]4Z Y Smaetll Steel Travel IMegral Cater Plaster ID ra lml •I fee reel YY yy Back Cap se.ao s in steel Trowel IMW.aI -- ` r CnKK PI ®ter Level A Iev. i49:W� Stone Veneer Dashed nne Den.. Evixtlnq Grade 1 North Elevation maeoll •*b' LS architects LAIDLAWSCHULTZ PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Kerman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82880 avervn A.301 Meltable 08.3L0] CnenlRSVbw CS GCB 0]30.01 Cllenl Rrvin CB CB 07.28.01 Clent Review DK C8 08.10.01 Cliant Revbw DK Cs 08.28.01 Client Revbw DK CS 08.24.08 ME RavW.. CS CS n2L00 Bid, Gods Revbw DK CS 12.08.08 Oenarel Plen DK, M CB A.ft.nt 0808-08 UPA Revlebne DK G8 08.08.02 Snivel Plen CS CS Anerarnent 08.11.02 GPA R.vW.ne 08 JS 0123.02 aPA RevWO�e CS JS 04.01.0 GPA RBVIMom CS cs ®8.7 A.301 rymu�,u�ygew°Sw4 12 1 - .1.v •'a' I WWtl Emma noo. aee SYr�clurvl Owga. Irv. ♦Irv. ♦�B� frock Cvp 18&l W3 Mewl 0xk avv 6trvduml Dwga. L Eln. +v9 -S6� sex venev s' soe en arm. zee StruOurcl Dvga. F ! Leve A 18e StrucMO�Ow9s. Bevm B'v014' Feoling ue Siruoluml Owq¢. i I Building Section _ _ °ai Va.. *". L S architects LAIDI W s HULr PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 e�aJe e.ene. OB.Ot01 TA Par el 1. EI 99.10 Mvch Epuip, 0720 .02 Clenl Rev!*. O Po9 t�4 0]28.0] E[.,. 6E1 9 6] Y DK 08 O0 Pv� A 81-1 Cvp R. 91.1J Y 0829.0] Rool '_eve DK C8 Eler. 81 A� Wvvtl Fmme Rvol C8 C8 aee S11 -tum1 Dwg, WWtl Emma noo. aee SYr�clurvl Owga. Irv. ♦Irv. ♦�B� frock Cvp 18&l W3 Mewl 0xk avv 6trvduml Dwga. L Eln. +v9 -S6� sex venev s' soe en arm. zee StruOurcl Dvga. F ! Leve A 18e StrucMO�Ow9s. Bevm B'v014' Feoling ue Siruoluml Owq¢. i I Building Section _ _ °ai Va.. *". L S architects LAIDI W s HULr PRIES - Office Building 4310 Von Karmen Avenue Newport Beach, CA 82660 e�aJe e.ene. OB.Ot01 Clenl Rewbw 08 08 0720 .02 Clenl Rev!*. C8 C8 0]28.0] Clenl Rerbw DK 08 00.6.07 Gent Re�bw DK 08 0829.0] CAW Reelew DK C8 0921.08 VE RWWlam C8 C8 U21.80 Bldg 0od9 Revlew DK 09 12.08.08 08nerel Pl.. DK, M C8 AmeM W 09.06.08 WA Revalons DK cs OB.OB.OB Oenerel Na. c8 CS A.W.ent 00.11.08 OPA Revlelero CS JB 07.28.00 WA RevalOM CS JB 04.07.6 DPA nevlebne OB CS �� A.400 TITLE INFOPFMnON: I. 6 AA�� Ip_�Irv�- iy��FIREE ewmvr OESCwP ER�. �4EA or NIN. m. OF F1.1. xao,#EDw � Rrw NI IN n -ABORT. Emwl Y ..—ANNA —Ix XOmm VNF ADE VA�RI.. ,ofFlCE OEi .1 EECrmnEaM SAID E.x .. vL9rNL W.�� M1YlPHY0 M60NBIL. BD, IFI., AAND-A.. azaOWw�crtX OF AID BEET v..FA UP XW ENAFEA WrtTPRx(rx MME ngVWEPaVw YWRnavai.M16HWERE ID IN NT OF SO. WuCE StnlE VE WYMNB. NO EVERAINEI OA LAND on O.ITHn�N 11 AA..NA OF..LAB WD -INR 'NXD7K Bas m. DOE Bava DEROF Tle AN—Oft IfR.S1113d�Y o .NANDABEE— AND,,,.wl.� ,Mry moB�Fln^ :IBEEN"N"'A.FID O1.OFDBFIDL. I-- I —NITmx O �10. ENT a6sroRDaa. -A prom ,HwaTO.En.,a.,.. AIDE ,.a0,11AL O " 1. .E..E E.Ex.AxoR6IDDOF,.ruT�X FIGIBEAD.A.A.-a.P,aE „a EE 0 AA FBBw��VaEWrA EABFXEX.. ArFFB xoEEXTU TXmETD At,. .. B.I. I, ,FwE All OF © BaaEUXmA . WNTE6 EABI .11 D ON INABIAP rscOROm N.1 . rnaa I A OF IN 9n� =B.A o1 ...1 wo co�L�ETMxw,aED N.. uw nE.morva uca+m.v eO a, x .inwaXN O aA NDANDUEX* M— BEA BOD IDIAN DANNEE .EOBINT"um.aECanoEnlxaoce,.,,x rwE,wsoF QAN ..I BOB rOB Ero .— A— AIVmEWaOaH^LT,EAETO. AEmwEV IXawX,,, •.z. ..E 'A. OF o ANEASEDE TF LFaff,IDAND GA a ANDBXDHTa MCCEN.NTIF1 EEAURNEnM 1. I. eaM o D aN.,m.m ,NO OADA,N..�A DA NDaT rva�EN +u TF.Dl FEEDAIe D,”. �. oFF. u�wrm �sara.wswmwxn BENCHh K- IF DIN,EwxEOF.a�aA,.,., . XDIENAD LE�wBTX.I.EWUL E oFC W+wTCxFa^O°p`I"a w ISOFBEAIMS � FILED IN E.1F ,x OF— COUxn REEDS DmxxT.wu EAABD mETM.1. DE.. 1�TNI, PARCEL SUMMARY: rnecEL. - ENI ASSESORS PARCEL #' GENE NOTES AND APOTEI iN4lwouSE rvFEW.FMFA STEatlN^NW IfEAUCWrt PoaEG LAND FBB EWN TAOIBII .FFEEEDLONDJ nLFEI INNANIFAR —ATx, IINFEN. Eusncm m =:` +En Le DESGw,TEOwwLL CE.LEA,.E..FOAT BAB FOR TEAKE-FNCw.^DWM40aco.Po EONEI X�w. NO Em`Dno`D EAT,: ry BAD ucwswaox .1 TB cm OF XEwFVmavcH. SURVEYORSCFATMFl M TFIB A —FAD NIV� mHEUOCmxcrro,xE eEaroF BNAELO wNm. AEVe w TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2008.123 _ IN THE Cltt OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CIUFORNW eam Xnrsr�i m'z `CbMC P' d>� 4A i/ ji 1p d s3l I ftt6 nrzf aEaw MI's C I CIE 'A��xpFFR�fs :.e 1 4 4210 VGNfI,µ 4F23 NC0. �N b�V \3Y I 1. G1 I TENTATIVE PARCEL 1 Il- AD s AI n / N.0'JBSii s� 1. vM°cnP w of &OL - P PS b PROJECT SRE NEWPORTBEACH, RNIA CALIFO d3b3 o, 43b�18 x.w Ow�ER Pp bbi 'OF , „� w. 3 I F. TENTADVE- r , xmr �p0.M N05 a e PARCEL 2- b72 J 9C 3 \, d-�♦6 om. ' I� SCR g451 1=. ppR I^ I i I Q M8_ I mc�Nm nuP a ,o za .o eo eo scXU=: , Ixa - m EFrr _ — J T BIDE .1 .FAA. c r Emrf rz ze w of &OL - P PS b PROJECT SRE NEWPORTBEACH, RNIA CALIFO d3b3 o, 43b�18 x.w Ow�ER Pp bbi 'OF , „� w. 3 I F. TENTADVE- r , xmr �p0.M N05 a e PARCEL 2- b72 J 9C 3 \, d-�♦6 om. ' I� SCR g451 1=. ppR I^ I i I Q M8_ I mc�Nm nuP a ,o za .o eo eo scXU=: , Ixa - m EFrr Attachment too. PC 3 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Document available at the City's Environmental Document Download page located at: http: l/ www .newoortbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1347 1 ►a. Attachment No. PC 4 General Plan Land Use Element Text Changes 113 AnammOl Number i Stallstical Area land Use Desi natlon Development limit(sn Development 111MO (giber) AddlflonalInformation 1 L4 MU -H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not Included In total square footage) 2 L4 MU -142 4,0 0,-1461 690 3 L4 MG 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 6 to MU -1-12 32,500 6 L4 MU -1-12 34,500 7 L4 MU -1-12 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (Included to total square footage) 10 L4 MU -H2 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (ho[ Included In total square footage 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -H2 457,880 13 L4 CO-G 288,264 14 L4 CO•G1MU -H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16' L4 MG 344,231 17 L4 MU -1-12 33,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included In totalsquare footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 A CO-G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 C04 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 Pi 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 iG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 76,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 11F tO Anomaly Statistical load Use Development. Number Area Designation 11mif go Development limit other Additionallnformallon Administrative Office and Support Facilitates; 30,000 sf 33 M3 PI 163,680 Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 of Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 L1 CO-R 484,348 35 L1 00 -R 199,095 36 L1 MR 227,797 2,660 Theater Seals (not 37 L1 CO -R 131,201 included In total square footage) 38 L1 00•M 443;627 39 L1 MU -1-13 408,684 40 1.1 MU -H3 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (Included in total Square Footage) 41 1.1 CO -R 327,671 42 Lt 00 -R 286,166 43 L1 Cv 611 Hotel Rooms 1,700 Theater Seats (not 44 1.1 CR 1,619,525 Included In total square footage) 45 L1 00 -G 162,364 46 L1 MU -1-131PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted fn accordance with MU -1-13. 47 L1 CG 105,000 48 L1 MU -1-13 337,261 40 L1 PI 45,208 50 Li CG 26,000 51 K1 PR 20,000 52 K1 CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 567,500 See SettlementAgmement 54 11 CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 419,440 In no event shall the total 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus combined gross floor area of 66 A3 Pt 577 ggg of Lower Campus both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq, It. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 tO IMMIE • • tandUse Designation • 1 - Development flind (Other) - Additional Information Anomaly Number statistical Area Development tfmlf 50 H4 MUMI 487,402 157 Hotel Rooms and 144 Dwelling Units (Included in total square footage) 60 N CV 2,660,000 2150 Hotel Rooms total square footage) (included in 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 ON 66,000 64 M3 ON 74,000 65 M5 ON 80,000 66 J2 ON 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 ON 75,000 70 D2 RM -O Parking Structure for Say Island (No Residential Units) 71 L1 CO-G 11,630 72 L1 CO-G 8,000 73 A3 CO -M 350,000 74 1.1 PR 35,000 76 L1 PF City Hail, and the administrative offices of the City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. Mi 119' Attachment No. PC 5 Planned Community Text Changes 119 120 PART II Section I, Group I 106JUN Site Area and Buildinp Area PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. Site A Site B Site•C Site D Site E Site F Site G 1.1 Site A Site B Site C Site D Site B Site F Site G Building Sites (4) Total Acresge 30,939 acres * (29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 5 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) Allowable Building Area 366,147 square feet G74,MV square feet 240,149 square feet 32,500 square feet 24,300 square feet 45.000 square feet Office Acresge 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres f8) 122.574 acres(8)(10)(11) *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres netwithin Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) 121 C. 2. Site B Statistical Anal sis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking O teria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. Allowable Building Area Site Area RP 19 c. Building Heilrt Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parking 13259 cats ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30) ..... I... 43.703 acres (4) (11) Landscaped Open Space (11) Two story development Three story.development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Land Coverage (16,28,30) ........... 4717411_22 acres 7,4748 acres ............. 6:355.61 acres 4:441.49 acres ............ 3703.74 acres ..... I........ 34q3.21 acres ............... 2-.=782.81 acres 3472.49 acres .... ... ..... I. 2M2.24 acres ............... X2.04 acres "1-:85^1.87 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) ............... "27-16 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) .............. 5445.32 acres ............... 9.-*9.06 acres ............... 3 -1, acres ............ .V 8 2.05 acres ............... 43112.80 acres ...... I........ 4-3,913.33 acres ............... 14:0413_73 acres ............... 44 514_05 acres ........... 44:6014.30 acres ..... I...... 44-801.4.50 acres ............... 4169714_67 acres 122 Attachment No. PC 6 Comment Letters X23 124 June 7, 2010 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 , 949,252.5170 fax: 949.2526012 REMMD BY PLANNING+IMPAMMIT Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner JUN 1.6 2010 City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 CITY OF r BpAC$ Subject: NOI to Adopt MND for PRES Office Building B Project Dear Ms, Brown: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed PRES Office Building B Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA XELUP). The proposed project includes a division of the existing parcel into two separate parcels and the preparation of a parcel map. Parcel One would include the existing office building and surface parking spaces, .and Parcel Two would include the proposed office building and surface parking spaces located at 4300 Von Kannan Avanpe, Newpoit,Beach, California. We wish to' offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with preparation of your Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). As discussed in the initial study, the proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. The initial study states that the proposed project does not require the filing of Form 7460 -1 with the FAA. We suggest that the MND discuss the height at which the notification surface would be penetrated compared to the proposed building heights. We also recommend that the MND include a discussion of the proposed project's location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA With respect to noise, the initial study states that the proposed project is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA. However, the initial study should also discuss whether the project falls within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA. Per the AELUP for JWA, noise impact within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour is sufficient to require sound attenuation as set forth in the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations. The MND should discuss whether the project falls within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA and include evidence that the proposed structure will be. sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. 1 �5 ALUC Comments -City of Newport Beach PRES Office Building B Project June 7, 2010 Page 2 . In addition, we recommend the NfND discuss whether the development of heliports will be part of the proposed project. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop newheliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply firlly with the State permit procedure provided by Iaw and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County, and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics, A referral by.the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the location of the proposal within an ABLUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. General Plan Amendment) udder PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Urnnas at (949) 252 -5123 or via email at iumnas@ocair.conr if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, Kati A. Rigoni Executive Officer 126 3outhem califotaia Gas Company A Sempra Energy utfnty" May 27, 2010 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Janet Johnson 7CgIVED BY LLA��CDER�TMEN'r 3uN u � aolo CITY OP NDN"09i $�p;CX� 1919 S. Stale Cottage Blvd. Anehalm, CA 92806 -6114 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for PREPS Office Building B Project. PA2007 -213 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service, Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed, Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particular s service may be obtained by contacting the Baldwin, (714)634 -3267. Sincerely, AOL- Paul Simonoff Technical Supervisor Orange Coast Region- Anaheim Faker mitnegdedoo and any costs associated with initiating Planning Associate for your area, Dave i2-1 STAn QF CALMRNIA— ROSINESS. TRANSFORTATSON AND HOLISM AGENCY ARNOL13 SCHWAR2MOOER Gwv r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dislrlot 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 386 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 Fax: Pt youffldwiri 949 { ) 724.2592 REC)aIYIID BY "` ire energy efJlclerx June 712010 PLANMO b.OPARTaes±1,1T JUN 10 polo Janet Johnson Brown File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach MY OF NEWPORT BEACH SCH#i None 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2534 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SR -73, SR- 55,SR -1, and 1.405 Subject, PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments Dear Ms.Brown, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration fox' the PRE, S Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments project. The project involves a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the boll Center Newport Planned Community text, as well as, development of a 11,960- gross- square -foot single tenant office building proposed for construction. The nearest State route to the project site is SR -73, SR-55, SR -1, and 1 -405. The California Department of Transportation (Departtnent), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and we have no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right -of -way, an encroachmentpermit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487, Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Cahrans lnrprom mobillW avrossCallfornfa" 128 LAW CIPPICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP A UNITED LIABILRY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDIRO PROTESRRORAL CORPORA10115 ANOELO J. PALMIERI IIBRB -19881 ROBERT F. WALDRON 9829.19981 ALAN H. WIENER' ROBERT C. WERE' JAMES E. WILNCWI DENNIS 0. TYLER' MICHAEL J. 009131 ' DENNIS W. %HAN' DAVID D. PARR' CHARLES rL KANTER' PATRICK A HENNEBSEY. DON RSHER OREDORY N. WEILER WARREN A WILLIAMS JOHN R. tSTER CYNTHIA LL WOLCOTT GARY C. W44809M RICHAEL A LEIFER scow R. CARPENTER RICHARD A SALUS NORMAN J. RODICH RONALD M COLE MICHAEL L D'ARDELO STRPHEN A SCHECK DONNA L SNOW RYAN M. EASTER ELISE M. KERN NELWA R. PER" KUTARETH VAIAOE2 ARISN J. BANKER MICHAEL I. REHOE ROBERT H. OARRET80N RYAN A PRAOER CMADMICk C. BUNCH ANNIE C. CBU JERAD BEL72 HEATHER N. W ITCHFAD REM RALBALL NADERR DEREK M OENANkE R JUUAN FREEMAN M ERICA M. SDROSKY CAB W W. SOURRE WMSERLY C. WDIRK M ) 14639 G "WTOR City ofNewport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard NewportBeach, CA 92658 Attn: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CAI.IPORNIA 820044a81 1949) 651 -9400 W W W.PtWWW.00M June 7,2010' gi JUN 0.7 20to n 17CYOPNEWPORTB19ACH P.O. BOX 19912 IRVINE, CA 92923 ^9902 WRITER'S DIRECT (949) 851-7340 WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER, (949) 825 -6404 FIRM'S DIRECT PACSIMILE NUMBERS (9491 891.1894 (0991 799.1229 reesterQptwwW.Cem REFER TO FILE NO. Re: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B Project, General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments Dear Ms. Brown: This office represents Meyer Properties Corp., a California corporation ( "Moyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Kalman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building") The Meyer Building is contiguous to the proposed project development of a 50 foot high, 11,960- gross - square feet single- tenant office building (the "Project ") at 4300 Von Kalman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach (the BC I ). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study ") for the Project, 129 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 2 We have reviewed the Study and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that the Study is inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). Based on the information provided in the Study, it is apparent that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR') must be prepared for the Project, 1. AN ETR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, A. Preparation ofEIR Pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR. whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75. "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project may have a significant impact." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, (3d Dist. 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881 -885, CEQA Guidelines §15384 defines "substantial evidence" as: "[E]nough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency." The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" for requiring preparation of an EIR. Citizens lledon to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1st Dist. 1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754. The standard is founded upon the principle that, because adopting a negative declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process" (Citizens of Lake Murray Area Assn. v. City Council (4th Dist. 1982) 129 .Cal. App. 3d 436), an EIR is necessary to "substitute some degree of 130 PALMTERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 3 factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation" and to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (19 74) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75). As one court put it, "[tjhese legal standards reflect a preference for requiring an EIR to be prepared." Mejia v, City of Los Angeles (2d Dist, 2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322, 332. There is certainly a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. The Study provides ample relevant information to support reasonable inferences that the Project will cause significant environmental impacts, and these inferences support a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared for the Project.. B. Signi,JlcantImpacts Identtfied in the Study. The significant impacts identified in the Study that trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project include, without limitation, the following; 1. General Plan Amendment, Section X(b) of the Study addresses whether the Project will "[cjonflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigatirig an environmental effect." This section briefly mentions that the City of Newport Beach General Plan (the "General Plan") must be amended to increase the allowable development square footage on the project site (the "General Plan Amendment "), The General Plan Amendment would increase the development limit in General Plan Anomaly Location 2, where the Project is located, by 11,452 gross square feet. Without the General Plan Amendment, the Project would exceed the maximum development limit set forth in the General Plan. 131 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON' LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 4 a, History and Pur op se of the General Plan, The Introduction of the General Plan sets forth the history and purpose of the General Plan, and the efforts that led to its adoption on July 25, 2006. - Specifically, the Introduction describes how thirty-eight residents representing all segments of the community (the "Committee ") developed the General Plan, after thorough study of input of thousands of residents, According to p. 1 -2 of the General Plan, the Committee spent more than four years "during the most extensive public outreach in the City's history" preparing the General Plan. Indeed, the Introduction celebrates the General Plan and the process by which the Committee and the City's residents participated to have their input incorporated into the document. The General Plan includes a "Vision Statement" that describes "what the residents want the City to be now and in 2025." Specifically, the Introduction states on p. 1 -2 that the General Plan was developed to ensure that the City achieves its Vision Statement by, inter alia, "[r]educing potential new commercial, office, and industrial space by 1.45 million square feet." The Introduction further states on p, 1 -9 that "the General Plan is also a tool to help City staff, City Commissions, and the City Council make land use and public investment decisions" and that "[fjuture development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." [Emphasis added]., b. Analysis of Impact to General Plan. The General Plan sets forth the maximum development limit square footage in specific areas of the City. This limit is consistent with the City's Vision Statement and the City's express stated goal to reduce potential new commercial and office space by 1.45 million square feet. Despite this limitation, the Project proposes to increase square footage limitations, in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals. Although the Project is in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals, the Study inexplicably concludes that the impacts relating to the amendment of the General Plan will be less- than - significant. Even worse, the Study provides no analysis of any environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment in the body of the Study, and simply concludes on p. 3 -44 that the 132- PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 5 amendment is "consistent with all General Plan .Policies." As stated above, the General Plan Amendment is clearly not consistent with the General Plan's Vision Statement aril stated goals. Please note that although Exhibit C to the Study provides some analysis of the consistency of the General Plan Amendment and the General Plan, Exhibit C fails to discuss the inconsistency between the General Plan Amendment and the General Plan's Vision Statement, stated goals, and the significant environmental impacts related thereto. The develop limitations in the General Plan are intended to guide the City staff, City Commissions, and the City Council when making land use decisions. These limitations, and the purpose of the General Plan, were completely ignored in the Study, This omission undermines the General PIan, and the work of the Committee and the residents of the City that expressed their interest In reducing commercial and office. square footage in the City. Moreover, the failure to identify and analyze the significant environmental impacts, associated with amending the General Plan, that are inconsistent with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals, challenges the foundation of the entire Study. The purpose of the Study is to determine the environmental impacts associated with the amendment of the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Text. Ironically, the Study fails to identify and analyze the environmental impacts that are associated with the subject of the Study. Adopting the Amended General Plan, which is in direct conflict with the General Plan, will cause significant environmental impacts that are required by CEQA to be identified and addressed in an EIR, Furthermore, these impacts may not be mitigated to a level below significance because the General Plan Amendment irreparably changes the limitations that were established as permanent restrictions in the General Plan. Accordingly, pursuant.to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to the adoption of the Amended General Plan must be addressed in an EIR. 2. Doll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards, Again, Section X(b) of the Study addresses whether the Project will "[O]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction 23 PATAXIERL TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 6 over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." This section briefly mentions that the Koff Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards (the "Kell Standards ") must be amended to increase the allowable development square footage on the project site (the %oll Standards Amendment "). The Koff Standards Amendment would increase the development limit for Site B of the Koll Center, where the Project is located, by 9,917 net square feet. Without the Koll Standards Amendment, the Project would exceed the maximum development limit set forth in the Kell Standards. a. Purpose of the Koll Standards. The Preface of the Koll Standards describes the zoning of the entire Koll Center property, and specifically identifies land uses within the property. For example, the Preface states that the Koll Center shall include a hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, service stations, and restaurants. Additionally, the Preface states that planned within the Kell Center property is "a business and professional office park emphasizing open space." [.Emphasis added]. Presumptive in this context is the preservation of view corridors softly enhanced with landscaping. b. Analysis of Impact to Kell Standards, The Koll Standards specifically limits the allowable building area on Site B to 967,803 square feet. One purpose for limiting the allowable building area on sites within the Koll Center, including on Site B, is to maintain the integrity of the Doll Standards' stated purpose to emphasize open space within the business and professional office park. Expanding the allowable building area on Site B directly conflicts with the Koll Standards. Furthermore, expanding the allowable building area for the purpose of building an additional building, where only open space, landscaping and a parking lot currently exists, undermines the stated policy of the Koll Standards to emphasize open space, As stated above, the purpose of the Study is to identify and analyze the environmental impacts associated with amending the Koll Center Standards. Without 134 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM'& WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 7 providing any analysis, the Study in Section X(b) simply concludes that the amendment of the Koll Center Standards is consistent with the land use designation and zoning of the site and the surrounding area. Expanding the allowable building area beyond the restrictions set forth in the Koll Center Standards is clearly not consistent with the land use designation and zoning of Site B. This is a significant environmental impact that is required by CEQA to be identified and addressed in an EIR. Furthermore, this impact may not be mitigated to a level below significance because the Koll Standards Amendment irreparably changes the limitations that were established as permanent restrictions in the Koll Standards. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to the adoption of the Kell Standards Amendment must be addressed in an EIR. Riparian Habitat. Contiguous to the project site is a lake (the "Lake ") that serves as a habitat for several species of birds. In particular, there is an abundance of the great white egret, a large, white, slender bird that commonly lives in coastal lakes, lagoons, and marshes. Many other birds frequent the Lake and surrounding areas, including but not limited to the brown pelican, the great blue heron, and the mallard duck. The Lake is in the immediate vicinity of local bird estuaries, such as the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary and the Upper Newport Bay. These bird estuaries serve as habitat to over 200 bird species, including protected species. Although the Lake is a man -made lake that is not a natural occurring part of the landscape, birds still utilize the Lake as habitat and move freely between the local estuaries, the Lake, and other Iocal bodies of water. One of the birds observed at the Lake or waterways nearby, the brown pelican, is a fully protected bird pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3511. Disturbing the proposed project site, which is in the immediate vicinity of the Lake, may have an adverse- effect on the birds that fiequent the Lake, including the brown pelican. Furthermore, a 50 foot high barrier so close to the Lake effectively closes the avian flight path corridor. Despite the potential to adversely affect the bird species that use the Lake as their habitat, the Study fails to address these potential impacts. Indeed, the Study merely states 135 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 8 in Section IV(b) that there will be no impact to any riparian habitat. Furthermore, the Study states that field surveys indicate that the project is void of any riparian habitat, To the contrary, the Lake is home to dozens of birds at any given time, and this Study should have provided further analysis of these bird species. The Study also states in Section IV(d) that there will be less - than - significant impact with mitigation incorporated to the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species. The proposed mitigation measures merely address environmental impacts associated with birds nesting in ornamental trees. There is no analysis or discussion in this section of the Study regarding any affects to birds using the Lake as a habitat. The Project may have significant adverse impacts on the habitat of several bird species, including the fully protected brown pelican. The Study failed to identify and address these impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to bird species that utilize the Lake as their habitat must be addressed in an EIR. 4, Aesthetics. The Koll Center is designed in an aesthetically pleasing fashion, with open grassy areas, and walkways throughout connecting the Lake and the buildings. As noted in the Koll Standards, the Koll Center was purposefully designed to be spacious and open. In addition, the Lake and its fountains serve as a centerpiece for the surrounding buildings, and contribute to the peaceful, park -like atmosphere of the Koll Center. a. Scenic Resources. Section I(b) of the Study addresses whether there will be any impact to scenic resources. The Study concludes that there will be no impact. However, this section provides no analysis of the potential impact to the Lake. To the contrary, this Section merely states, arbitrarily, that no impact will occur because the project site does not have any rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or designated scenic highways in the vicinity. Scenic resources are not limited to rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or designated scenic highways. The Initial Study Environmental Checklist merely lists these three scenic resources as examples. Limiting the scope of the analysis to these 13(0 PALMIEBI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 9 three resources, which are only three examples amongst many others, inadequately analyzes the potential impacts to scenic resources, Frankly, the Study completely ignores any other potential scenic resources, such as the Lake, that may be affected by the Project, Moreover, the Study minimizes the Lake's value as a scenic resource throughout the Study by referring to the Lake as a "retarding basin." Although the Lake provides certain water retention functions, it is designed as a scenic resource, complete with fountains and landscaped areas located in the Lake itself. A casual observer of the Lake may not be able to notice that it provides water retention functions, but he will certainly notice the Lake's scenic features, such as its fountains, Likewise, the Study fails to mention that a 36 ft, tall mature tree that has been a fixture at the Koll Center would be cut down if the proposed building is constructed at the proposed location. Mature trees are important landmarks that characterize the area and the Koll Center, and the removal of mature trees is a significant adverse environmental impact. The Project may have significant adverse impacts to the Lake and mature trees, scenic resources at the Kell Center. The Study failed to identify and address these impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to the Lake and mature trees as scenic resources must be addressed in an EIR. b. Visual Character of the Project Site Section I(c) of the Study addresses whether there will be any impacts that will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This section concludes that there will be a less- than - significant impact. However, like Section I(b), this section again ignores any impacts to the Lake. Furthermore, this section fails to recognize that the Project will alter the open and spacious character of the business park. Indeed, the Study admits, in this section, that "the project site is located in a fully developed planned. community." Despite this admission, the Study fails to analyze the impact to the visual character of the Project site, which is already fully developed. Expanding development square footage beyond the maximum established in the Koll Standards, in a fully developed planned community that 3.1 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILEELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 10 was purposefully designed to be open and spacious, will certainly change the visual character of the Koll Center. In addition to changing the visual character of the Koll Center by eliminating open space, the Project will also change the visual character of the Koll Center by eliminating aerial space. The Project proposes constructing effectively a four - story, 50 ft. high building directly between the existing PRES building and the Meyer Building. The existing PRES building and the Meyer Building are both low, single -story buildings that intelligently blend into the landscaping and that have been methodically planned to have minimal impact on the open space, view corridors, and avian pathways, The proposed Building B will be approximately four times the height of the buildings around it. Therefore, the Project will result not only in a significant decrease to open space, but also a significant decrease in aerial space in the Project area. The Project may have significant adverse impacts to visual character of the Project site. The Study failed to identify and address these impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to the visual character of the Project site must be addressed in an EIR. 5. Water Qualitx. The proposed project is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed, San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, and. drains all or portions of the City, Additionally, the Lake also serves as a retarding basin that serves to reduce the flow rate generated by upstream development, and to aid in efficiently controlling the flow rate to smaller, older drainage systems downstream. The Study correctly identifies that there may be adverse environmental impacts to waste discharge requirements, drainage patterns, excessive runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, water quality, and erosion or siltation. However, the Study does not provide analysis of these impacts, To the contrary, the Study skips any analysis of these impacts, and instead only discusses potential mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are indeed necessary to reduce potential. impacts to water quality; however, such measures may be ineffective if they are not narrowly tailored to prevent specific, delineated impacts. The construction of a building next to the Lake, and 138 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Tune 7, 2010 Page I 1 the addition of new landscaped areas, presents a significant risk of environmental impacts to water quality, stormwater drainage, excessive runoff water, water contamination, and erosion or siltation that must be fully analyzed. Once these impacts have been analyzed, appropriate mitigation measures may be recommended and implemented to address specific impacts. The Lake is circumvented by a berm that appears to be a design element for the beauty and benefit of the Koll Center that also effectively funnels water from surrounding areas into the Lake. Given the way the Lake is uniquely situated in the Koll Center, general mitigation measures, such as those listed in the Study, may not be effective in preventing significant environmental impacts to the Lake, Additionally, the Study does not identify and analyze the requirement to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permit. An NPDES permit may be required for this Project because of the proposed building's proximity to the Lake, and the potential for discharge . of pollutants into the Lake. Recent changes to. the law have established more stringent standards that govern the discharge of pollutants and the issuance of NPDES permits. Accordingly, an analysis of the potential impacts relating to discharge of pollutants should have been identified and analyzed in the Study. The Project may have significant adverse impacts to the Lake that affect the many impacts related to water quality identified in the Study, as well as the impacts related to discharge of pollutants. The Study failed to adequately analyze these impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the potentially significant, environmental impacts relating to water quality of the Lake must be addressed in anEIR. b. Fire Protection/Public Services. Section XIV of the Study addresses potential impacts to fire protection and other public services in the project area. This section correctly recognizes that the Project will result in additional fire and public service impacts relating to the addition of a new building and additional employees to the Project area. When discussing impacts relating to fire safety, this section omits any discussion of the spacing and location of the buildings, and whether the spacing is adequate and compliant with relevant fire and safety codes. Additionally, this section does not analyze 139 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 12 whether there is adequate hydrant coverage in the project vicinity with the addition of the proposed building. Furthermore, this Section recognizes that there will be an increase to the population at the project site by approximately 53 employees. However, the Study provides no analysis supporting its assertion that the population at the project site will increase by 53 employees. Nor does the Study recognize that the population increase will also include visitors that are not employees, such as vendors, customers, and clients. Inclusive of the population other than employees, the total population increase may be much greater than estimated in the Study. The Study also does not support its assertion regarding the origination of the additional population. Indeed, the Study arbitrarily concludes that the population increase will come from the local population, and therefore have no effect on public services, such as fire protection and police protection. The NewportArvine business district attracts workers from all areas of Orange County, as well as some from Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. There is no justifiable reason to assume that these employees will come from the local population, especially considering that homes in the immediate vicinity are priced significantly higher than the Orange County median. Moreover, a population increase of 53 employees (or more), even from the local community, has the potential to adversely impact public services. The Project may have significant adverse impacts to fire protection, police protection, and other vital public services. The Study falls to identify and address these impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to public services must be addressed in an EIR. 7. Traffic. Section XVI of the Study identifies impacts related to transportation and traffic. The Study concludes that the project will have no impacts to transportation and traffic that are not less - than - significant. Specifically, the Study states that the impacts to intersection level of service standards will be less- than - significant. Section XVI(b), on p. 3 -63, discusses level of service for Congestion Management Program intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project, as follows; "All intersections are operating at LOS C or worse. BE PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 13 Therefore, the addition of the proposed project's AM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS D or worse." This section states further that, "the addition of the proposed project's PM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS E," The conclusions reached in this section are contradicted by the facts and analysis set forth in Section XVI(b). It is axiomatic that if the Congestion Management Program intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project are currently operating at LOS C or worse, the addition of AM and PM peak hour trips may downgrade the existing LOS from LOS C or worse to LOS D or worse. The Study curiously fails to reach the correct conclusion and effectively disregards its own findings, Furthermore, the Study fails to address any impacts associated with the construction staging area, which will eliminate access from the Project site to the office buildings to the east, and which will reduce access to and from the Project site to only the Von Darman access point. Eliminating an access point will clearly have an impact on traffic, and this impact was not analyzed in the Study. . The Project may have significant adverse impacts to traffic and transportation, and specifically to the level of service at intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project and elimination of access points to the Doll Center, The Study fails to adequately identify and address these impacts, Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, the significant environmental impacts relating to traffic and transportation must be addressed in an EIR. As evidenced by the litany of impacts associated with the Project, to traffic and transportation, public services, and otherwise, the General Plan and the Koll Standards were drafted with allowable development square footage limitations to prevent and avoid the specific impacts discussed in this comment letter, Expanding the development limitations established in the General Plan and the Doll Standards triggers a domino effect of adverse environmental impacts that these documents were drafted to prevent. III PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 14 II. Additional Considerations Relating to the Proiect. In addition to the environmental concerns relating to the Project discussed above, there are several other concerns relating to the Project and its impacts to the Koll Center, and the property owners located therein, as follows; A. Restaurant Buildiner LOcated in Koll Center, A restaurant occupied the building directly adjacent to the proposed Project site, located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, until the restaurant closed in 2004 (the "Restaurant Building "). Since the restaurant closed, the Restaurant Building in which it was located has been provisionally operated as an office building. The Restaurant Building was planned and designed for use as a restaurant, and its plan and design remains the same today. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Restaurant Building will be converted back to use as a restaurant. When the Restaurant Building operated as a restaurant, it required many more parking spaces then will be available after the existing parking lot is removed, and the Project is built -out. In order to accommodate customers to the restaurant, supplementary parking must.be added to the Koll Center, further developing a "fully developed planned community." Additional projects in the Kell Center, such as the construction of additional parking areas for the Restaurant Building, may be required to be analyzed in the Study if they are reasonably foreseeable. Failure to analyze such projects may amount to unlawful piecemealing, as further described below. Section 15378(a) of the CEQA Guidelines defines "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. "Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors ofMidpennsulia Region Open Space District (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136. Accordingly, to the extent additional development in the Koll Center is reasonably foreseeable, such as dhe development of additional parking areas.to accommodate customers at the Restaurant Building, these additional developments must be analyzed together with the Project. Prior to approving and proceeding with the Project, the City should carefully consider all impacts to the Koll Center that are associated with the reconversion of the 14 2 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 15 Restaurant Building to use as a restaurant, including analyzing parking impacts associated therewith. B. Future Development in the Koll Center. This Project may set a regrettable precedent for expanding development in the Koll Center, As the City correctly identifies on p. 3 -5, the Koll Center is a "fully developed planned community." Despite this admission, the City is still considering expanding the allowable development square footage in a business center that is fully developed.. If the City proceeds with the Project, it is reasonably foreseeable that all other open spaces within the Koll Center are subject to further development. Current and future property owners will be unable to rely on the recorded documents that provide and restrict the applicable land uses for their properties. Furthermore, as discussed above, if the City intends to develop additional open spaces in a similar fashion, it may be required to analyze these additional projects in an EIR, along with analysis of the Project. Failure to include an analysis in an EIR of all reasonably foreseeable projects in the Koll Center may amount to unlawful piecemealing in violation of CEQA. Considering the City's position in City of Newport Beach v. City off)-vine (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2008 - 00228855 -CU -'U M -CXC), the City should understand the inherent "unfairness" of this Project as it relates to other owners in the Koll Center, C. Violationn of the Koll Center CC&Rs. The Koll Center is a master planned business park and is subject to and restricted by that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Kell Center Newport Beach, recorded July 20, 1973 (the "CC &Rs "). The CC &Rs reference the troll Standards and apply the same allowable building area limitations. Accordingly, amending the Kell Standards also directly conflicts with the allowable building area limitations set forth in the CC &Rs. 143 PALMIERI, TYLER, IVIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 16 Purpose of the CC&Rs. The purpose of the CC &Rs, as stated on pp. 3 -4 therein, inter alias "is to insure proper development, use and maintenance of the Property, to protect each Owner of any portion of the Property against improper development and use of other portions of the Property whieh will depreciate the value of such Owner's portion," "to encourage the erection of attractive Improvements at appropriate locations," "to prevent haphazard and inharmonious Improvements," and "to provide adequately for a high type and quality of development of the Property in accordance with the [Kull] Standards." [Emphasis added), 2. Analysis of Impact to CC&Rs. The CC &Rs apply the same allowable building area limitations to Site B that are set forth in the Koll Standards, limiting development to 967,803 square feet. The allowable building area limitations are established to preserve and maintain the stated purpose of the CC &Rs. Increasing the allowable building area limitations for the purpose of building an additional building on Site B will violate the purpose of the CC &Rs. Specifically, this increase violates all of the purposes of the CC &Rs listed above; (1) to protect each owner of any portion of the property near the Project, including Meyer, against improper development and use of other portions of the Koll Center. property which will depreciate the value of such owner's portion; (2) to encourage the erection of attractive improvements at appropriate locations, such as locations that provide for the requisite allowable building area; (3) to prevent inharmonious improvements, such as the Project, that will diminish the open and spacious character of the KoII Center at Site B; and (4) to provide for development in accordance with the Koll Standards, including the allowable building area limitations. The surrounding property owners, including Meyer, will be negatively affected by the Project, in violation of their property rights established in the CC &Rs, The open and spacious character of the Koll Center will be diminished, along with the property values of the neighboring properties. Site B currently boasts attractive open space with ample common areas surrounding the Lake. Increasing development density beyond the maximum allowable building area will eliminate open area and diminish the spacious character of Site B. 149• PALMIERI, TYLER, LVIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach June 7, 2010 Page 17 The City should carefully consider the consequences to other property owners in the Koll Center prior to approving and proceeding with the Project. In addition to the negative environmental impacts, the Project takes private property rights from Meyer and the other owners of property in the Koll Center. Accordingly, expanding the allowable building area in the Koll Center, and therefore taking private property rights of owners of property in the Koll Center, is a drastic measure that should not proceed without full consideration of the consequences to all property owners in the Koll Center. III. Conclusion. The Study has identified many significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project. A fair argument can clearly be made that based on substantial evidence, the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, these impacts cannot be mitigated to a level below significance. In addition, this Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, the Koll Standards, the C.0 &Rs, and. may be a part of other reasonably foreseeable projects that must be analyzed together with the Project in an EIR. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR to adequately analyze and address the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the Study and this comment letter. Very truly yours, yan M. Easter RME:fJf cc: Michael H. Leifer, Esq. 145 9i� ATR OF_ 9919M NATIVE AMERICAN HER1TA0i COMMISSION 946 CAPnoL MALL, AOOfA 954 $AORAMENT0, OA 955f i (916) 569.6261 Fag t916) 667.5896 Wob site ersnv.naaexsa,94V. emtala de —nabeftaobolLnet May 26, 2010 Ms. Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 R oopSPAR pf, Jill► 4 1 {T ' oj� �4 yq�L� Dear Ms. Johnson Brown: Government Code §66382.3 and .5 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes Identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting, andfor mitigating impacts to cultutal places. Attached is a Native American Tribal Consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the requested plan boundaries As a part of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record searches through the NAHC and California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to. determine It any cultural places are located within the area(s) affected by the proposed action. A NAHC Sacred Lands Pile search was conducted based on the project site n information Included In your request and NO Native Amerlcan cultural resources were found within the'area of potential effect' (APE) you identified. However, there are Native American cultural resources in close proximity to the APE. Also, local governments should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a cultural place. I suggest you consult with all of those on the accompanying Native American Contacts list, which has been included separately. If they cannot supply Information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge about cultural resources In your plan area. If a response has not been racelved within two weeks O notlficailon, the Commieston requests Piet you follow -up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 663.6261. 2";q Dave Singleton Program Analyst Attachment: Native American Tribal Government Contacts 14 to LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMBED UASI IT' AMITHENSMIP INCLUDING PROFV*FORAL CORPORATIONS ANGELO J. PALMIERI (1928-19985 ROBERT F. WALORCH 11927.1098) ALAN R WIENER' STEPHEN A SCHECK ROBERT C. IHRKV COMMA L SHOW JAMES E. WILHELM- AYAH M. EASTER DENNIS O. MEN- ELISE M MEN MICHAEL J. ORE v MELBA R PERE2 DENNIS W. 9HAN- ELIZABETH VALADE2 DAVID M PAN.- ANISH J. BANKER CHARLES H. NAINTER' MICHAEL 1. KEHOE PATRICK A. HENNCSSCY ROBERT N. GARRETSON DON FISHER RYAN M. PRAGER GREGORY H. WEBER CHACWWK C. BUNCH WARREN A. WILUAMS ANNIE C. CAU JOHN A. LIBYER JERAO BELTZ CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT HEATHER H. WHIT¢IIEAD GARY C. WEiSOERO ERIN SAUARA RACLIN MICHAEL H. LEIFER DEREK M. DEHANME SCOTT R. CARPLNTER F. JULUk" FREEMAN NI RICHARD A SALUS MCA M. SOROSKY NORMAN J. ROOICH CASL W. ROURME RONALD M. COLE KIMBERLY C. WOMIIR MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO A MORSSIOHM CPMOWTOX 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CAUFORNIA 926444261 (9491 881 -9400 w ..Ptwwwcom August 5, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Robert Hawkins Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Bradley Hillgren Fred Ameri Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. BOX 197 }2 IRVINE. CA 92623 -97ta WRITER'S DIRECT CtAI. NUMBER (949) 851 -7340 WRITER'S GIREC.T FACSIMILE: NUMBER (949) 825 -8404 FIRM'S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMOEAS (0491 961 -1654 (949) 767.1225 reasteraptwww.00m REFER TO FILE NO. 31191 -001 Re: FIRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4; PA2007 -213) Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners :. This office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building "). 14-1 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 2 The Meyer Building is contiguous to the proposed project development of a 50 foot high, 11,960- gross- square feet single- tenant office building (the "Project ") at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach (the "City'). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for.the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study (the 'Errata ") (which was released to the public on July 30, 2010), for the Project. Please note that Meyer did not receive notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on the Project scheduled for August 5, 2010. We discovered the meeting through our own research. Please ask City staff to ensure that all required notices for projects in the vicinity of or affecting the Meyer Building be sent in accordance with the law. As you are aware, this office submitted a comment letter on behalf of Meyer on June 7, 2010 (the "initial Comment Letter "). The purpose of the Initial Comment Letter was to provide comments to the City regarding the inadequacy of the environmental review of the Project set forth in the Study, to inform the City that the proposed general plan amendment and amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards should not be adopted without first performing adequate environmental analysis pursuant to an environmental impact report, and that the Project is otherwise inappropriate for the Koff. Center. The City has prepared the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, that the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and that the Project is inappropriate for the Koll Center, I. CHARTER SECTION 423 MEASURE S): SPLIT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. In addition to the proposed general plan amendment for the Project, another general plan amendment (see Agenda Item No. 5) is being proposed for a similar project in PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 3 that is also within the Koli Center (the "Related Project "). This additional general plan amendment proposes to expand the additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, where both the Project and the Related Project are located, by 11,544 square feet. The general plan amendment for the Project also proposes to expand additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 by 11,544 square feet. As discussed in detail below, these general plan amendments should not be considered independently, and should be combined into a single general plan amendment that is subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. A. Text of Charter Section 423. As noted on p. 8 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report for the August, 5, 2010 meeting, Agenda Item No. 4 (the "Staff Report"), Charter Section 423. requires voter approval for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. The text of Charter Section 423 states as follows: "Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. A'major amendment' is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic.that allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or intensi . 'Significantly increases' means over 100 Peak hour trios (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity); these thresholds shall apply to the total of: 1) Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years. 'Other amendments' does not include those approved by the voters. 'Neighborhood' shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City. 'Voter aaaroval is required' means that the amendment shall not take effect unless it has been submitted to the voters and aooroved by a majority of those voting on it. Any such amendment shall be submitted to a public vote as a separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the city council at the same time as one or more other amendments to the City's General Plan. The city council shall set any 141 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 4 election required by this Section for the municipal election next following city council approval of the amendment, or, by mutual agreement with the applicant for the amendment, may call a special the applicant and the City as they may agree. In any election required by this Section, the ballot measure shall be worded such that a YES vote approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall be void and shall have no effect." [Emphasis added ..] B, Addition ONon- Residential Square Feet to Statistical Area L4 as Calculated in the 5taff Report. The Staff Report indicates that none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded by the proposed general plan amendment for the Project. This conclusion is based on the calculations set forth in Tables I and 2 of the Staff Report. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the additional square feet of non - residential floor area and increases of peals hour vehicle trips for two proposed general plan amendments, identified as GP2007 -009 and GP2008 -007, and a general plan amendment that was adopted on January 9, 2007, GP2006 -096. GP2007 -009 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Project and GP2008 -007 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Related Project. The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the cumulative additional square feet of non - residential area that will be added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 39,992 square feet, As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase density by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area requires voter approval. Accordingly, Table 2 of the Staff Report indicates that the two proposed general plan amendments will fall merely 8 square feet shy of the 40,000 square foot limitation that would require voter approval. Please note that the calculation of 39,992 square feet was reached by characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a "past amendment," therefore reducing the additional square footage proposed to be added by the general plan amendment for the Project to 80, percent of the actual additional square 150 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 5 footage. As set forth above, the thresholds for Charter Section 423 are determined by adding the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself to 80 percent of the increases resulting from the other amendments affecting the same Statistical Area and adopted within the preceding ten years. Without characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, the total additional square footage resulting from the two proposed general plan amendments and the general plan amendment adapted in 2007 would be 42,300.8 square feet, which would require the general plan amendment to be subject to voter approval C. Addition oiPeak -Hour Vehicle Trips, The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the additional peak hour trips that will be added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 20,54 A.M. trips and 19.85 P.M. trips. As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase peak hour trips by 100 requires voter approval. In the aggregate, the three amendments listed in Table 2 will increase A.M. peak hour trips by 85.25 and P.M. peak hour trips by 95.09. Collectively, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips will be increased by 180.34, if the proposed general plan amendment is characterized as a "past amendment," and 188.4175 peak hour trips if the two proposed general plan amendments are combined into a single.amendment. Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips. To the contrary, it merely states that "'significant increase' means over 100 Beak hour trips," however, for purposes of analyzing whether the amendments are subject to voter approval, the Staff Report divides the peak hour trips into A.M. and P.M. When the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are combined, they are greater than 100. Regardless of whether the general plan amendments for the Project or the Related Project are considered together or in independent amendments, the aggregate peak hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. 151 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 6 D. The Proposed General Plan.Amendments Are Sect to Voter Approval Pursuant to Charter Section 423. The two proposed general plan amendments each propose to increase the maximum development limit of the General Land Use Element of the General Plan by 11,544 gross square feet. Both general plan amendments are proposed for similar office building development projects within the same planned community business. center, the Koll Center. Likewise, both projects will require an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase allowable building area for each proposed office site. Effectively, these two amendments are collectively proposing to expand office development within the Koll Center. Despite the cohesiveness inherent in planned communities, and documents relating to planned communities, the expansion of the office park has been split into two separate proposals. Given that both projects are being planned at the same time, are located within the same business center, and both propose to expand allowable development within Statistical Area L4, there is no apparent reason why the expansion of allowable development within the Koll Center would be piecemealed into two separate general plan amendments, What is apparent, however, is that these two proposed general plan amendments would require voter approval if the amendments were not split. As detailed above, without the benefit of characterizing the general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, and therefore reducing the additional square footage for the Project by 20 percent, a general plan amendment that includes the additional square footage for both developments in the Koll Center would require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. The division of the proposed general plan amendments serves no purpose other than to circumvent voter approval. Approving these two amendments will effectively appropriate the power vested in the citizens of the City of Newport Beach to limit allowable development as set forth in the General Plan. Accordingly, these two amendments should not be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the amendments should be combined and reconsidered as one general plan amendment, and the combined general plan amendment should be subject to voter approval. 152- PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 7 II. UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT. CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). "Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors of Midpennsulia Region Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136 (1988). California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project" consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not "split' a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena,4irport Authority v. Hensler (1991) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3rd 263 (1975). Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Related Project, an additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Related Project, and a massive residential development project in the Koll Center and property contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the 'Residential Project'). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the Project is required to be analyzed together with the Related Project and the Residential Project. A. The General Plan Amendment and Amendment to Koll Center Development Standards. As discussed above, the proposed general plan amendment for the Project and the proposed general plan amendment for the Related Project should be combined into a single amendment. The cumulative impacts of these two projects must be reviewed in a single environmental impact report, and cannot be analyzed independently. These two projects may have many cumulative impacts that are not identified and addressed in the 153 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 8 Study and the Errata. Likewise, the cumulative environmental impacts relating to the amendments to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Project and the Related Project must be analyzed together in a single EIR. The cumulative impacts of the two projects will certainly be greater than the sum of the impacts of each project as analyzed independently. For example, each project will result in environmental impacts to traffic, inter alla, in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Center. The cumulative impacts to traffic associated with the development of two projects within the Koll Center simultaneously will certainly be greater than the traffic impacts identified independently for each project. As set forth above, CEQA Guidelines provide a broad interpretation of "Project" to include the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). It is clearly reasonably foreseeable that the Project and the Related Project within the Koll Center may result in direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that are attributable to the cumulative impacts of the two projects. Accordingly, the split of each project within the Koll Center is unlawful piecemealing, and an EIR must be prepared to identify and analyze the cumulative environmental impacts associated with both projects. B. General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 and ,4irport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. In addition to the Related Project, the Planning Commission is also considering a project within the Koll Center, and immediately adjacent to the Koll Center, that proposes to build a residential village and utilize many of the common area features of the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (defined above as the "Residential Development"). While the Planning. Commission at its last meeting on July 22, 2010 continued further discussion on the Residential Development until an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is presented consistent with requirements articulated by the Planning Commission, the Residential Development is reasonably foreseeable. The Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project are all part of an. immense development scheme to greatly expand the office development and residential PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON I.LP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 9 development within the Koll Center and adjacent properties. The cumulative environmental impacts associated with the three projects will be much greater than the environmental impacts associated with each project independently. Furthermore, environmental impacts for each project have been analyzed independently in three different studies (none of which is an EIR), omitting the requisite analysis of cumulative impacts. Also, please note that it is irrelevant that different developers plan to implement the construction of each project. Each project is a smaller part of a greater sized, reasonably foreseeable project to expand the Koll Center to include additional office buildings and residential use. Regardless of how many developers are involved, the projects cannot be split into fragments for purposes of environmental analysis. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the "whole of the project' cannot be piecemealed into smaller projects to fragment environmental analysis thereof. It is reasonably foreseeable that the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project, will result in direct and indirect environmental impacts attributable to the cumulative effect of the construction of all three projects within the Koll Center. Accordingly, the environmental impacts associated with the three projects must be analyzed in a single environmental impact report. III. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT, Based on the information provided in the Study and the Errata, as well as the environmental impacts that were not analyzed therein, it is apparent that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") must be prepared for the Project. A. Preparation ofEIR Pursuant to CEQ. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. No Oil, Inc. v, City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3 d, 68, 75. "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project 155 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 10 may have a significant impact." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, (3d Dist, 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3.d 872, 881 -885. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, and further detailed below, a fair argument may be made that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. B. Environmental Impacts Identified and Analyzed in the Study and the Errata. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, there are several environmental impacts in the Study that trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project. Additionally, there are several environmental impacts that are identified in the Errata, and several environmental impacts that were not identified in either the Study or the Errata, that also trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project, as follows: 1. Aesthetics. The Errata does not expand on the identification and analysis of environmental impacts to scenic resources. Instead, the Errata revises the language relating to scenic resources to further limit any discussion of scenic resources to merely trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. As set forth in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study limited any analysis of impacts to scenic resources to the three examples provided in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway. The Errata confirms this limited scope of review of the environmental impacts to scenic resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Scenic resources are not limited to the three examples set forth in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The Lake and a 36 ft. tall mature tree located in the Project Area are scenic resources, impacts thereto must be analyzed, and such impacts were not analyzed in the Study nor the Errata. Accordingly, impacts to the Lake, the 36 ft. tall mature tree, and other scenic resources must be analyzed in an EIR. 156 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 11 2. Biological Resources, The Errata expands the analysis of environmental impacts to riparian habitat from the limited analysis that was provided in the Study. Specifically, a biological survey of the site was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010 (the "ICF Survey ") to determine whether the Project would impact the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. While we appreciate that the ICF Survey was conducted, apparently in response to the Initial Comment Letter, the ICF Survey and the Errata are inadequate to overcome the deficiencies in the Study. Paul Lehman ( "Lehman "), an expert on avian distribution and identification and former editor of the American Birding Association's Birding magazine, detailed in a letter (the "Lehman Letter ") recent biological surveys of the Project site conducted by Hamilton Biological, Inc, (the "Hamilton Survey "). The Lehman Letter analyzes the ICF Survey, the Hamilton Survey, and is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A ", along with Lehman's curriculum vitae. The conclusions reached in the ICF Survey differ greatly from the conclusions reached in the Lehman Letter. Furthermore, the ICF Survey was not conducted at appropriate times, analyzed potential impacts to species that have no potential to occur anywhere near the site, and failed to identify and analyze potential impacts to special - status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located 0.8 mile southwest of the Project site, or San Joaquin March, located 0.6 mile cast of the Project site, and likely to use the Lake as a habitat. Some of the more significant points raised in the Lehman Letter are as follows: a. The ICF Survey Was Not Conducted at Appropriate Times. The ICF Survey was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010. The Study also states that field surveys were conducted at the site (published prior to the ICF Study), but no specific studies are referenced in the Study and the ICF Survey is the only survey that is specifically referenced in the Errata. As stated in the Lehman Letter, various special- status species of wildlife are likely to visit and utilize the Lake at various times throughout the year. For example, the California Least Terns and Black Skimmers may forage at the Lake in the late Spring. No study was conducted during the Spring to determine whether special- status species forage at the Lake. Furthermore, as the Lehman Letter points out, the California Least Terns have failed -in Upper Newport Bay and this year is not representative of typical 157 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 12 years where such species would be expected to forage at the Lake. Likewise, the ICF Survey did not study during the known foraging patterns of other special - status species or study at appropriate times of day. b. Omission of the Study of Other Special - Status Species. The Lehman Letter identifies several species that are recognized as California Species of Special Concern that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Project site, but were not identified in the ICF Survey. These species include, without limitation, the following: (1) Least Bittern; (2) American Peregrine Falcon; (3) California Least Tern; (4) Black Skimmer; (5) Clark's Marsh Wren; and (6) Tricolored Blackbird. Additionally, the Lehman Letter identifies several species that are included on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on the Special Animals list that have been observed, or may be expected to occur at the Lake and the Project site include, without limitation, the following: (1) Allen's Hummingbird; (2) The Osprey; (3). Cooper's Hawk;. (4) Costa's Hummingbird; and (5) Nuttal's Woodpecker. Several species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are listed on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list have been observed, and may be expected to occur, at the Project. However, the potential impacts 158 PAIMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 13 to many of the species were not identified in the Study or the Errata. The potential impacts to these species must be identified in an EIR. C. Foraging and Flight Path. It is also important to note that the discussion of impacts to riparian habitat in the Study and the Errata limited the scope of review to species that may nest in the Project area. However, the Errata failed to discuss species that nest elsewhere, but forage in the Project area. Additionally, the Study and the Errata failed to identify and analyze any impacts to species whose flight path may be impacted by the erection of a 50 ft. tall building between the Lake and Lipper Newport Bay. The Study and the Errata failed to identify the potential impacts to these special - status species that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Lake and the Project site. Accordingly, a more detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts to the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project site must be included in an EIR for the Project. 3. Additional Revisions Provided in the Errata. In addition to revisions to the discussion of environmental impacts relating to aesthetics and biological resources, the Errata provides revisions to the discussion of impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and transportation and traffic. None of these revisions discussed cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project. Furthermore, the revisions discussed in the Errata do not cure the inadequacies identified in the Initial Comment Letter. The significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Comment Letter must be further analyzed in an EIR. In sum, these cumulative environmental impacts will be far greater than the impacts identified and analyzed independently in the environmental documents for each Project. Additionally, the analysis of the significant environmental impacts identified independently in the Study is inadequate. Accordingly, the environmental impacts must be identified and analyzed in a single EIR for the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project. 1s9 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 14 IV. GENERAL PLAN AND KOLL CENTER STANDARDS INCONSISTENCIES. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, the amendments to the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth therein. Additionally, the proposed exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards (the "Development Standards "), and the accompanying tentative parcel map are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth in the Development Standards. A. The Proposed General Plan Amendment for the Pro'e� ct is Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General Plan. The Initial Comment Letter discusses in detail the inconsistency between the general plan amendment for the Project and the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. The Errata made no revisions to the analysis of the environmental impacts to land use, and therefore the analysis of environmental impacts to land use in the Initial Comment Letter remains unrefuted. Generally, the general plan amendment for the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's maximum development limit square footage in specific areas of the City. This amendment is also inconsistent with the City's Vision Statement and the City's express stated goal to reduce potential new commercial and office space by 1.45 million square feet. Despite this limitation, the Project proposes to increase square footage limitations, in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals. B. Inconsistency with Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards, The Project proposes to amend the Development Standards to allow for an exception to minimum site area requirements and to allow an exception to off - street parking requirements. The Staff Report concludes that there are sufficient facts to support the requisite findings to allow an exception to minimum site area requirements provided by the Development Standards. Likewise, the Staff Report concludes that the City Council has the authority to approve of an exception to the off - street parking requirements of the Development Standards. ,/ PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 15 1. Exception to Minimum Site Area. The Development Standards require that a site area consist of no less than 30,000 square feet. The Project proposes to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel into two separate parcels. One parcel would consist of approximately 32,395 square feet, and the second parcel would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet. The Staff Report concludes that the granting of the exception is compliant with the requisite findings necessary to support the exception, as follows: (1) the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and (2) that the intent of the Development Standards are substantially met. Despite recommending the draconian measure of amending a fundamental tenet of the Development Standards, the minimum site area, that is a foundation of the Koll Center planned community, the City does not attempt to explain what circumstances exist that justify allowing such an exception. The Development Standards serve the purpose of establishing and preserving the cohesive nature of a planned business community. The facts in support of the findings provided in the Staff Report are simply too superficial to justify this exception. Although the site area may comply with building envelope requirements, setback requirements, and will not exceed maximum height restrictions, as the Staff Report points out, this does not justify allowing an exception to minimum site area. Nor does the fact that the project site is fully developed and that there are lot sizes in the vicinity of the site that are similar to or smaller than the proposed lot size. The facts in support of the fmding that the intent of the Development Standards are met are equally superficial. The principal intent of the Development Standards is to create a cohesive, planned community by establishing certain standards that will create a consistent and unified office park. Adopting an exception to any development standard is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of the Development Standards. Moreover, the Staff Report concludes on p. 12 that if the exception is granted, then the intent of the Development Standards will be met. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. The intent of the Development Standards must be determined by reviewing them prior to making exceptions. If the approval of an exception itself is manifest proof l61 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 16 of satisfaction of requisite intent, then the analysis of the intent of the Development Standards is a sham. Such a revision will set precedent for revising Development Standards in the future without actually considering the intent of the Development Standards prior to making such revision. The exception to the Development Standards for minimum site area is not supported by the findings set forth in the Staff Report, and therefore the exception for minimum site area should not be approved. 2. Exception to General Parking Requirement Standards. The Staff Report determined that the City Council has the authority to lower the off- street parking requirements from one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. Additionally, the Staff Report recommends that this exception be granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Staff Report notes that, if the exception to reduce the off - street parking requirement were granted, the intent of providing adequate off - street parking would be met. Again, these concepts are mutually exclusive and the approval.of an exception in and of itself may not be considered proof that the intent of the Development Standards was met. Furthermore, the analysis is too superficial to justify providing this exception. The Staff Report states that the off - street parking requirements are consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "NBMC ") for business and professional office use. This is irrelevant to the discussion of parking requirements that are specific to the Koll Center. The parking requirements in the Koll Center are more stringent than the general parking requirements set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code in order to preserve specific standards that were created for the Koll Center community. The general parking requirement standards were established to provide ample parking in the Koll Center, and to preserve standards that will create and preserve a consistent and unified office park. Accordingly, the exception to the general parking requirement standards should not be approved. koZ PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 17 3. Tentative Parcel Man, The Project proposes to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. In order to approve a tentative parcel map, the decision - making body must make all of the I 1 findings set forth in Section 19.12,070 of Title 19 of the NBMC. The Staff Report concludes that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and that the facts set forth in the Staff Report support all I I findings required by the NBMC. However, many of the findings required to approve the tentative parcel map cannot be met, including but not limited to the following: (1) The first finding requires that the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As discussed in detail above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Development Standards, Therefore, the tentative parcel map is inconsistent with the first finding, which is required to be met in order to approve the tentative parcel map. (2) The third finding requires that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Furthermore, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Again, as discussed in detail above, the Study and Errata have not adequately analyzed the potential impacts to species located in the Project area,, Furthermore, an EIR was not prepared for the Project, and therefore the decision - making body may not find pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that other considerations . make infeasible other alternatives. Accordingly, the third finding set forth in Section 19.28.0 10 of the N13MC cannot be met. (3) The fifth fording requires that the subdivision not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed { j0 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 18 subdivision. As stated above, the Residential Project proposes to utilize certain portions of the Koll Center as common areas for the benefit of the residents of the Residential Project. No analysis was provided in the Staff Report regarding any potential conflicts between the proposed Residential Project and the tentative parcel map. Not less than three of the 11 findings required to support approval of the tentative parcel map cannot be met. Additionally, further analysis of environmental impacts relating to land use, biological resources, and cumulative impacts attributable to the Project and the Related Project is required to determine whether all 11 of the findings may be met. Accordingly, the tentative parcel map cannot be approved under Section 19.28.010 of the NBMC. V. CONCLUSION. For the reasons set forth above, Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA, the general plan amendment and Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and the Project is inappropriate for and inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and Development Standards for the Koll Center. Very truly yours, Ryan M. Easter RME:fjf cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. - EXHIBIT "A" 1(05 i�(0 August 5, 2010 James B. Hasty, Senior Vice President Meyer Properties 4320 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Biological Review, PRES Office Building B Dear Mr. Hasty, At your request, I have reviewed environmental documentation provided by the CIty of Newport Beach (City) regarding a mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared in support of a project known as the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (PRES). This letter report provides the results of my review. My qualifications to conduct this review are provided in the attached biography. Methods I reviewed all relevant portions of the MND, provided on the City's web page. This included: ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Report dated July 2010 prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Section IV, Biological Resources. ICF International. 2010, Summary of Biological Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Memorandum dated June 2S, 2010, from biologist Paul Schwartz to project manager Nicole Williams. I also reviewed the letter dated June 7, 2010, from Ryan M. Easter of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, and the City's responses. Biologist Robert Hamilton of Hamilton Biological, Inc., visited the project site during the afternoons of July 31 and August 2, spending approximately one hour in the project vicinity during each visit. During these visits Mr. Hamilton noted plant and wildlife species present and the general condition of the project site and nearby man-made ponds on either side of Von Karman Avenue. Mr. Hamilton provided me with photographs showing the condition of the project site and the two nearby ponds, 6-7 Review Comments The main issues that stand out from my review of this project relate to the results of the literature search and the assumptions made by the project biologists about which species could, or could not, occur at the project site and adjacent retarding basin pond. The memorandum from Mr. Schwartz states: Prior to conducting the field survey, a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2010) search was completed to detect special - status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area. The species list resulting from the search is provided in Table 1. Table I include entries for numerous species of plant and wildlife that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site, and have no potential to occur anywhere near the site. These include Cismontane Nolina (Molina cismontana; occurs in the Santa Ana Mountains), Santa Ana River Woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum; unrecorded south of Featherly Park near the Riverside County line), and even the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens), a species with a natural distribution that includes only the northern part of California. Given that the project site is located near two man -made ponds that support small fish and emergent marsh vegetation, Table I should have included certain special - status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located only 0.8 mile southwest of the project site, and/or San Joaquin Marsh, located only 0.6 mile east of the project site. The following special -status species of potential relevance to the proposed project are not included in Table L• Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis). This California Species of Special Concern is known to occur In stands of cat -tails and tales at San Joaquin Marsh and other freshwater marshes in Orange County, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention the Least Bittern and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. However, given the relative small size and isolated, urban nature of this cat -tail habitat in the retarding basin pond, it is very unlikely that Least Bittern nests on the site, and this species would —at best—be a very irregular visitor. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). This state - endangered species is known to occur regularly at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh, and Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting, on the Marriott Hotel at Fashion Island in Newport Beach (Gallagher, S. J., and Bloom, P. H. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA). Although this species could occur on the project site, the MND failed to mention the Peregrine Falcon and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. The Peregrine Falcon would likely be an irregular visitor, mostly in search of possible prey at the retarding basin pond —and not to the actual proposed site of the PRIES building. 2 i c� 8 California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum brown). This species, listed as endangered by state and federal governments, nests on a sand island near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and is "regularly encountered at golf course ponds and similar sites within a mile or two of the coast" in Orange County (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA) and the same is true in San Diego County (pers. obs.). Given that their nearest nesting colony is located only 1.2 miles southwest of the project site (R. A. Hamilton pers. Comm.), and given the large population of small fish in the ponds adjacent to the project site (Mr. Hamilton noted that these fish are easily seen from the edges of the ponds), I believe that Least Terns might make rare or occasional summer foraging visits of these ponds during normal years. Mr. Hamilton did not see any terns at the ponds during his field visits, but the Least Terns have failed in their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.) and Mr. Hamilton has not seen them anywhere at the bay since early July (he monitors the ongoing dredging work at the bay and inspect the terns' nesting island approximately once a week). Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for Least Terns at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there,during a normal year. Black Skimmer (Aynchops niger). Like the Least Tern, this California Species of Special Concern regularly nests near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and regularly forages "within a mile or two of the coast" (Hamilton, R. A. and W illick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA). Similar to the tern, skimmers could make rare foraging visits to the ponds near the project site during normal years, probably at night. Mr. Hamilton did not see any skimmers at the ponds during his field visits, but, like the Least Terns, Black Skimmers have failed in their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.). Mr. Hamilton has seen low numbers of skimmers at the bay since early July. Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for skimmers at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there during a normal year. Clark's Marsh Wren (Cistorhorus palusirls clarkae). This California Species of Special Concern is a sedentary bird that occurs in stands of cat -tails and toles at San Joaquin Marsh and Upper Newport Bay, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention Clark's Marsh Wren and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelalus tricolor). This California Species of Special Concern breeds in emergent marsh vegetation and feeds in grasslands, sometimes including turf. Although it is doubtful that Tricolored Blackbirds make substantial use of this site, the MND failed to mention the Tricolored Blackbird and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. 3 M Several other species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, or identified as California Species of Special Concern, are placed on a "Special Animals" list by the California Department of Fish and Game: "Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the California Natural Diversity Data Base is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. (httn• / /dfe ca aov/ bioeeodntWenddb /odfs /SI'Aninrals odl) CEQA documents typically identify and evaluate a project's potential effects on all Special Animals that are known or expected to occur on a given site. Mr. Hamilton observed an Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus Basin) across the street from the project site on August 2, 2010. The Osprey (Pandion hallaetus) has been reported occasionally foraging in ponds near the project site (James Hasty pers. comm.). Other Special Animals with potential to occur on the site include Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperio,.Costa's Hummingbird (Calypie costae), and Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoi- des nullallir). The Osprey, which has only recently recolonized Orange County, is now known to nest at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. It seems unlikely that this species occurs regularly at the ponds near the project site, but this question was not evaluated in the MND. The other species mentioned above are common across much of Orange County and the wider region, and so are not especially "sensitive," but again, it is the project biologist's responsibility to evaluate their potential for occurrence on the site and to analyze the potential significance of any impacts. None of these species was mentioned in the biological documentation for the MND. Conclusions The stated objective of the biological report prepared for the MND was to identify "special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area," but evaluated a number of species that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site and/or that have no potential to occur in the project setting. More importantly, the MND did not evaluate various special- status species known to occur within a mile of the project site, at Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. I cannot do more than speculate about the actual status of several of these species identified in.this comment letter, but it should be stated that some of them have been reported on or near the site and others could potentially use the ponds, at least on an irregular basis. Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on a building in Newport Beach. The definitive publication on the status and distribution of birds in Orange County states that both California Least Terns and Black Skimmers regularly forage at freshwater sites within a mile or two of the coast (including "golf course ponds and similar sites" for the tern). Whether either of these species forage at the two ponds adjacent to the project site is unknown because adequate surveys were not conducted during the late spring/early summer period in 2010 when these species were actively nesting at Upper Newport Bay. Now that their local nesting has failed, numbers of both of these species at the head of Newport Bay are reduced from their normal late- summer 4 ��D levels (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and the birds that remain may not be following the foraging patterns they normally follow when they are raising.young. It is my conclusion that the MND is deficient in its failure to fully (1) discuss these special- status species and their known patterns of foraging in Orange County, (2) conduct surveys at appropriate times of year and appropriate times of day directed toward determining their status on the site, or (3) evaluate the potential effects of adding a tall structure along the flight -line between the Koll Center ponds and Upper Newport Bay, I appreciate the opportunity to provide this review. If you wish to review any matters, please call me at (858) 268 -1937 or send e-mail to lehman.paut@verizon.net. Sincerely, Paul E. Lehman Attachment: Lehman biography 5 (7, PAUL LEI HMAN 11192 Portobelo Drive, San Diego, CA 92124 858 - 268 -1937 (home); 609 -313 -3129 (cell) lehman.paul@verixon.net Paul Lehman has written many articles and papers on avian distribution and identification. Formerly a lecturer in physical geography and environmental studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and past editor of the American Birding Associations Birding magazine for nine years (1989 - 1997), Paul continues to give lectures on weather and bird distribution, migration, and vagrancy. He also leads bird tours throughout North America for Wings, Inc. He is an associate editor for both North American Birds and Western Birds magazines, and he has been a principal consultant on most of the popular field guides on the market today, primarily as the chief consultant and compiler for the range maps in The Sibley Field Guides to Birds of Eastern and Western North America, Roger Tory Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America and A Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America, the National Geographic Society's Field Guide to the Birds of North America and Complete Birds of North America, the Smithsonian Guide to the Birds of North America, and the National Wildlife Federation Guide to the Birds of North America. He was also chief editor of the ABA /Lane birdfinding guide to North America's major metropolitan regions, and was managing editor of the recently published Rare Birds of California book. -72 Chapter Introduction. oducti ®6 9 This section of the document addresses modifications to the draft IS/MND for the proposed I?RE.S :Offic.e.Bo.ild ng B. it presents.all revisions related to. public comments, as determined necassnry hy,the,Depattment., Only sections that had revisions.hased :on the. puh ie cortnnents are included, and sections that had no revisions are not included... Readers are. referred to ChciiAims 1 through 3 of this final ' IS /MND,to view.complcte sections. This section provides changes,to.the dratt:I$ /MND,in revision -moda text ,(i e., deletions are shaj4n with '..'�et3ttau�_and .addit`ion's are shown with u�i�ic rime ., Thesw nofauane are.nieant to.j7iovtde ciurificWion, coriections, or mtpor revisions as nediled as a,resait of public eoniineiits or because of changes in the n'ioiect since.the dublicution arid'disiri�utionof the draft IS /fviND, $: Su6sPanJiaity.datnage_seenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcropptttgs� aNr! Jtlsforta bpttduigs along a see ulc highway? Inlpei5tudyMtlli9atedNegsitve :taecleralion 41' Ic Oy of Nei4portEeach V. Chaptard. Errata to the "Draft ISIMND 1?janrt was aisa sevieHul u5 dcteruane i!'titere ara ioc�dly ilesienrrted scenic impacts would occur. Biological Resources, Pages 3 -17 and 3 -13 b. have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian Habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local orregional plans, policies, or regulations, or by lite California Department of Fish and Game or UA It isb and Wildlife Service? No impact. The'proposed project.woulcl not have an. .adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According Figure NR2 of. the City of Newport Beach General No Natural Resources Element „ the p €ojeci site is not. located within an Environmental Study urea (City of Newport Beach;20Uda). Additionally, field surveys of the site confirmed that the project site ls.fiilly developed and void of any riparian habitat or outer natural communities. Specifivally. _1C'F. rl ur pe-d habitat or other rojecl would not.affect riparian no impacts would occur. d Interfere_ substantially xilk the inoventont of any hative resident or migratory fisk ar wildlife specles or with established dative resident or it wildlife corridors,.or impede the use of.na(ive.wildl{fe nursery. sites? Less than- $tgnificaut [mpact pith” lgation.incorporated. The proposed project would not itttzrfere with..ihe movetneitt of fish or wildlife. The project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other I -7 PRES.DUIce Building B - Jufy 20So initial StddyiWUgMad Negative bec4ar illon 4-2 toF us.M71 ro City of Newport Beach Chapter d. Errata to the Draft IS /MNb undeveJoped lands, Accordittg.to Figures. N.R I. hnd NR2 of the City of Newport Beach Goneral Plan Natural Resources t(ernent, the project site is not identified as :a biological.resources area. nor is.it located in an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 20D6a) and the site is net connected to any wildlife corridors, Therefore, the project site is not considered a part of a regional wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement.of wildlife species from one area to another. Jmutn Marsh. The project.site does not support daily moventent.of species., use q f the bird' foi tuiuo habitai would he constdet es.t(uui si R& Cant Although the existing ornarrienialtrees on sm. du not trr iari€ atH +t tttad+a provide impotrtattt habitat, the rentovai.of ornamental trees.on site could reduce the number of saopover locations or nos.dn- sit e for migratory birds. ,Therefom-, lttidgation Measure mo -1 is proposed,to, pouce the iniput.on tnignttcry birds should the VIII.:Hsarcl sad t�ard�assaterils, Pages 3 -34 to e, Fora pr..oject.tpiN. in an airport land ns &plan or, where such a plan has not Beon adopted, Ipti /ti�i 2 un7ex of a. prrb7ie airport or..pitLlie use airport, x of ld the . pro eei resellr in a safely hazard for people resrrli ' or working in the project area? 'PRE S,9ffIee.OUildlhg,8 Initial Stuclolggated Negaffve Declaration 43 cwrssaetaoe CRY of Newport geach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS/MND Less•than - Significant Impact:. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 1.0 mile north of the. project site. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for.John Wayne Airport. The proposed prajw is: within :the height restriction zone for theJohn Wayne Airport and flue itoldtcauon. area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Pant 77 hnaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation Administration.(FAA) for any construction or, alteration that: w Exceeds 200 feet in hefght.about.tlie:$round level.at its site. ia :Exceeds a height greater than an imaginary snrface.extending outward and upward at specific slope characteristics at 20,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 5,000 feet from the dearest point of the airport runway: a Is a highway with speific charncterictics.. is Is. occurring at an airport. The: proposed projeet. includes.constructiop of a three- level'office building with a niaxi rums height of.50 feet. The protect site, is approximately 49_;�feet.above c:isc;.cd__ be o}y en e 1A. Tke City would i ceive a Detenninatt1ion of NO Hazarij l PRES0111G@.Miding.8 4-4 ICF J&590873.69 tntUal Stuify/Rtlitgated Negative Dacitrre6on 01ty of Newport Reach Chapter 4. Errata to the braft ISIMND The proposed. project would comply and be, compatible with the land use standards establisjied.inthe City's Municipal Code.and.the Airport Land use Commission'.5 John Wayne AELUP (Airport Land Use Commission 2008). The AEL Up vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring thacaircraft-could fly. safgly in the.airspace around the airport. Although htbe,proposed . pr I pj er-t is located within an airport land use plan, it would comply.with all established standards, nquirements, and plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Ix. Hydrology and Water Quality, Pages 3-39 to 3-42 Discussion Would the project: a. Violote any wateeguality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less4han-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land within the City of Newport.Bpapli is included in four watevsheds. Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and : 2006a).. Each of San Diego Creek (City of Newport Beach these watersheds is under th6jurisdiction of:the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality,Cputr9illoard (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMP.reqtkirenienfl;est4blished.i.i.i.ii,it Santa Ana River. Basin Plan and Orange.Couniy D . rainageAreti:Minagenient Plan (DAMP). The project. site is located in the -San Diego Creek Watershed.. Son Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of I 18 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities, of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Be&ch,.Oranp,.aqd.Tustin (City of Newport Beach 2003), The EPA and Santa Ana. Regional Water ControlBoard have identified San Diego, Creek as an impaired water body, Impairments areidentified for nutrients, sediments and to,xi-cs (set Appendix B, Pitliminary WQMP). The. main tributary of the San 4-6 U.0al Study/Mlegated Nepave Dectaraflon cr JAS W71,00 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Dratt is(Mhb Diego Green Watershed, San Diego Creek, drains directly into Upper. Newport Bay ;(City -of Newport Beach 2006b). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Qttaiity), "any discharge thabwoald result in,or contribute.to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP,. including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control.stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent orcompeting t?eneficial uses of water (City of Newport Beach 20%a). The City is a co- perinittee fbr the NPDFS Permit (at3 of New# Be,- 9S4.The peYniitre quires an aggressive water quulity ordinance, specific municipal practices to inaintain .City facilities like the M84, and use of BMPs in many residential, commerciai,:and development- related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of. Newport Beach 2006b)..Sodfieally. the City . is.A- &aired to do the followinz ra :Coiif coiitarninants'into storm drain sasierns. e Educate then OQ kwa stomrwater iml? cts, 1]cte' C and effininate illicit. I&AWMI Control runoff "from consituclion sites, r ROJO 'PRESQ1Ac0 8uikff g 6 .. - "`July MID Inttfal Stu ,y/Midgated "Negative Dedaratton 4-6 cF AS OD673 A Clty of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Ctrata to the Draft IS"D ltc SAdt V� E �cB. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of t acre or more, or less.than I acre but pan of a larger common plan of development or sale, ritust obtain the Constriction Activities. Stpmi Water Gencral Permit (2009- OOO§ -DWQ Permit effective July 2010) (Slate Water. Resources Control Board 201 Olt), The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stornnvater pollution.prevention plan.(SWPPP). The SWPPP must list &MPs that the. discharger will use to.protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMps. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if thcTe is a failure of 13MPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges.directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (State Water..Rm.urces Control:Board 2010b), TIIQ,, addit in n n I rearth-e nients under the SVVT'PP y, iur to erad'ui¢ and in conmIiance. with the City's NP13GS permit fas described above). The proposed building footprint is approximately 5768W IM square feet; therefore, the amount of disturbed area during construction would be less than I acre and would not be part of.a larger common plan of development or sale. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not require the preparation or implementation of a formal SWPPP. However, since the project site is adjacent to a retarding basin, and is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed, which is;hnpaired.far sediiilentation, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 is would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels. PRE$.Olttoe MAIding B Juty, 2010 4-7 cF Id9oea7a� tir111ai SfutlylMtlgaled.Negative DeCIQraUori 179 City of Newport eea6 Chapter 4. Errata - to the Draft ISIMND The existing site.camists of mostly impermeable surfaces. However, the proposed project.would remove landscaped area, which. would be replaced with surface parking and the proposed 'office building-, therefore, slightly increasing the impermeable surface of the project site (see Appendix 13 for additional - &ROI . af tm Q-1— Wh rdt4jj 1�e !I!- N6hibRh&;ikqg dw" a yn- -v 4 smpfi f, en ,, flu, flow 4 swril�Wa!e6litH t e ..Wmi J.*� The PrqUminary I WQM.P (Appendix B) identifies.additional BMPs to control the *Ilhik II\iNs':aie designed d ide gned to retain an infiltrate stormwater to prov water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow irunaff daIdiX'-Qjm&a-Q �tq PRES Oftice BuIlding.8 Joty 2010 Inmal mucryiMI 99ated Negdoa Dederaffm 48 Clty of Newport Beach. Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IWAND. gy3 ash L_ps9 ��t si to i_ne cn icie i t� the retal�jlng basin. ig PRESPOICe eultding 8 July ,2010 InWal' Study /Millgaled NagaUve Oeclerellon in CRyof Newport Beach project Re fe 3 -S,i.' Charsg beiwe�li xi f� 3Ip$ - Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND 97}1r4rl.OJOY'C141111011'r >YMC411 IRLlMS ROMMICa1. CIM111Citt..9nQ t%fUlt)t;t4at � tt i!dntlisltili of soil, and iitimbe Ovapfex to remove potlu litc_ ty ip ealix r (J PRE$ O(Bce Building B July 2()16 a tD Initial' Stviy lrltgatedNegadveDeclaraflon iWASOaevaoe Emk tssy Canditiva5 Flow Rate Nopo. cat Nrojuct Plow Rate Storm Event `(Cable ree€ Nr &,ebnd) (Qihie Feaf,"eir Second) Die i lee L 1.17 0,66 z_rt z. H R_09 9 ML Vart1 td Group 20TCI, 97}1r4rl.OJOY'C141111011'r >YMC411 IRLlMS ROMMICa1. CIM111Citt..9nQ t%fUlt)t;t4at � tt i!dntlisltili of soil, and iitimbe Ovapfex to remove potlu litc_ ty ip ealix r (J PRE$ O(Bce Building B July 2()16 a tD Initial' Stviy lrltgatedNegadveDeclaraflon iWASOaevaoe City of Newport Reach Chapter 4, grata to the Draft IVMND Th _eAmeLoperation of the proposed. project Bench Municipal Code 14.36 (WaterQualit, City's NPDFS MS4 Permit and the Orange Final. WQtvIP. The final WQMP, which is t issuance of building and grading-pernihs, kvi discussed above and in Appendix B LnAAM runoff and maintain water quality. Therefore than significant. would comply with City of Newport )and provisions set forth in the :aunty DAMP by preparing the squired for approval as part of the Il demonstrate that the Bly[Ps endix H will control stormwater , operational impacts would be less c! Substantially alter- the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through ilia alteration of ilia course of a strearn or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? i.ess- tktan- Significant Impact. The existing project area is, in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The.existing landscaped areas surrounding and located on the project site drain predominately into the retarding basin to the northwest of the project sito(TGR taeotechnieai, Inc. 2.008) (Appendix B).. The existing parking areas drain.via sheet flow to concrete. ribbon gutter within the existing parking lot. Stormwater generally, travels westerly along the gutter and is discharged into An existing catchnteat.basin.in tite.southtvest comer located in the main entrance into theproject site,.along the west side.of the site (Appendix B). No streams or rivers are. currently.loeated on or arounddhe project site.and the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The proposed.projeet would iavolve.some grading and minor soil disturbance during construction.. These .actiyides would minin illy after [lie existing drainage. pattern of the site and would-comply with the,DAMP (described above in Section iX(a),. Hydrology and Water. Quality). Once :eperlttonai,llte,proposed project would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site. as the existing site is already largely paved with surface parking.,Furthennore,:operntion of the:proposed project would not significantly increase the amount:of.exposed soil thereby contributing to siltation or erosion. The Preliminary WQMP.(Appendix :B) provides BMPs such as 1% iN�e6tu, landscape detention, efficient irrigation,.runotT- minimising landsraping, and —A roof drainage planter to control the volume and quality of runoff generated by the slight increase iii impervious surface on site. As described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) and the Preliminary PRRS Moe auilding 8 - - July, late Initlal StudytMillgated Nega hat Deelaradon 4 11 cr dasaaeia.a 183 clty"of Newport Beach Chapter 4: Errata to the Draft ISrUND 11 drolag+r Repo; t §ppcirdix H flow would mitinue.to drain in u westerly direction into the-existing catchment basin. Therefore, the operation of the project site as.an office building would not result in a substantial cluinge to the existing drainage. Impacts associated with erosion during operation and construction, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter floe existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including througis-tire alteration of the course of a'shvwnr or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in ooding: on site or off site? Less - than- SignifieantImpact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or rivers are located on :site, Gird therefore,.constructiowalid operation of the proposed; project would not directly affect the flow of a. river or stream. Substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil because of the urban character of the area and the existing use of tire project site is-(84 surface parking spaces). During construction, runoff quantities and velocity from the project site would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -I. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), operation of the proposed project would hot substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially inerease'the impervious.aren on the project site. As discussed above in Section IX(ay and (c), BMPs would be used. euptm volsre�re reaeldrd =d to improve treatment and storage capacity for the proposed project, which is an improvement over the existing site conditions. Any:changes inhydrology are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff, providing partial fl ood relief to 'receiving waters;;' Furthermore, peak flows are conditions: 71re proposed project would not substantially altertlie existing drainage pattern of the project site ocarea, hicluding'ihrough the alteration of the course of.a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in:a manner that would result:in flooding on site or off site. Impacts Would, be lets than significant with mitigation incorporated. d. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or, planned storm Wdler drainage system's or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less- thanSignifleant Impact with Mitigation.Ineorporated. Overall, urban strect flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2003). As described above in Section Mid), the urban character of the area had the existing use of the. project site as 84 stalls of Surface packing would not allow stormwater to. be readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would 'not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the. Ate and would not substantially increase the impervious area as discussed in Section IX(a), (c), and (d) above. PRE$ Office Bulkliq 8 July 2010 CFJ88 e9a73 e9 Ihg[al Study/Miggata 4.12 d NagafiVa Declaragon - - City of Newport $each Chapter 4.Eriata o.theDrait:IS/NIND The.Koll.Center.Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site. Koil.Center Newport.Planned Community maintains the retarding basin (Tong pers. comm. a). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce die flow rate within the respective downstream. storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from.new development areas upstream (City of Yewport Bea eh 2000). Thu existinit worm eventsr: The.proposed "project.iyoald comply' with the.policies outlined in the General Plan to minimize runoff related hooding Uppacts These,policies include NR 3.111 NR 3.20.and NR 4.4 and implementation 'would'reduce the volume of t?f3ES Olitce Buitd'rng 0 July 2oio 4 43 )WAS eoaraea Initial SthBy/Mitlgated Negative Declaration M Clly of Newpon Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND runoff' generated and potential for flooding. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) for the proposed project discusses.operational BMPs; inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and design of.drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality; Stormwater. drainage flows from the proposed project would be accommodated by the capacity of the existing catchment basin (Tong.'pers. ao» nn.. b). Ftrr to re as di nssed lit Section lXt'a), FiYterra g ttt�) by the rp o ;>osed rpin eci site and tvouid it a o c. } The Pry inuy P WQMP wciold be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. At that time it would be finalized and would demonstrate that the. BMPs discussed in the PrelittpinaryWQMP and the i?rclid turtr Hvdroto Report will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Furthermore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1, the proposed project would.not provide substaritial,additional sources of polluted hinoff`'during construction. lorreased runoff would not exceed the capacity of ezisting.storm drain systems or generate' polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts on storntwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. X11. Nolge, Page 3 753 e, For a project located ivitltln. ate airport land rtse land use plan or, where such a plan leas not been adopted, within 2 mites of a public airport or public use airport, woitld the project expo a people residing. or voiktng rn the project area to excessive noise leeeb? Less- than - Significant Irnpaet. The':project site. is located approximately 0.5 mile from John Wayne.Airpgm Figum N2.o€ the City of Newport Beach General Flan shows the existing 61 dBA:CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Aitpoil. Figore:N2 shows that the project site is located approximately 0.25 to 0.5 mile outside the 65 dBA'CNEL noise contour fdy John Wayne Airport (City o(Newpart,Beael):2QO6a). Figure Noise Contours.` of the City ofNe:wwo }leach General Platt sho�__w,_ _s ttiat the piv�osed projeic located wilititr the till C1dEL noise contour of the AELUP Noise Contours. Per Table 1. ort "Air . La Lid .pUse Cgtnmissiott for Ormiae Coup y Atrooti Environs (_and Use PI Limitations s o i Land Use Due to Noise (Applicable to IUMrdit Noise Sources)," of the AEL[JP. cn l trial land rise catcuortes slit h as MiA l and ofttce which experience a CNEL of less thani 65 t1h are considered "normally consi4uift " Furthertmom, S Pt1ES Office Bullding B July 2010 4-14 hintal$t tidy jMitigated Negative Declaration. t4 crdasuoetsos City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Enata to the Draft IStMNO impacts related -to air traffic Would be less than significant. XIV. Public Services, Pages 3 -66 to 3 -67 Discussion Would .the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated': with: al. Fire protect ron.? , Less= than- Slgrtificant Impact., As discussed iit Section XTII "i o inflation -and 1].......1......,3 ��.....1.....�,....6.�.:..�.. Lf ........6 �.. el.....:i.....�...l —t 1. {... 1.. ......:.1.� L. al... Implementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute additional demandfor fire protection and emergency medical services,. including possible additional . demand on and use of fire equipment and medical supplies at'the. a�rot sly `ldow ', o i `. s' tilt 3dy1Hn_ .rte se e+ r ea }r e+ ve T.he.project site is located in.tht City of Newport: Beach Fitt Department service area. There asp eight fire stations strategically located throughout the City so that a fire unit can respond to residents and businesses in less ilium 5 minutes. The City of Newport; Beach Fire. : Department is considered an all-risk Fire Department and provides services .for all types of emergencies (City of Newport. Beach.2009b). The ,projeq.site. is served by the nearest tut station, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station V, which is located at 20401 Southwest 187 PRB$ Olaae BuIldAtg B July 2010 41¢ Initial StudyiMltigatedNagativeDedaia ttoh.. - - scF�ason@rao City of Newport Beach Chapter 4..Eaata to the Draft IS/MNO Acacia Street at the intersection of Southwest'Acacia Street and Mesa Drive, approximately 1.9 miles to the southwest of the project site. hvl, aand i met uney`access: Therafo €e. T4he proposed project would include all necessary fire protection devices,, including fire sprinklers, and would be required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City, including compliance with-applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations. Emergency vehicle access for the proposed project would.be provided to the project tsite froirr Von Karman Avenue. =The proposed project would be within the current capacity of the Newport Beach Fire Department and would not create the heed for any new facilities or personnel (Bunting pers. comm.). Impacts would be less than.significant, a2. police protection? Impact. As discussed above and in Section KM - " -- - - '- - --:.,- :.,.--- A._.:., -. -AA The Newport ;B. each Police Department would provide police protection services for the: proposed: project ;The Police Department is, located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree.itoad and Santa Barbara, approximately 3.5 miles froru.the:project;site. The gojectsite. isaocated in Newport Beach Police .,Department.Area2.(Newport Beach Police,pepartment 2010). ?h at, Additionally, the department ix currently patrolling the project site and surrounding: areas. 'rhffcfbra the proposed project would not require new or additional police,fxcilities. Impacts would be less ttian;signifiaant, XVi. Transportation and Traffic, Pages. 3-59 to 3 -E3, a. conflict whir an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures: of effectipeness for'the performance of the circulation system, taking into aeconun all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorl;eel PRES Qntee Buitdtng B - July 2010 (6 U A -16 InlllatSludy /Mitigated NegatlU®,Oeclaragon icp,t&GOOetads City of Nawpod Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIN1ND travel anal relevant components of the cirenlgliou system, tucludirtg brit not limited to intersections, streets, highways and fteeways, pedestrian and bicycle patits, and mass transit? In 2009 as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hail and Part: Development Plan; existing conditions of roads and intersections around the project site were determined (LSA 2009)..They are described in Appendix E. construction stasin wou €d k €CS.chan signifcrt . During construction, the maximum daily trips w cold ,depend on themumher of truck trips received in a day and the number of employees at the construction site. Furthermore, no more than 15 construction workers would be at tile construction site at onetime. Table. 3 -12 below provides the estimated daily roundtrip truck trips and number of construction employees associated with each phase of construction.' Table 3-12. Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees Construction Phase Construction Construction Rouudtrip Roundirlp Total Activity Duration Worker Per Worker : " Tntek Truck Trips (Daysp Day Rou ultrips Per Trips Per Trips Per Per NY Phase Daya Day Demolition 6 6 12 20 3 15' Grading 24 6 12 40 2 14 Construction, 168 15 30 )2` 2 32 asphalting, and aechitecnval fiErishings 'Phase duration'assurnart six -day constmctloo work week. t' There. is Dunlap ttclw.een the gns, truction or.the proposed project. Asphalting, and architectural Rnishing. � Twclve roundtrip truck trips would only occur during 4 1 1 weok €S day) period of asphalling. Numbers are rounded to nearest whole number. b..Coufliel_ with au. appGca6leco�gestion ..matragenrerrt program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards estabiislred by the tonntp congestion.managenteui ageney for designated roads or high"O"' PR S lJKce Bugding, B - July :2010 initialSludy1OlV teiiNegative. Declaration 4.17 1ceJ88aen8a 1 city of Nevipod Beach Chapter 4, Errata to the Draft 1SNND Less than-'Significant Ltipact::Within the.defined Orange County Congestion. Matiagetiient Prograin highway.networi. ,intersections and freeway segments are not allowed to deteriorate to a condition worse than LOS E, or the base year LOS if ]t j;. worse than E (OranRc County Transportation Authority 22007 anti t 3). The follewmg mtersecuoni are Congestiorr: :Management Program intersections withrn;ihe vicinity of the proposed project; MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, I -405 northbound rampsi3ainboree Road, and 1 -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. Table 3 -14 below summarizes the 200TH Alvtand PM peak hour LOS for these Congestion Management Program intersections Table 9-14. Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program,intersectionsL Itrtersection 9200y_t.:AM' Peek Hour LOS 20073 PA4 Peak Hour LOS MacArthur BouleyardDamboree Road .. C E? IS 1 -405 aorthhound rainpWarnbomc.. Road C C I405 southbound rampslJamboree Road D C „, WNYport: beach; as they are located in the :City of Irvine. All intersections ia- 'j'able 3-14 are operating at L 134 Lor. better. The -t 9 AM peak hour tfri t_sad 18 PM peeak hour trips miner rted b, t1 1te. ro osed proiect wrnrid bdtsp�r;ed throughoui the 'roadway ays €etit aitd iyattld not aff�� one CMP intersection; a cLnc; iaiia. TI re, the addition. of.tlte proposed project's 19 AM peak but Ilip3 04;14 PPM peal: hour nipa would not downgrade the;exisl ing LOS at the intersections-described above to LOS At_ or worse t?er fhe Cl4IP LOS the the Development Plari; 'which included other cuinulutiver projects- located:within the City. of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine,(LSA XW).,Table 0 _ of the City Hall' DEIR summarizes the cumulative - analysis and identifies there would be no significant impacts at any of the Studied intersections,:which include the intersections identified: above; in 21... . "2009) .Furthermore, for all intersections shzred,bY..the it of Ttvtne and.the City of Newport Beach a LOS of C rs acceptable during., arm PM peal( periods: ;Table 22 of the DEIR indicates ft MacArthur Boulevard/Urnboree Road intersection would continue PAES.Qf 0 spading a. .. - ..:duty 2010 1 9 0 4-ta InNel. sivay /fvutigatedNaganvsDeclaration ... _ ... ICFJ&8oPwaoa City of Nowport Beach Chapter A, Errata to the Draft ISIMND to operate at an acceptable level. of service (LSA 2009), Finally, the Orange County Congestion Management Program (2007) Appendix B -2 identifies speeiflc criteria for which projects are exempt. Any development applications generating vehicular trips below she ADT threshold for. CMP traffic analysis include any project generating less titan 2,400 At3T total, or any project generating less than 1,600 ADT directly:onto the CMP Highway System. The proposed project would generate approximately. 132 trips per day, and thus would be below.the criteria established by the Congestion Management Program. Therefore, the proposed prb*t-would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard-and impacts would -be less than significant. e. Result in a change in air irq ffre patterns, including either an Increase in tr'affle levels or a change 111.16cation that resulm in substantial safety risks? Less - Than - Significant Impact. As described in Section VIII(e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the boundaries of the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project would be within the height.restriction zone for the John. Wayno. Airport and the notification area of the rAlt Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronaptical obstruction area. The proposed . project hichides constructing one,three -.level office building with a maximum height of 50 feet. The'preject:site is approximately 494 feet above mean seat level t fYtWT3ili one 308,)_ .{?€at1 gnajc�veui e°� mitt- .Therefore t reuuimmunts. fir -@; s'lite proposed project would not result in a change of air traffic patterns including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. Impacts would.be less than significant. 01 PRES -00Tce Building B July 2070 4-10 Initial'StudyM# gated Negative Declaration cF wscse7bas City of Newport Reach chapter . het rennet; Couuty o' LJrataec.tk 4. ti °�er5i P art, . Chapter 4. Effatato the Dta(US /MNO Vii: ilv 27. 2010. Re frdoW, BE Lt. Snp}wrt Services Division of the City of New o t Beach Pol ice Denactttuni...itttu' 16, 2010}- -Email. t7riam.Co m h t . 007. f)r; kLst �eriy i Erui raQi ►R2 PRES -QUIc Suilding S - ... MY. 2010 - UillielSlutlylM tlgated NegatIve Declaraltun 4.20 jas zacs REVISED B -6-10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN43 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007.009, APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007.00.61 APPROVAL OF 'TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. .NP2010.005, AND APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ANEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2007 -213) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc: (PRES), with respect to property located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Marcel Maps, In the .Office of the Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit for -Ar ernaly -aeabo r42-of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet. 2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross - square -foot cotnmerciai office building. 3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community ,Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed- Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-112). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held . by the. Planning. Commission on August.5, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,. California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport 03 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B {PA2007 -213} Page 2 of 13 Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. iy+ Planning Commission Resolution No, _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 3 of 1.3 SECTION 2, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. An initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010, The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 1 On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative Impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision for recommendation was based, are on file.with:the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek.an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3: FINDINGS. 1. The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of, the General Plan, and is Identified as Anomaly Location #2., The General Plan Land Use dement designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 ( "MU H2 "). The MU-1­12 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial,. hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial buairii pla affrc buildin t:js consistent with this designation. 195 Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 4 of 13 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character, The policy states that changes in use and/or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, Including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The -- pelt- Ganeret —Blare �€ r�nt�ent- ��- sn�, rease�ttse- - = °rna�iraE- ..- fsltovaat� The increased development limit would allow. for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed Increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3.66, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m, peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the general Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E. is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m.. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips Is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project. would not Impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.16.1 provides for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is consistent with this policy as follows: 19 (0 Planning Commission Resolution No. PR.ES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 5 of 13 a The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new commercial office building, Integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. 4. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non-residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy.A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment, with the inureased devetoPment_Amit of 1l.544 arwrss sguarg Poet restricted to gMg-a use only, does not exceed the non- residential floor area threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold, and does not create any new dwelling units.. 5. The General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations 3o implement these various goals and policies. 6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned. Community text to increase the allowable building area for office Site B from 967,803 net square feet.to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent. of the Koil Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments. 7. The granting of the exception to subdivide the.ezisting 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, comprised of approximately 32,395 square feet, and approximately 23,383 square feet can be made subject to the facts in support of following findings: A. Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. A.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the .exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because: M Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2607 -213) Page 6 of 13 The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND). The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. o The proposed lot size of 23;383 square feet is similar to or larger than other lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karman: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karman: 23,465 square feet; and 4640 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). B. Fin_ ding: That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B.1 Facts in Support of Finding The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Kgll Center: The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shalt include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials 2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) wails, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and /or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit B.2. Facts in Support of Finding: Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 7 of 13 If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: a A commercial office building is a permitted use In Office Site B. ® The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the site. 9 The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. ® The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattem of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. 8. The granting of the exception to the Koii Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to.one space,for each 250 net square feet can be made because this parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66. of the NBMC, and adequate off- street parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided, 9. A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development of the new office building has been prepared In accordance with Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: A. indin : That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Cods. Facts In Support of Finding, A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 65,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General. Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the General Plan amendment is. approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision. would be consistent with the General Plan and' the MU -H2 land use designation 199 Planning Commission Resolution No. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) B. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koil Center Newport !Tanned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or Intensity) proposed for development of the site. C. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 29089 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding, C -1. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the erivironment, nor substantially and avoidably Injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D. Finding: That the. design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding, D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779 -square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new 2 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 9 of 13 office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public .health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28,010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act, All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. E. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public, This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E.1 The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, and all on -site easements Including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map. F. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered Into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In additions the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Kull Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. G. . Finding: That, In the case of a. 'land project as defined in Section 11000;5 of the California Business and Professions Code. (a) there is an adopted specific plan 20'i Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES. Office Building B (t'A20074 Page 10 0 for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding; GA The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located within a specific plan area. H. Fin_ ding; That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: H.1 The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject. to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Fin. ding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 86584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that It balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Su000rt of Findings 1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,778- square400t parcel of land Into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board rRWQCB"). .Facts in Support of Finding:; 202 Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES Office. Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 11 of 13 J.1 ' The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. K. Finding; For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding_ K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone, SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there Is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit W. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based„ are on file with the Planning Department, City Hail, 3300 Newport. Boulevard; Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. t07GP24Q7 OOB to increase the maximum allowable development far= ialq- Latiog #ti trorlr8t7 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve.Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 24W 001-RD2007 -00B to amend the Koil Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase m the allowable building area for Professional & Business Office Site FB from 24-i a tip. 7 X03. net square. feet to A f�J77.7Zt1 net square feet a- dr�joted in Exht `t "D" attached hereto and Int+ p ed: y le.rence. 2.03 Planning Commission Resolution No, _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 12 of 13 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "BE :" Planning Commission Resolution No. PRES Office Building B (PA2-OU4 P3Ro 4.3 „ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2olo. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Tcerge, Secretary 9. .245 1 EXHIBIT W, Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not be scheduled during die avian nesting season (approximately February I through August 31 j to, ensure project,confonnance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February Land August 3 1,.a preconstruction. survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no.more than 7 days prior to the slart.of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined bya quali led biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the uest.is complete.and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the construction Project construction contractor t is -t rroject plans snau speeny mat toar a qua nea. outing construction rro3ect paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that construction potential paleontological resources are contractor discovered. During construction, die contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remaias are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until aquafified paleontologistis . contacted to assess the resources, and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they. are unearthed to, avoid construction delays, and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to altow.reinoval of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and pemmnent preservation, including ivashiq of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into.a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of Ondings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be 2.0°] ..: No iVhitgation:MeasuYa ;, Time Frame far.:' .' Responsible verification of Com Hance ' , °;Initials. :,Date Ilainarks, -: Implementation& , Monttoring Monitorin A enc prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. ..GeolagyandSads �. •< ,. ., - -� '. GEO -1 Prior to approval of grading permits, soil Prior to issuance of City of Newport preparation measures to minimize expansion potential sit-all be identified by the.applicant it) grading permits Beach Building Department construction documents and grading permits, Durhtg construction, grading of the site by. the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils .required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials, Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture-conditioned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% in accordence.with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D 1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation _ of.these measures shall be verified during field to ections. GEO -2 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City ofNowport plans shall stipulate that all fill shall . consist or grading permits Beach Building non- expmnsive materials, moisture- conditioned Department to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confinned to meet grading plan specifications. GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits,.the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that wall backfill soils shall grading permits Beach Building consist of granular, coliesionless backfill with Department sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index less than 20. The characteristics of the.fill soil. shall be evaluated by the geotechnicai consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet gjding plan specifications. }iydrdlugy a3id lYater Qfrality WQ -1 Prior to issuance ofgrading permits, the Prior to issuance of City of Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved by the grading permits Beach Public City SWPPP to be implemented during Works constriction, which shall include BMPs to Department prevent discharges of polluted storinwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains or the existing retarding.basin,'The SWPPP shall be" prepared as directed'in the Ci 's stormwater 2 ()PO No ; ;; ' Mitigation Measure ;:;; Time Frame for ;:'' Respopsible -. -. Verification of Com liance Iniiials Date Roniarks, Implerneutahon& !> MonZtoring 3110 oiform A enc _:.. protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the foltowhig measures: ® Diversion of oit site runoff away from the construction site. at Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities. * Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -sift transport of sediment. ® Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. * Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. . Noise N -1 All noise- producing project equipment and During final design City of Newport vehicles using internalcombustion engines shall and prior to plan Beach Code be equipped with triufflers, air =inlet silencers check approval Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise- reducing features in.good City of Newport operating condition tlrat meetor exceed original Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed. "package" Department equipment (e,& arc welders, air compressors) shall. be equipped with. shrouds and noise control features.thatare readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and. fixed noise - producing equipment During grading, site City of Newport used on the proposed project that is regulated for preparation, and Beach Code noise output by.a local, state, or federal agency construction Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while in the course- ofproject activity. City of Newport Beach Building De rtment N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used During final design City of Newport instead of pneumatic or internal combustion— and prior to plan Beach Code poweredequipment, where feasible, check approval Enforcement During grading: site City of Newport preparation, and Beach Building construction Department N -4 Mobile noise - generating equipment and During, trading, site City of Newport machinery shall be shut toff when not in use. preparation, and Beach Code constriction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Departnienf_ _ ALM No hbtigafioiitvieasure Time.Trama for '. �tcsponsiple : °:VeArIcatibmof:Cbm Hance Impleiugtntation3r Monitoring Initials gate P.emarks -j Monitorin N -5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, site City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be preparation, and Beach Code located as far as practical from noise- sensitive construction Enforcement receptors, City of Newport Beach Building Department N -fi_ Construction site and access road speed limits During, grading, site City of.Newport shall be established and enforced during the preparation, and Beach Code construction period. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -7 The use of noise producing signals, including During, grading, site City of Newport horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for preparation, and Beach Code safety warning purposes only. construction Enforcement City arNewpott Beath Building _ Department N -8 No project - related publie address or music During, grading, site City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor. preparation; and Beach-Code construction Lnforcement City of Newport Beach Building De ment N-9 The onsite canstroctintt an shall have the During final design City of Newport responsibility and authority to receive and and prior to plan Beach Code resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process check approval Enforcement to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall During grading, site City of Newport allow for resolution of noise problems that preparation, and Beach Building cannot be Immediately solved by the site construction Department Supervisor. Z10 EXHIBIT "B" 211 212 2.13 'Number '.Area:- L9..... De .. ... .... I L4 MU-H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU-H2 1,052,880 2a L4 MU-1-12 ia,810 -Fl,54F4 sf -residcted to general office use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO-G 734,641 4 L4 MU.W 250,176 .5 L4 MU-H2 32,500 6 L4 MU-H2 34,500 7 L4 MU-H2 81,372 8 LAI MU•H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms, (included In total square footage} 10 L41 MU-1-12 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not Included In total square footage) . 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU-H2 467,880 13 L4 CO-G 288,2 14 L4 CO-GIMU-142 860,884 16 U MU-H2 228,214 16 L4 CO-G 344,231 17 L4 MU-H2 33'�92 304 Hotel Rooms (not included In total square footage) 18 CG 220,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 rL4 16 CO-G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retall: 27,000 . sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 A CO-6 7.0,006 Restaurant 8000 sf, or Office' 10,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 pl 84,686 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 64,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 2.13 M": Anpmaly NUmhar�Area SRilisNtat LpnifUse DeilSaohon. Revetopmonf - tirnN s - _ ReJetomenf[imN OlAer '' ; AddlNoriattntormoNtie� 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Fat litates: 30,01A sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 st Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 Li CPR _ 484,348 _ 36 Li CPR 199,095 36 L1 CPR 227,797 37 Li CPR 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage 38 1.1 CPM 443,627 39 Li MU -1-13 408,084 40 L1 MU -H3 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41 Lt CPR 327,671 42 Ll CPR 286,166 43 Lt CV 611 Hotel Rooms 44 L1 OR 1,619,525 1,700 Theater Seals (not Included in total square footage 46 Li CPG 162,364 46 L1 MU -H31PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. 47. Li CG 105,000 48 L1 MU•H3 337,261 49 L1 PI 45,208 60 L1 CG' 25,000 51 K1 PR 20,000 62 Kt CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 Ki PR 567,500 See SeVement Agreement 64 J1 _ CM 2,000 56 H3 PI 119,440 56 A3 Pi 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 677,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined gross hoar area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft, 57 Intentionally Blank _ 68 J6 PR _ 20,000 M": 215 b ! f�2, Anomdty Number �y • ' a e ;: iandUSe -bG6 r9a atton : 9 :• Development 'thntf . bll AddBfona!lnformoNOn Slo)htfca! -' -Area beveltopmen ftlm8 Ofher -': 50 H4 MU -W1 487,402 157 Hotel Rooms and 144 Dwelling Units (included in total Square footage) 60 N Cv 2,00,000 2,166 Hold Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N Cv 126,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 GI ON, 66,000 64 M3 ON 74,000 66 M6 ON 80,000 66 J2 ON 1381600 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 ON 76,000 70 02 RM•D Parking Structure for Bay Island No Residential Units) 71 L1 C" 11,630 72 Lt MG 8,000 73 A3 CO.M MAO 74 Lt PR 35,000 75 L1 PP City Hall, and the administrative offices of the City of Newport Beach, and related parking,. pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 215 21� EXHIBIT "C" REVISED FIGURE LUlI FOR STATISTICAL ,AREAS A L4 21� 218 220 PART II Section 1. Group 1 EXHIBIT "Dot POLL GAITER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT CHANGES COMMERCIAL. Site Area and Building Area PROFESSIONAL, & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) A. Site A Site B Site C' Site D Site E Site F Site G 91 Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Building Sites (4) Total Acreage 30.939 acres * (29) 41703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1,765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11). Allowable Building Area Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 1073 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres t8) 122.574 acres(8)(10)(i1) 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) 977,720 square feet (13)(16)(28)(30) 674,800 square feet (;10)(15) 240,149 square .feet(8)(13) 32,500 square feet (4) 24,300 square feet (4) 45.000 square feet (8) 2.350;699 square feet (15)( *) *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use,.there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) 221 C. 2. Site B Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics.are.for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225.square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and O. Allowable Building Area Site Area a. 0 c. Luilding Hei t Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parkine 3259 cars ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30) ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) Landscaped Open Space (11) Two story. development Three story development Four story development. Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Land Coverage (16;28,30) ............... 11.22acres .......... I.... 7.48 acres 5.61 acres 449 acres ............... 3.74 acres 3.21 acres ............... 2.81 acres ............... 2.49 acres ......... I..... 2.24 acres ............... 2.04 acres .............. 1.87 acres Land Covem¢e (1.1,13,16,28,30) ............... 27.16 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) ............... 5.32 acres ...........I... 9.06 acres ...........:...16.93 acres ....... I....... 12.05 acres ........... I.... 12.80 acres I .............. 13.33 acres ............... 13.73 acres ............... 14.05 acres ........ I.... 14.30 acres ..... I......... 14.50 acres ....... . .... :.. 14.67 acres 222 EXHIBIT "E" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005 1. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a d€gital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shalt comply with the City's CARD Standards. Scanned Images will net be accepted. 2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing, the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor In a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subart€cle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner. unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer, Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. S. All Improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance. and the Public Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, Public. Works and Eire Codes. 4. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the property, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. All work conducted within the public right-of-way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department. 7. County Sanitation District fees shall be:paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 8. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the € ssuance of any building permits. 10. Prior to site plan approval and issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a. notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. with FAA,(FAA Form 7460 -1) in accordance. with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Following FAA's: 223 Planning Commission Resolution No, — PRES Office Building B (PA2007 =213) aeronautical study of the project site, the proposed project shall comply with conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA. Subsequent to thesefindings, the City shall refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport land Use Commission for consistency analysis. The Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel. 11. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 12. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by the private work, public works improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and alley /street reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non - standard improvements within the public right-of-way and /or extensions of private, non- standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site. 14. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 16. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such uridergrounding is unreasonable or Impractical. 16. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first.plan check. The study recommendation(s) shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading. the existing City sewer lateral shall be borne by-the applicant. 17. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer lines:algng the southerly property lines. (Note:. The new easements do not appear to Impact the proposed development.) 18. in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach. Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 19. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight. distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -C. 22+ Planning Commission Resolution No. — PRES Office Building B (PA2007 213) Page 3 of 5 20. The parking layout and circulation is subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD- 805 -L -A and STD-805 -L -B. 21. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so it does not impact the overall circulation of the site. 22. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 23. All existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non - storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 24. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 25. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4,4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that Is plainly visible and legible from the, street or road fronting the subject property, Said numbers shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be either internally or externally Illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four Inches In height with a: one -inch wide stroke, The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 26, To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against. any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, Judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without Ilmitation; attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind. and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Business Plaza including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No, GP2007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No, PD2007 -006, and Tentative Parcel Map No: NP2010 -005. This indemnification shall include, but.not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or.proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, andlor the parties initiating 'or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City.s costs, attorneys' fees, and .damages which City incurs in enforcing the Indemnification ptoylsions: set forth in this .condition, The applicant shall, pay to the City upon demand 22-5 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (,PR2007 -213) Page 4 of 5 any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 27. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2 216 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PPES Office Building B (PA2007 -21' Paoe 5 of mitieat3en _ measures 28. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project. 227 1. ;- - 22f3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 19, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) 4300 Von Kerman Avenue • General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No, PD2007 -006 • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 (County Tentative Parcel Map No. 2008 -123) APPLICANT: Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES, Inc.) PLANNER: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3236, jbrown @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes development of a new three -story office building. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: 1, A General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit in Anomaly Location #2 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet. 2. An amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet. 3. A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. 4. An exception to the Koil Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change in the off - street parking requirement of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. 1. Reopen the public hearing; and 2. Adopt the revised Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC1) recommending that the City Council: a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 229. b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009; and PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 19, 2010 Page 2 c. Approve Planned Community Development Flan Amendment No. PD2007 -006; and d. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -006, subject to findings and conditions; and e. Approve the requested exceptions to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards relative to minimum site area and off- street parking requirements. DISCUSSION At the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to provide additional analysis regarding consistency of the project with General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 3.2, and clarification regarding Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18. The following information is provided in response to the Commission's direction. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2 Policy LU 3.2 states: Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and /or densitylintensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Policy LU 3.2 is intended to provide direction to decision - makers in determining under what circumstances changes in land use, density, or intensity should be considered. This policy recognizes that there are limited areas of the City that are not achieving their full potential and establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization. Staff believes that it is intended to apply to certain geographic areas of the City and not to individual properties. Land Use Policy LU 3.3 is also intended to advance Goal LU 3 is, which provides: "Opportunities for Change - Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors ....... John Wayne Airport Area: re-use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services..." 2 a O PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 19, 2010 Page 3 Staff believes the proposed project can be found consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 for the following reasons: The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface parking lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted it to office use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text in 2006, a restaurant is no longer a permitted use. As a result, there is now a surplus of unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is no entitlement remaining, future development on this site is •limited to replacement of the existing building, with a new 7,266- square -foot building. The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was originally used as a restaurant site with the required off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the project site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its highest and best use. The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the project site which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities for approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal location for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits would provide employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses are replaced with the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the Airport Area. • The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs - to- housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the Airport Area. • The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and. consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. • The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. • As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The 1 The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use. 2-31 PRES.Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 19, 2010 Page 4 addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) The Planning Commission requested clarification regarding traffic generation Table 1 and Table 2, and the basis for changes to these tables provided by staff at the meeting. Council Policy A -18 provides guidelines for implementing Charter Section 423. The policy contains the methodology for purposes of. calculating the peak hour trips of an allowed use and the increase in peak hour trips resulting from a proposed use if a General Plan amendment is approved. Specifically, the policy states that if the allowed use is designated in terms of one or more non - residential use category, peak hour trip rates from the Trip Rate Table for the applicable non - residential use category shall be used. In this case, the proposed project is for the development of a new approximately 11,000- square -foot commercial office building. The applicant has indicated the new office building would be occupied by its company for the expansion of its business operations. Per the institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 8th Edition, the appropriate use category for an office building of this size is "General Office Building "2 rather than "Single- Tenant Office Building. "3 Table 1 and Table 2 provided in the August 5, 2010 staff report mistakenly used the peak hour trips for the "Single- Tenant Office Building" use category. The tables have been updated to reflect the correct peak hour trips based on the proposed increase of 11,544 square feet to the General Plan Land Use Element, as shown below: -.- I ; s ,wait . a,'"�Li. to %;1o9. Prior Amendment 19,212.8 sq.ft. (80 %) 34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) 33.04 a.m. trips (80 %) GP2006 -096 This Proposed Amendment' 11,544 sq.ft. (100 %) 4_89 a.m. trips $917`20 m. trips 20.517 .85 % p GP2007 -009 (100 °�) (100 ) Total 30;756.8 s .ft. 647352.08 a.m. trips 52950.24 p.m. trips The "General Office Building" use category is consistent with the use category utilized in the "Transportation and Traffic° section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes calculating average daily trips and a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips for an 11,960- square -foot office building. 3 The average square footage of a single - tenant office building studied in the ITE Manual is approximately 100,000 square feet, whereas the average square footage of general office buildings studied in the ITE .232— Manual is significantly less. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) .August 19, 2010 Page 5 Table 2 illustrates that if the proposed project is approved; none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded when added to 80 percent of prior amendment GP2006 -096, 80 percent of this proposed amendment, and 100 percent of proposed amendment GP2008 -0074. A letter was submitted by a law firm on behalf of Meyers Properties on August 5, 2010, (Attachment PC2) asserting that Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips. The author asserts that "the aggregate peak hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423." This assertion is incorrect. Item H of the Definitions Section of Council Policy A -18 states: "Peak Hour Trips. The term 'peak hour trips" means the number of vehicle trips equal to the applicable peak hour trip rate specified in the Trip Rate Table (Exhibit 8) for any allowed use or proposed use multiplied by the entitlement (using the appropriate quantity of the relevant "unit' of measurement specified in the Trip Rate Table). When these Guidelines require a statement or calculation of peak hour trips, the morning and evening peak hour trips shafl.each be provided and listed separately....." (emphasis added) Item C of the Procedures. Section of Council Policy A -18 states: "City Council Review. The City Council shall determine at the noticed public hearing at which any Amendment is approved if, based on the administrative record ........ the Amendment requires voter approval pursuant to Section 423. The City Council shall submit an Amendment to the voters if.' 1. The Amendment modifies the allowed uses) of the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment such that the proposed use(s) generate(s) more than one hundred morning or evening peak hour trips than are generated by the allowed use(s) before the Amendment ......"_(emphasis added) 4 GP2008 -007 is the Newport Business Plaza project, recommended for .approval by Planning 2.33 Commission on August 5, 2010. Prior Amendment GP2006 -096 19,212.8 sq.ft. (80 %) 34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) 33.04 a.m. trips (80 %) This Proposed Amendment 9,235.2 sq.ft. (80 %) 46:43 -14_31 a.m. trips (80 %) 45:8813_76 p.m. trips (80 %) GP2007 -009 Proposed Amendment 11,544 sq.ft. (100 %) 34.63 a.m. trips (100 %) 46.17 p.m. trips (100 %) GP2008 -007 Total 39,992 sq.ft. 85:2583.13 a.m. trips 95.0992.97 p.m. tri s A letter was submitted by a law firm on behalf of Meyers Properties on August 5, 2010, (Attachment PC2) asserting that Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips. The author asserts that "the aggregate peak hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423." This assertion is incorrect. Item H of the Definitions Section of Council Policy A -18 states: "Peak Hour Trips. The term 'peak hour trips" means the number of vehicle trips equal to the applicable peak hour trip rate specified in the Trip Rate Table (Exhibit 8) for any allowed use or proposed use multiplied by the entitlement (using the appropriate quantity of the relevant "unit' of measurement specified in the Trip Rate Table). When these Guidelines require a statement or calculation of peak hour trips, the morning and evening peak hour trips shafl.each be provided and listed separately....." (emphasis added) Item C of the Procedures. Section of Council Policy A -18 states: "City Council Review. The City Council shall determine at the noticed public hearing at which any Amendment is approved if, based on the administrative record ........ the Amendment requires voter approval pursuant to Section 423. The City Council shall submit an Amendment to the voters if.' 1. The Amendment modifies the allowed uses) of the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment such that the proposed use(s) generate(s) more than one hundred morning or evening peak hour trips than are generated by the allowed use(s) before the Amendment ......"_(emphasis added) 4 GP2008 -007 is the Newport Business Plaza project, recommended for .approval by Planning 2.33 Commission on August 5, 2010. PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 19, 2010 Page 6 Council Policy A -18 clearly distinguishes that morning or evening peak hour trips are calculated and listed separately. As illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, the proposed project will not exceed the peak hour trip threshold of 100 a.m. or p.m. trips when added to 80 percent of a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips resulting from prior amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element. Revised Resolution As explained during staffs presentation, the General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1­12), which allows for a variety of uses. However, the applicant proposes to develop and use the site for office use only. Therefore, because the Charter Section 423 peak hour trip rate analysis is based on trip rates for general office use only, the proposed increase in development limit should be restricted to office use only. In order to implement this restriction, staff recommends a new anomaly be created (Anomaly Location #2a), and Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) of the Land Use Element be revised. The proposed revised Table LU2 and Figure LU11 are attached as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" to the revised resolution (Attachment PC1). Section 3 of the revised resolution has been modified to reflect that the 11,544- gross- square -foot increase to allowable development limit be restricted to office use, and to update the findings of consistency with General Plan Policy LU 3.2. Section 4 of the draft resolution has been modified to reflect the correct project information (provided incorrectly in the draft resolution due to scrivener error). Environmental Review An Errata to the IS /MND (Chapter 4, amended August 13, 20105) has been prepared to address modifications to the document. The changes are related to the CEQA issues that were raised in the public comment letters received during the public review period (May 19 through June 7, 2010), and the letter received on August 5, 2010. The new information in the Errata is provided to clarify and augment the evaluation provided in the draft IS /MND. The additional information and modifications to the document are related to the following categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Transportation and Traffic. Based on this additional evaluation, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and the conclusions in the 1S /MND remain the same. S Chapter 4 will be distributed under separate cover electronically on Monday, August 16, 2010, and _ posted on the City's website. It will include Appendix I, which consists of Biological Memorandum 11, 2.34- which provides additional information in support of the original ISIMND checklist determination on Biological Resources. Prepared . ATTACHMENTS PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) August 19, 2010 Page 7 Submitted by: Patrick J. Alford Planning Manager PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Comment Letter PC 3 Errata to the Draft IS /MND (distributed under separate cover) 2�5 9 236 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 237 239 1v RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007 -009, APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006, APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -006, AND APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO 'THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2007 -213) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect to property located at 4300 Von Karmen Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet. 2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross- square -foot commercial office building. 3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed - Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public'hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and. oral, was presented to,, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 23q j1 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 2 of 11 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period_ beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and .there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally,, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision for recommendation was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of aforneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is identified as Anomaly Location #2. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 ( "MU- H2'). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial office building is consistent with this designation. 2+0 J4� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 3 of 11 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in use and/or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport. Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new. development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit 'B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 12 as follows: The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface parking lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted it to office use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text in 2006, a restaurant is no longer a permitted use, As a result, there is now a surplus of unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is no entitlement remaining, future development on this site is limited to replacement of the existing building, with a new 7,266- square -foot building'. The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was originally used as a restaurant site with the required ,off - street parking spaces. Therefore; the project site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its highest and best use. The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the project site which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities for approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal location for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits would provide employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses are replaced with the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the Airport Area. The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs -to- housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the Airport Area. The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern .in the area. ' The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use. 2,4- 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 4 of 11 The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. . As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the HIND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour tops and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.1 provides for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is consistent with this policy as follows: The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with.the existing surrounding land uses in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. 4. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment, with the increased development limit of 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, does not exceed the non- residential floor area threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold, and does not create any new dwelling units. 5. The General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies. 6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 242 �y Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 5 of 11 30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments, The granting of the exception to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, comprised of approximately 32,395 square feet, and approximately 23,383 square feet can be made subject to the facts in support of following findings: A. Findina: That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properly in the vicinity. A.1 Facts in Support of Findina: The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because: • The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded. on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND), • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. • The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than.other lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karmen: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karmen: 23,065 square feet; and 4040 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). B. Fin_ ding: That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B.1 Facts in Support of Finding The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text; and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center. The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit 2 +3 %- Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -21: Paae 6 of 1 to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shall include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials 2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and /or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit. B.2. Facts in Support of Finding: If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: • A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B. • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the site. • The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. • The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. 8. The granting of the exception to the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet can be made because this parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66 of the NBMC, and adequate off- street parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided. 9, A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development of the new office building has been prepared in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport 2++ Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 7 of 11 Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: A. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are . consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Su000rt of Findin A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels.. If the General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and the MU -1-12 land use designation. B. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1, The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site. C. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental 245 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 8 of 11 impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. E. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that altemate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding EA The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map. 2.4(o /g Planning Commission Resolution No. — PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 9 of 11 F. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Su000rt of Finding: F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. G. Finding: That, in the case of a "land projecP as defined in Section 11000.5 of the Califomia Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: GA The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located within a specific plan area. H. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: HA The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. z4� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paoe 10 of 11 Findinq: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the'existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. J. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (`RWQCB'). Facts in Support of Finding: J.1 The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. K. Findino: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects 248 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paqe 11 of 11 the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 to amend the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase in the allowable building area for Professional & Business Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, as depicted in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "E." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: M Earl McDaniel, Chairman Michael Toerge, Secretary 249 �I 250 ZZ EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program No Mtti, iiopMe isure. TtmeTrame for -' Responsible Veritication of Gom `Hance Implementation &:I; Mon itorning Tnihals ";Date- 'Remsrlis IVIOnitorrn A enc ON- BIO -I The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not During construction Project be scheduled during the avian nesting season construction (approximately February 1 through August 31) contractor to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area, —. - �G�rltucalTtr'- ur�esJ CR- 1 Project plans shall specify that that a qualified During construction Project paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that construction potential paleontological resources are contractor discovered. During construction, the contractor shalt halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed. Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing ofsediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be 2 �� No. , '' ` Mttr g ation Measure ;- T3ine:Frame foY )tesQons�ble ''. verification of.Con fiance ?- ": ImplementaLon &'.1 Mon_iformg ;Initials .:Date : Remaelis,` (=14IOnitorm A enc .. prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. GEO -I Prior to approval of grading permits, soil Prior to issuance of City of Newport preparation measures to minimize expansion grading permits Beach Building potential shall be identified by the applicant in Department construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill, The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture - conditioned to approximately 130% of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90°/u in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field ins ections. GEO -2 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of grading permits Beach Building qon- expansive materials, moisture - conditioned Department to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that wall backfill soils shall grading permits Beach Building consist of granular, cohesionless backfili with Department sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index Iess than 20. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to. . meet grading plan specifications WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance of City of Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved by the grading permits Beach Public City a SWPPP to be implemented during Works construction, which shall include BMPS to Department prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater No Mitigaflon Measure, • TSmeFrame for .`. Impleriientatmn& i Responsible 14ionrtonng Wrification:of Com fiance,; Initrals Date 12emarkss Monitorm A ena protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Diversion of off -site runoff away from the construction site. • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities. • Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment. in Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. ■ Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. il Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping, N -1 Ali noise - producing project equipment and During final design City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines shall and prior to plan Beach Code be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers check approval Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing features in good City of Newport operating condition that meet or exceed original Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" Department equipment (e.g., are welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment During grading, site City of Newport used on the proposed project that is regulated for preparation, and Beach Code noise output by a local, state, or federal agency construction Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used During final design City of Newport instead of pneumatic or internal combustion— and prior to plan Beach Code powered equipment, where feasible. check approval Enforcement During grading, site City of Newport preparation, and Beach Building construction Department N-4 Mobile noise - generating equipment and During, grading, site City of Newport machinery shall be shut off when not in use. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building D epartment 2r3 No . `" Mrtrgat on Measure :2 TimeF.rameSor :; -4espopslow, --:Vermiiii on ofCointill Monito rm A gency N-5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, site City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be preparation, and Beach Code located as far as practical from noise - sensitive construction Enforcement receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N-6 Construction site and access road speed limits During, grading, site City of Newport shall be established and enforced during the preparation, and Beach Code construction period. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N-7 The use of noise-producing signals, including During, grading, site City of Newport horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for preparation, and Beach Code safety warning purposes only. construction Enforcement City OfNewport Beach Building Department N-8 No project-related public address or music During, grading, site City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent receptbr, preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N-9 The onsite construction supervisor shall have the During final design City of Newport responsibility and authority to receive and and prior to plan Beach Code resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process check approval Enforcement to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall During grading, site City of Newport allow for resolution of noise problems that preparation, and Beach Building cannot be immediately solved by the site construction Department I supervisor. I I EXHIBIT "B" REVISED TABLE LU2 ANOMALY LOCATIONS 255 �J ,25� �� -An6rnafy §Whflcbl Nunber Area L ? W Wi O P! ,r L naff6h ma s . Develoorhent LW (OWer) information I L4 MU-H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 1-4 MU-H2 4AQ,441 L052 ,880 2a L4 MU-H2 iMT 11,644 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square footage 3 L4 CO-G 734,641 4 L4 MU-H2 260,176 5 L4 MU-H2 32,500 6 L4 MU-H2 34,500 7 L4 MU-1-12 81,372 8 L4 MU-H2 442,775 9 L4 CG I 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) io L4 MU-1-12 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included In total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,960 12 L4 MU-1-12 457,880 13 L4 CO-G 288,264 M L4 CO-G/MU-H2 860,884 15 L4 MU-H2 228,214 16 L4 CO-G 344,231 17 L4 MU-1-12 33 ,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included In total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 J6 CO-G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retail: 27,000 sf Cv 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO-G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 at, or Office: 70,000 of 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27' L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 256 JJ� .:A M Stbfisficdl: I PP .6s 20, e M dd 4, kumb2r, Desighi, n L imit eir)0!, 0" L, jqmei): Additional Information Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf 33 M3 PI 163,680 Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums., 12,000 at 34 Ll 00-R 484,348 35 L1 CO-R 109,096 36 LI CO-R 227,797 2,050 Theater Seats (not 37 Ll CO-R 131,201 Included in total square footage) 38 Ll 00-M 443,627 39 Ll MU-1-13 408,084 40 1.11 MU-1-13 1,426,63 4 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41. Ll CO-R 327,671 42 1.1 CO-R 286,166 43 1.11 CV 611 Hotel Rooms 1,700 Theater Seats (not 44 Ll CR 1,619,525 Included In total square footage) 46 Ll CO-G 162,364 46 Ll MU•H3/PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU-1-13. 47 Ll CG 105,000 46 1.1 MU-113 337,261 49 L.1 PI 45,208 50 Ll CG 26,600 51 KI PR 20,000 52 KI CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 667,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 A CM 2,000 55 H3 Pi 119,440 In no event shall the total 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus ampus combined gross floor area of 56 A3 Pi 577,889 sf Lower Campus both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 IntenBonally Blank 58 A PR 20,000 256 JJ� 25-9 3j Anomaly.; ;Statlstieal. `: eland Use -` DeYe(opment _ ` _- r'NDm6er -- Area-,, ':'Des! nation - :Limits ° I'Develo menEilmlt: Other AddiNonol lnrorm000n 157 Hotel Rooms and 144 59 H4 MU-W1 487,402 Dwelling Units (included In total square footage) 60 N Cv 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N Cv 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 GN 66,000 64 M3 CN 74,000 65 M5 _CN 80,000 66 J2 CN 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM•D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) 71 L1 CO-G 11,630 72 L1 CO-G 8,000 73 A3 CO•M 350,000 74 Li PR 35,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices of the City of Newport 75 1.1 PF Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 25-9 3j 2(AD0 3Z, EXHIBIT "C" REVISED FIGURE LU71 FOR STATISTICAL AREAS J6, L4 �3 2(o2- ,' C/ N � W CITY of NEWPORT 6EA GENERALPLAN Figure LUii STATISTICALAREAS J6, L4 Rwdx lddpbvfiQg4@ ®ElnplaUntR@ddntld OattMtl ®9rdloUna P@dduntlm AV@N@d ®MdtlgwUN[Ramdon[W AYtlagwrARe9ampm tlxanetl COmOmE191g1hY.h CdC@te1Mh �N@IpabramdCmnmtld �{:Rm6Y. GAd19lC@ (i@n@ml Cemmrdm ® NalarServNp CrmnamW ��� mdNadno ®Re(tl@ntl Crmmrtlel C@mMfdil OIIICeDItM@D[ �Gen@rel GxlmWHd OAIOa Medlal CrnmWe�Dllb Rop@ntl Cmmrd@I qnm nammdDheich Indi9tlld am@dsvvv@mpaDtlmmc Nlpatlamw mosuvcaD�vdso: NNed dlfsDlmlds ftblq SmNApb &a Ipd 4." spare oo.eM �MW s =w,° L4 ^�/ Iand UO@DetlnodrlNB ® Roan W enmWVddo -E]R- z,64 PART II Section 1. Group I EXHIBIT "D" KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT CHANGES COMMERCIAL Site Area and Building Area PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines. (4) Q Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G I: Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Building Sites (4) Total Acreage 30.939 acres * (29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2371 acres 1,765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) Allowable Building Area 366,147 square feet (I Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres f8) 122.574 acres(8)(10)(11) 674,800 square feet (10)(15) 240,149 square feet (8)(13) 32,500 square feet (4) 24,300 square feet (4) 45,000 square feet (8) 2,350,699 square feet {15)( *) *(3)(4) In addition to 19,399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) 2-65 C. 2. Site B Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Paridng Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 can per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. Allowable Building Area ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30) Site Area ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) a. Q ra Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development. Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Pazking 3;2263259 cars Landscaped Open Space (11) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Land Coverage (16,28,30) ............... R.1111_22 acres ............... 77.48 acres ............... 3:555.61 acres ............... 4:444.49 acres ....... I.,..... X703.74 acres ............... 33.21 acres 2.782.81 acres ............... 2-.452.49 acres ............... 2-.2-22.24 acres 2-.022.04 acres ..............I 4:$51.87 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16;28,30) ............... 2Fr.8827_16 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) ......... I..... 5.745.32 acres ............... 944-9.06 acres ............... 11 710_93 acres ............... .1,3812_05 acres ...... I........ 13.12 12.80 acres ............... 1 3:6513.33 acres ............... 448413.73 acres ............... 34314.05 acres ............... "14_30 acres ............... 44,801450 acres ............... 14.9714___67 acres 2 (o 9 EXHIBIT "E" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005 A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 2.. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner, unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes. 4. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the property, unless, otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department. 7. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 8. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. If required, prior to site plan approval and issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA (FAA Form 7460 -1) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The City shall 21o7 39 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 2 of 4 refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission for consistency analysis. The Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, if required, prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel. 11. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 12. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by the private work, public works improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and alleylstreet reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and/or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site. 14. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 15. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 16. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first plan check. The study recommendation(s) shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading the existing City sewer lateral shall be borne by the applicant. 17. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer lines along the southerly property lines. (Note: The new easements do not appear to impact the proposed development. 18. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 19. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement,. See City Standard 110 -L. 2(68 91) Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 3 of 4 20. The parking layout and circulation is subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B. 21. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so it does not impact the overall circulation of the site. 22. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 23. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 24. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and .flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 25. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 26. To the fullest extent permitted by law; applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Business Plaza including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006, and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand 2(oq Planning Commission Resolution No. _ PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 4 of 4 any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 27. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures 28. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project. 270 Attachment No. PC 2 Comment Letter 21i .2"12 y� LAW OPrICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A "HIED LMBIUT, FMM04NF ,Newma M0FM NN4 CORF .Vn ANOELO A PAWIEM UWO-10861 ROBERT F. WA DRON 00EM999) AtAN R WIENER- SIEPNSH A SCNECit ROBERT C. 01"C' BURNA L SNOW JAN" C. WILNLUP MAN K EASTER DENNIS Q. Tnw EUS9 K KERN MICNACI, J. Game M"AR PERCE TIMMS W. DRAM EIR49EFN VMADEE DAVID B. PARM AMON J, RWNCR OURM N. KANRUI' MICHAEL L IRNOE PATRICK A NPXNESSEV ROBERT K OARRETSOM DDN RIINER RYAN K PMOER OREOOR9 N. W HUR CHADWICK C BUNCH WARRCN A WWMNS ANNIE C CHU JOHN R LEVIER JERAD SPUM CTNIIIIA M. WOLCOrr lax"M K YIIVIUOEAO 4ARF C. WEISBERG EWN BAL9NU NAOOE WCNAEL K LBFER DERDt K DRIANKE BCOTT K C FENTFA R JULMN FE RRAN O IECNARD A smus ERCA K sdMSM' NOMU I J. RMCN VOW W 009R0E RONALD K COIF Mummy C WRMN MICHAS. L OANOELO �AMNNBNMt <ONMNNYI 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA SEBMYOSI 49491 881 -9400 W Ww'P4W1W/.DDITf August 5, 2010 Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Robert Hawkins Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Bradley Hillgren Fred Ameri Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. BO% !9910 IRVINE. CA 9EOE3.991E WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (849) 867.7340 WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER (949) 826 -8404 FIRN'S DIRECT FACSIMILC NUMBERS (9491 OBI.1654 !0491 939.1921, reasterQPtW W W.00M REFER TO FILE NO. 31191 -001 Re: PRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4; PA2007 -213) Dear I& Chairman and Planning Commissioners: This office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building'). 2�3 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 2 The Meyer Building is contiguous to the proposed project development of a 50 foot high, 11,960-gross-square feet single- tenant office building (the "Project ") at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach (the "City"). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study (the "Errata ") (which was released to the public on July 30, 2010), for the Project. Please note that Meyer did not receive notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on the Project scheduled for August 5, 2010. We discovered the meeting through our own research. Please ask City staff to ensure that all required notices for projects in the vicinity of or affecting the Meyer Building be sent in accordance with the law. As you are aware, this office submitted a comment letter on behalf of Meyer on June 7, 2010 (the "Initial Comment Letter "). The purpose of the Initial Comment Letter was to provide comments to the City regarding the inadequacy of the environmental review of the Project set forth in the Study, to inform the City that the proposed general plan amendment and amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards should not be adopted without first performing adequate.environmental analysis pursuant to an environmental impact report, and that the Project is otherwise inappropriate for the Koll Center. The City has prepared the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, that the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA"), that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and that the Project is inappropriate for the Koll Center. I. In addition to the proposed general plan amendment for the Project, another general plan amendment (see Agenda Item No. 5) is being proposed for a similar project 2-74 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 3 that is also within the Koll Center (the "Related Project "). This additional general plan amendment proposes to expand the additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, where both the Project and the Related Project are located, by 11,544 square feet. The general plan amendment for the Project also proposes to expand additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 by 11,544 square feet. As discussed in detail below, these general plan amendments should not be considered independently, and should be combined into a single general plan amendment that is subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. A. Text of Charter Section 4U As noted on p. 8 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report for the August, 5, 2010 meeting, Agenda item No. 4 (the "Staff Report"), Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. The text of Charter Section 423 states as follows: "Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. A'major amendment' is one that sienificantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses could eenerate or significantly increases allowed density or intensity . 'Significantly increases' means over 100 peak hour tries (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 snuare feet of floor area (intensity); these thresholds shall apply to the total of 1) Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years. 'Other amendments' does not include those approved by the voters. Neighborhood' shall mean a-Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City. 'Voter approval is required' means that the amendment shall not take effect unless it has been submitted to the voters and approved by a majority of those voting on it. Any such amendment shall be submitted to a public vote as a separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the city council at the same time as one or more other amendments to the City's General Plan. The city council shall set any 275 y, PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August S, 2010 Page 4 election required by this Section for the munlcival eleetion next the applicant and the City as they may same. In any election required by this Section, the ballot measure shall be worded such that a YES vote approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall be void and shall have no effect." [Emphasis added.] B. Addition of Nor - Residential Sguare Feet to Statistical Area L4 as Calculated in the Sta Report. The Staff Report indicates that none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded by the proposed general plan amendment for the Project. This conclusion is based on the calculations set forth in Tables 1 and 2 of the Staff Report. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the additional square feet of non - residential floor area and increases of peak hour vehicle trips for two proposed general plan amendments, identified as GP2007 -009 and GP2008 -007, and a general plan amendment that was adopted on January 9, 2007, GP2006 -096. GP2007 -009 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Project and GP2008-007 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Related Project. The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the cumulative additional square feet of non - residential area that will be added to Statistical Area Ill, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 39,992 square feet. As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase density by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area requires voter approval. Accordingly, Table 2 of the Staff Report indicates that the two proposed general plan amendments will fall merely 8 square feet shy of the 40,000 square foot limitation that would require voter approval. Please note that the calculation of 39,992 square feet was reached by characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a "past amendment," therefore reducing the additional square footage proposed to be added by the general plan amendment for the Project to 80 percent of the actual additional square 276 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 5 footage. As set forth above, the thresholds for Charter Section 423 are determined by adding the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself to 80 percent of the increases resulting from the other amendments affecting the same Statistical Area and adopted within the preceding ten years. Without characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, the total additional square footage resulting from the two proposed general plan amendments and the general plan amendment adopted in 2007 would be 42,300.8 square feet, which would require the general plan amendment to be subject to voter approval. C. addition of Peak -Hour Vehicle Trips. The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the additional peak hour trips that will be added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 20.54 A.M. trips and 19.85 P.M. trips. As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase peak hour trips by 100 requires voter approval. In the aggregate, the three amendments listed in Table 2 will increase A.M. peak hour trips by 85.25 and P.M. peak hour trips by 95.09. Collectively, A.M. and F.M. peak hour trips will be increased by 180.34, if the proposed general plan amendment is characterized as a "past amendment," and 188.4175 peak hour trips if the two proposed general plan amendments are combined into a single amendment. Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips. To the contrary, it merely states that "'significant increase' means over 100 peak hour trios." However, for purposes of analyzing whether the amendments are subject to voter approval, the Staff Report divides the peak hour trips into A.M. and P.M. When the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are combined, they ate greater than 100. Regardless of whether the general plan amendments for the Project or the Related Project are considered together or in independent amendments, the aggregate peak hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. 277 �y PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 6 D. The Proposed General Plan Amendments Are Sublect to Doter Approval Pursuant to Charter Section 423. The two proposed general plan amendments each propose to increase the maximum development limit of the General Land Use Element of the General Plan by 11,544 gross square feet. Both general plan amendments are proposed for similar office building development projects within the same planned community business center, the Koll Center. Likewise, both projects will require an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase allowable building area for each proposed office site. Effectively, these two amendments are collectively proposing to expand office development within the Koll Center. Despite the cohesiveness inherent in planned communities, and documents relating to planned communities, the expansion of the office park has been split into two separate proposals. Given that both projects are being planned at the same time, are located within the same business center, and both propose to expand allowable development within Statistical Area L4, there is no apparent reason why the expansion of allowable development within the Koll Center would be piecemealed into two separate general plan amendments. What is apparent, however, is that these two proposed general plan amendments would require voter approval if the amendments were not split. As detailed above, without the benefit of characterizing the general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, and therefore reducing the additional square footage for the Project by 20 percent, a general plan amendment that includes the additional square footage for both developments in the Koll Center would require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. The division of the proposed general plan amendments serves no purpose other than to circumvent voter approval. Approving these two amendments will effectively appropriate the power vested in the citizens of the City of Newport Beach to limit allowable development as set forth in the General Plan. Accordingly, these two amendments should not be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the amendments should be combined and reconsidered as one general plan amendment, and the combined general plan amendment should be subject to voter approval. 2%8 S\L PAUGERi, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELH & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 7 II. UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT. CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines -15378(a), "Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors of Midpennsulia Region Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136 (1988). California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project" consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not "split" a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the cnvhvnment, which cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3rd 263 (1975). Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Related Project, an additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Related Project, and a massive residential development project in the.Koll Center and property contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Residential Project "). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the Project is required to be analyzed together with the Related Project and the Residential Project. A. The General Plan Amendment and Amendment to Koll Center Development Standards. As discussed above, the proposed general plan amendment for the Project and the proposed general plan amendment for the Related Project should be combined into a single amendment. The cumulative impacts of these two projects must be reviewed in a single environmental impact report, and cannot be analyzed independently. These two projects may have many cumulative impacts that are not identified and addressed in the 2,iq 1i PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 8 Study and the Errata. Likewise, the cumulative environmental impacts relating to the amendments to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Project and the Related Project must be analyzed together in a single EIR. The cumulative impacts of the two projects will certainly be greater than the sum of the impacts of each project as analyzed independently. For example, each project will result in environmental impacts to traffic, inter alto, in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Center. The cumulative impacts to traffic associated with the development of two projects within the Koll Center simultaneously will certainly be greater than the traffic impacts identified independently for each project. As set forth above, CEQA Guidelines provide a broad interpretation of "Project" to include the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CBQA Guidelines 15378(a). It is clearly reasonably foreseeable that the Project and the Related Project within the Koll Center may result in direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that are attributable to the cumulative impacts of the two projects. Accordingly, the split of each project within the Koll Center is unlawful pieeemealing, and an EIR must be prepared to identify and analyze the cumulative environmental impacts associated with both projects. B.. General Plan Amendment No. GP20I0 -002 and Airport .business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Ptan. In addition to the Related Project, the Planning Commission is also considering a project within the Koll Center, and immediately adjacent to the Koll Center, that proposes to build a residential village and utilize many of the common area features of the Koll Center to. be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (defined above as the "Residential Development "). While the Planning Commission at its last meeting on July 22, 2010 continued further discussion on the Residential Development until an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is presented consistent with requirements articulated by the Planning Commission, the Residential Development is reasonably foreseeable. The Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project are all part of an immense development scheme to greatly expand the office development and residential . 260 1� PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 9 development within the Koll Center and adjacent properties. The cumulative environmental impacts associated with the three projects will be much greater than the environmental impacts associated with each project independently. Furthermore, environmental impacts for each project have been analyzed independently in three different studies (none of which is an EIR), omitting the requisite analysis of cumulative impacts. Also, please note that it is irrelevant that different developers plan to implement the construction of each project. Each project is a smaller part of a greater sized, reasonably foreseeable project to expand the Koll Center to include additional office buildings and residential use. Regardless of how many developers are involved, the projects cannot be split into fragments for purposes of environmental analysis. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the "whole of the project" cannot be piecemealed into smaller projects to fragment environmental analysis thereof. It is reasonably foreseeable that the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project, will result in direct and indirect environmental impacts attributable. to the cumulative effect of the construction of all three projects within the Koll Center. Accordingly, the environmental impacts associated with the three projects must be analyzed in a single environmental impact report. III. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT. Based on the information provided in the Study and the Errata, as well as the environmental impacts that were not analyzed therein, it is apparent that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR") must be prepared for the Project. A. ,Preparation ofEIR Pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, b8, 75. "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an'EIR when it can still be "fairly argued' that the project 2.81 �Y& PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 10 may have a significant impact." Oro PYno Gold Wining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, (3d Dist. 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881 -885. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, and finther detailed below, a fair argument may be made that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, B. Environmentallmnacts Identified and Analyzed in the Study and the Errata As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, there are several environmental impacts in the Study that trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project. Additionally, there are several environmental impacts that are identified in the Errata, and several environmental impacts that were not identified in either the Study or the Errata, that also trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project, as follows: 1. Aesthetics. The Errata does not expand on the identification and analysis of environmental impacts to scenic resources. Instead, the Errata revises the language relating to scenic resources to fiuther limit any discussion of scenic resources to merely trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. As set forth in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study limited any analysis of impacts to scenic resources to the three examples provided in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway. The Errata confirms this limited scope of review of the environmental impacts to scenic resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Scenic resources.are not limited to the three examples set forth in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The Lake and a 36 ft. tall mature tree located in the Project Area are scenic resources, impacts thereto must be analyzed, and such impacts were not analyzed in the Study nor the Errata. Accordingly, impacts to the Lake, the 36 ft. tall mature tree, and other scenic resources must be analyzed in an M 282 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 11 2. Biological Resources. The Errata expands the analysis of environmental impacts to riparian habitat from the limited analysis that was provided in the Study. Specifically, a biological survey of the site was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010 (the "ICF Survey ") to determine whether the Project would impact the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. While we appreciate that the ICF Survey was conducted, apparently in response to the Initial Comment Letter, the ICF Survey and the Errata are inadequate to overcome the deficiencies in the Study. Paul Lehman ( "Lehman"), an expert on avian distribution and identification and former editor of the American Birding Association's Birding magazine, detailed in a letter (the "Lehman Letter ") recent biological surveys of the Project site conducted by Hamilton Biological, Inc. (the "Hamilton Survey "). The Lehman Letter analyzes the ICF Survey, the Hamilton Survey, and is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A ". along with Lehman's curriculum vitae. The conclusions reached in the ICF Survey differ greatly from the conclusions reached in the Lehman Letter. Furthermore, the ICF Survey was not conducted at appropriate times, analyzed potential impacts to species that have no potential to occur anywhere near the site, and failed to identify and analyze potential impacts to special - status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located 0.8 mile southwest of the Project site, or San Joaquin March, located 0.6 mile east of the Project site, and likely to use the Lake as a habitat. Some of the more significant points raised in the Lehman Letter are as follows: a. The ICF Survey Was Not Conducted at Appropriate Times. The ICF Survey was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010. The Study also states that field surveys were conducted at the site (published prior to the ICF Study), but no specific studies are referenced in the Study and the ICF Survey is the only survey that is specifically referenced in the Errata. As stated in the Lehman Letter, various special - status species of wildlife are likely to visit and utilize the Lake at various times throughout the year. For example, the California Least Terns and Black Skimmers may forage at the Lake in the late Spring, No study was conducted during the Spring to determine whether special- status species forage at the Lake. Furthermore, as the Lehman Letter points out, the California Least Terns have failed in Upper Newport Bay and this year is not representative of typical 283 S- PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 12 years where such species would be expected to forage at the Lake. Likewise, the ICF Survey did not study during the known foraging patterns of other special - status species or study at appropriate times of day. b. Omission of the Study of Other Special- Status Species. The Lehman Letter identifies several species that are recognized as California Species of Special Concern that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Project site, but were not identified in the ICF Survey. These species include, without limitation, the following: (1) Least Bittern; (2) American Peregrine Falcon; (3) California Least Tern; (4) Black Skimmer, (5) Clark's Marsh Wren; and (6) Tricolored Blackbird. Additionally, the Lehman Letter identifies several species that are included on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on the Special Animals list that have been observed, or may be expected to occur at the Lake and the Project site include, without limitation, the following: (1) Allen's Hummingbird; (2) The Osprey; (3) Cooper's Hawk; (4) Costa's Hummingbird; and (5) Nuttal's Woodpecker. Several species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are listed on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list have been observed, and may be expected to occur, at the Project. However, the potential impacts PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 13 to many of the species were not identified in the Study or the Errata. The potential impacts to these species must be identified in an EIR. c. Foraging and Flight Path. It is also important to note that the discussion of impacts to riparian habitat in the Study and the Errata limited the scope of review to species that may nest in the Project area. However, the Errata failed to discuss species that nest elsewhere, but a e in the Project area. Additionally, the Study and the Errata failed to identify and analyze any impacts to species whose flight path may be impacted by the erection of a 50 ft. tall building between the Lake and Upper Newport Bay. The Study and the Errata failed to identify the potential impacts to these special - status species that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Lake and the Project site. ?accordingly, a more detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts to the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project site must be included in an EIR for the Project. 3. Additional Revisions Provided in the Errata. In addition to revisions to the discussion of environmental impacts relating to aesthetics and biological resources, the Errata provides revisions to the discussion of impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and transportation and traffic. None of these revisions discussed cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential, Project. Furthermore, the revisions discussed in the Errata do not cure the inadequacies identified in the Initial Comment Letter. The significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Comment Letter must be further analyzed in an EIR. In sum, these cumulative environmental impacts will be far greater than the impacts identified and analyzed independently in the environmental documents for each Project. Additionally, the analysis of the significant environmental impacts identified independently in the Study is inadequate. Accordingly, the environmental impacts must be identified and analyzed in a single EIR for the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project. 2g5 J> PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 14 IV. GENERAL PLAN AND KOLL CENTS SR TANDARDS INCONSISTENCIES. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, the amendments to the General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth therein. Additionally, the proposed exception to the KOH Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards (the "Development Standards "), and the accompanying tentative parcel map are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth in the Development Standards. A. The Proposed General Plan Amendment for the Prolect is Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General Plan. The Initial Comment Letter discusses in detail the inconsistency between the general plan amendment for the Project and the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. The Errata made no revisions to the analysis of the environmental impacts to land use, and therefore the analysis of environmental impacts to land use in the Initial Comment Letter remains unrefuted. Generally, the general plan amendment for the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's maximum development limit square footage in specific areas of the City. This amendment is also inconsistent with the City's Vision Statement and the City's express stated goal to reduce potential new commercial and office space by 1.45 million square feet. Despite this limitation, the Project proposes to increase square footage limitations, in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals. B. Inconsistency with Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. The Project proposes to amend the Development Standards to allow for an exception to minimum site area requirements and to allow an exception to off - street parking requirements. The Staff Report concludes that there are sufficient facts to support the requisite findings to allow an exception to minimum site area requirements provided by the Development Standards. Likewise, the Staff Report concludes that the City Council has the authority to approve of an exception to the off - street parking requirements of the Development Standards. r PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 15 Exception to Minimum Site Area The Development Standards require that a site area consist of no less than 30,000 square feet. The Project proposes to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel into two separate parcels, One parcel would consist of approximately 32,395 square feet, and the second parcel would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet, The Staff Report concludes that the granting of the exception is compliant with the requisite findings necessary to support the exception, as follows: (1) the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and (2) that the intent of the Development Standards are substantially met. Despite recommending the draconian measure of amending a fundamental tenet of the Development Standards, the minimum site area, that is a foundation of the Koll Center planned community, the City does not attempt to explain what circumstances exist that justify allowing such an exception. The Development Standards serve the purpose of establishing and preserving the cohesive . nature of a planned business community. The facts in support of the findings provided in the Staff Report are simply too superficial to justify this exception. Although the site area may comply with building envelope requirements, setback requirements, and will not exceed maximum height restrictions, as the Staff Report points out, this does not justify allowing an exception to minimum site area. Nor does the fact that the project site is fully developed and that there are lot sizes in the vicinity of the site that are similar to or smaller than the proposed lot size. The facts in support of the finding that the intent of the Development Standards are met are equally superficial. The principal intent of the Development Standards is to create a cohesive, planned community by establishing certain standards that will create a consistent and unified office park. Adopting an exception to any development standard is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of the Development Standards. Moreover, the Staff Report concludes on p. 12 that if the exception is granted, then the intent of the Development Standards will be met. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. The intent of the Development Standards must be determined by reviewing them prior to making exceptions. If the approval of an exception itself is manifest proof 287 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 16 of satisfaction of requisite intent, then the analysis of the intent of the Development Standards is a sham. Such a revision will set precedent for revising Development Standards in the future without actually considering the intent of the Development Standards prior to making such revision. The exception to the Development Standards-for minimum site area is not supported by the findings set forth in the Staff Report, and therefore the exception for minimum site area should not be approved. 2. Exception to General Parking Requirement Standards. The Staff Report determined that the City Council has the authority to lower the off - street parking requirements from one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. Additionally, the Staff Report recommends that this exception be granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Staff Report notes that, if the exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement were granted, the intent of providing adequate off - street parking would be met. Again, these concepts are mutually exclusive and the approval of an exception in and of itself may not be considered proof that the intent of the Development Standards was met. Furthermore, the analysis is too superficial to justify providing this exception. The Staff Report states that the off - street parking requirements are consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "NBMC ") for business and professional office use. This is irrelevant to the discussion of parking requirements that are specific to the Koll Center The parking requirements in the Koll Center are more stringent than the general parking requirements set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code in order to preserve specific standards that were created for the Koll Center community. The general parking requirement standards were established to provide ample parking in the Koll Center, and to preserve standards that will create and preserve a consistent and unified office park. Accordingly, the exception to the general parking requirement standards should not be approved. i` ., PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 17 3. Tentative Parcel Man. The Project proposes to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. In order to approve a tentative parcel map, the decision - making body must make all of the 11 findings set forth in Section 19.12.070 of Title 19 of the NBMC. The Staff Report concludes that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and that the facts set forth in the Staff Report support all 11 findings required by the NBMC. however, many of the findings required to approve the tentative parcel map cannot be met, including but not limited to the following: (1) The first finding requires that the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As discussed in detail above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Development Standards. Therefore, the tentative parcel map is inconsistent with the first finding, which is required to be met in order to approve the tentative parcel map. (2) The third finding requires that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Furthermore, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact to was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Again, as discussed in detail above, the Study and Errata have not adequately analyzed the potential impacts to species located in the Project area. Furthermore, an MR was not prepared for the Project, and, therefore the decision - making body may not find pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that other considerations make infeasible other alternatives. Accordingly, the third finding set forth in Section 19.28.0 10 of the NEW cannot be met. (3) The fifth finding requires that the subdivision not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed 289 C/ PALMIERI,TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM 8e WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August S, 2010 Page 18 subdivision. As stated above, the Residential Project proposes to utilize certain portions of the Koll Center as common areas for the benefit of the residents of the Residential Project. No analysis was provided in the Staff Report regarding any potential conflicts between the proposed Residential Project and the tentative parcel map. Not less than three of the I I findings required to support approval of the tentative parcel map cannot be met. Additionally, further analysis of environmental impacts relating to land use, biological resources, and cumulative impacts attributable to the Project and the Related Project is required to determine whether all I I of the findings may be met. Accordingly, the tentative parcel map cannot be approved under Section 19.28.010 of the NBMC. V. CONCLUSION. For the reasons set forth above, Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA, the general plan amendment and Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and the Project is inappropriate for and inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and Development Standards for the Koll Center. Very truly yours, Ryan M. Easter RME:fjf cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. 2670 EXHIBIT "A" 2-91 6� 292 6� August 5, 2010 James B. Hasty, Senior Vice President Meyer Properties 4320 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Biological Review, PRES Office Building B Dear Mr. Hasty, At your request, I have reviewed environmental documentation provided by the City of Newport Beach (City) regarding a mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared in support of a project known as the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (PRES). This. letter report provides the results of my review. My qualifications to conduct this review are provided in the attached biography. Methods I reviewed all relevant portions of the MND, provided on the City's web page. This included: ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Report dated July 2010 prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Section IV, Biological Resources. ICF International. 2010. Summary of Biological Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Memorandum dated June 28, 2010, from biologist Paul Schwartz to project manager Nicole Williams. I also reviewed the letter dated June 7, 2010, from Ryan M. Easter of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, and the City's responses. Biologist Robert Hamilton of Hamilton Biological, Inc., visited the project site during the afternoons of July 31 and August 2, spending approximately one hour in the project vicinity during each visit. During these visits Mr. Hamilton noted plant and wildlife species present and the general condition of the project site and nearby man -made ponds on either side of Von Karman Avenue. Mr. Hamilton provided me with photographs showing the condition of the project site and the two nearby ponds. 293 65% Review Comments The main issues that stand out from my review of this project relate to the results of the literature search and the assumptions made by the project biologists about which species could, or could not, occur at the project site and adjacent retarding basin pond. The memorandum from Mr. Schwartz states: Prior to conducting the field survey, a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2010) search was completed to detect special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area. The species list insulting from the search is provided In Table 1. Table I include entries for numerous species of plant and wildlife that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site, and have no potential to occur anywhere near the site. These include Cismontane Nolina ( Nolina cismontana, occurs in the Santa Ana Mountains), Santa Ana River Woollyster (Eriastrum densjfolium ssp. sanctorum, unrecorded south of Featherly Park near the Riverside County line), and even the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates prplem), a species with a natural distribution that includes only the northern part of California. Given that the project site is located near two man -made ponds that support small fish and emergent marsh vegetation, Table I should have included certain special-status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located only 0.8 mile southwest of the project site, and/or San Joaquin Marsh, located only 0.6 mile east of the project site. The following special- status species of potential relevance to the proposed project are not included in Table 1: Least Bittern (lxohryehus eidlis). This California Species of Special Concern is known to occur in stands of cat -tails and tules at San Joaquin Marsh and other freshwater marshes in Orange County, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention the Least Bittern and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. However, given the relative small size and isolated, urban nature of this cat -tail habitat in the retarding basin pond, it is very unlikely that Least Bittern nests on the site, and this species would —at best —be a very irregular visitor. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines anatam). This state - endangered species is known to occur regularly at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh, and Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on the Marriott Hotel at Fashion Island in Newport Beach (Gallagher, S. J., and Bloom, P. H. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA). Although this species could occur on the project site, the MND failed to mention the Peregrine Falcon and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. The Peregrine Falcon would likely be an irregular visitor, mostly in search of possible prey at the retarding basin pond not to the actual proposed site of the PRBS building, 2q� California Least Tern (Sternula aniillarun brown). Tbis species, listed as endangered by state and federal governments, nests on a sand island near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and is "regularly encountered at golf course ponds and similar sites within a mile or two of the coast" in Orange County (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA) and the same is true in San Diego County (pers. obs). Given that their nearest nesting colony is located only 1.2 miles southwest of the project site (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and given the large population of small fish in the ponds adjacent to the project site (Mr. Hamilton noted that these fish are easily seen from the edges of the ponds), I believe that Least Tems might make rare or occasional summer foraging visits of these ponds during normal years. Mr. Hamilton did not see any toms at the ponds during his field visits, but the Least Terns have failed in their nesting at. Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.) and Mr. Hamilton has not seen them anywhere at the bay since early July (he monitors the ongoing dredging work at the bay and inspect the terns' nesting island approximately once a week). Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for Least Toms at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there during a normal year. Black Skimmer (Rynchops nlger). Like the Least Tern, this California Species of Special Concern regularly nests near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and regularly forages "within a mile or two of the coast" (Hamilton, R. A. and Wiliick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distributioa Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA). Similar to the tern, skimmers could make rare foraging visits to the ponds near the project site during normal years, probably at night. Mr. Hamilton did not see any skimmers at the ponds during his field visits, but, like the Least Terns, Black Skimmers have failed in their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pets. comm). Mr. Hamilton has seen low numbers of skimmers at the bay since early July. Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for skimmers at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there during a normal yam• Clark's Marsh Wren (Cistothoras palustris elarkae). This California Species of Special Concern Is a sedentary bird that occurs in stands of cat -tails and tales at San Joaquin Marsh and Upper Newport Bay, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention Clark's Marsh Wren and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelalus tricolor). This California Species of Special Concern breeds in emergent marsh vegetation and feeds in grasslands, sometimes including turf. Although it is doubtful that Tricolored Blackbirds make substantial use of this site, the MND failed to mention the Tricolored Blackbird and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. 3 295 Several other species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, or identified as California Species of Special Concern, are placed on a "Special Animals" list by the California Department of Fish and Game: "Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the tax$ the Califomia Nanaal Diversity Data Base is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status speoles." The Department offish and Game considers the hom on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. (htto:t/dfSca.gov/blogmdaWcnddWpdrs/SPAWimWs.rdi) CEQA documents typically identify and evaluate a project's potential effects on all Special Animals that are known or expected to occur on a given site. Mr. Hamilton observed an Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sashr) across the street from the project site on August 2, 2010. The Osprey (Pandlon hallaetus) has been reported occasionally foraging in ponds near the project site (James Hasty pens, comm.). Other Special Animals with potential to occur on the site include Cooper's Hawk (Acelpiter cooperli), Costa's Hummingbird (C6lypte costae), and Nuttall's'Woodpecker (Picot des nutiallio. The Osprey, which has only recently recolonized Orange County, Is now known to nest at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. It seems unlikely that this species occurs regularly at the ponds near the project site, but this question was not evaluated in the MND. The other species mentioned above are common across much of Orange County and the wider region, and so are not especially "sensitive," but again, it is the project biologist's responsibility to evaluate their potential for occurrence on the site and to analyze the potential significance of any impacts. None of these species was mentioned In the biological documentation for the MND. Conclusions The stated objective of the biological report prepared for the MND was to identify "special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area," but evaluated a number of species that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site and/or that have no potential to occur in the project setting. More importantly, the MND did not evaluate various special - status species known to occur within a mile of the project site, at Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. I cannot do more than speculate about the actual status of several of these species identified in this comment letter, but it should be stated that some of them have been reported on or near the site and others could potentially use the ponds, at least on an irregular basis. Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on a building in Newport Beach. The definitive publication on the status and distribution of birds in Orange County states that both California Least Terns and Black Skimmers regularly forage at freshwater sites within a mile or two of the coast (including "golf course ponds and similar sites" for the tem). Whether either of these species forage at the two ponds adjacent to the project site is unknown because adequate surveys were not conducted during the late spring/early summer period in 2010 when these species were actively nesting at Upper Newport Bay. Now that their local nesting has failed, numbers of both of these species at the head of Newport Bay are reduced from their normal late- summer A 29 levels (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and the birds that remain may not be following the foraging patterns they normally follow when they are raising young. It is my conclusion that the MND Is deficient In its failure to fully (1) discuss these special- status species and their known patterns of foraging in Orange County, (2) conduct surveys at appropriate times of year and appropriate times of day directed toward determining their status on the site, or (3) evaluate the potential effects of adding a tall structure along the flight -line between the Kell Center ponds and Upper Newport Bay. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this review. If you wish to review any matters, please call me at (858) 268.1937 or send e-mail to lehman.paul@verizon.net. Sincerely, 1?.e 8n-z� Paul E. Lehman Attachment: Lehman biography 5 2 l 7 6 f PAUL LEHMAN 11192 Portobelo Drive, San Diego, CA 92124 M- 268 -1937 (home); 609 - 313 -3129 (cell) lehman.paul@vedzon.net Paul Lehman has written many articles and papers on avian distribution and identification. Formerly a lecturer in physical geography and environmental studies at the university of California in Santa Barbara, and past editor of the American Birding Association's Birding magazine for nine years (1989 -1997), Paul continues to give lectures on weather and bird distribution, migration, and vagrancy. He also leads bird tours throughout North America for Wings, Inc. He is an associate editor for both North American Birds and Western Birds magazines, and he has been a principal consultant on most of the popular field guides on the market today, primarily as the chief consultant and compiler for the range maps in The Sibley Field Guides to Birds of Eastern and Western North America, Roger Tory Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America and A Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America, the National Geographic Society's Field Guide to the Birds of North America and Complete Birds of North America, the Smithsonian Guide to the Birds of North America, and the National Miildlife Federation Guide to the Birds of North America. He was also chief editor of the ABA /Lane birdfinding guide to North America's major metropolitan regions, and was managing editor of the recently published Rare Birds of CaliOrnia book. 19 ��g Attachment No. PC 3 Errata to the Draft IS /MND (Distributed under separate cover) 2qq Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 To: Planning Commission From: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner ,�}n Date: August 16, 2010 Re: PRIES Office Building B — Errata to the IS /MND (Amended August 13, 2010) Attached please find a copy of an Errata to the IS /MND (Chapter 4), amended as of August 13, 2010, and Appendix I. Changes to the amended Errata, which were not addressed in the Errata attached to the August 5, 2010 staff report, occur in the following categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic. Also attached are copies of a revised conceptual rendering and elevation plans of the proposed office building submitted by the applicant for your information. The height of the building has been reduced from 50 -feet to 47 -feet 10- inches. , Chapter 4 Errata to the Draft IS /MND (Amended August 13, 20.10) X yvP� 0 G16io Oil �g1 Introduction � This section of the document addresses modifications to the draft IS/MND for the proposed PRES Office Building B. It presents all revisions related to public comments, as determined necessary by the Department. Only sections that bad revisions based on the public comments are included, and sections that had no revisions are not included. Readers are referred to Chapters 1 through 3 of this final ISA VM to view complete sections. This section provides changes to the draft IS/MND in revision-mode text (i.e., deletions are shown with striketkreuo and additions are shown with underline . These notations are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or .minor revisions as needed as a result of public comments or because of changes in the project since the publication and distribution of the draft IS /MND. Changes to the Draft IS /MND The following changes to the text as presented below are incorporated into the final IS/MND. Project Description Office Building Development As discussed above, the proposed amendments would increase the allowable square footage to accommodate the development of anew 11,960- gross- square - foot office building on the site that is currently occupied by a 6,850- gross - square- foot office building and 84 surface parking spaces. Approximately 25 stalls of the existing 84 stalls of surface parking and some existing landscaping would be PRE$ tNUoe Building B Augusl201D . - Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 -1 ICFJ85aeMM 301 City of Newpod Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MND demolished for the development of the proposed office building. The proposed office building would be a total of three levels: two levels of office space and a ground -level parking structure. The proposed building may be occupied by a single tenant, PRES, or it may have multiple tenants. An average of 53 employees would work at the proposed building: , The parking structure would provide 12 parking spaces, and the exterior surface of project site would provide 30 parking spaces for a total o£42 parking spaces on the proposed parcel two. Primary access to the proposed project would remain from Von Karman Avenue. Figure 2 -5, Proposed Project Plan, illustrates the project site plan. The maximum height of the office building would be apprer irnutely a may imam of 4730 feet 10 inches above the original grade. Figure 2 -6, Proposed Project Elevations, shows the side elevations of the proposed building. The architectural style of the office building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition of the building. The office buildings would incorporate a mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. Figure 2 -7, Proposed Project Rendering, shows an architectural rendering of the proposed building, Mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, would be screened from the public view by the height of the buildings. All equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of the equipment. Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics, Page 3 -5 b. SubstandaAy damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, . rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highlpay7 No Impact The prejeat site does net eensist of any Feek eutomppings that are of buildings area that would he a&e4ed by the proposed frmjeet. r PRES Office Building 8 August 2010 302 Initial Study/Miagafed Negative Daciaradon 42 _ tcrdas oosraoa City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND This threshold specifically relates to the damage of scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, that are along or adjacent to a scenic highway (i.e., adjacent to or in the vicinity of a scenic highway), Therefore the scope of analysis for this threshold identifies whether scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the project site and if so wbether the project would impact scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures along the scenic highway. tThere are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (California Depargnent of Transportation 2009). In addition, the County of Orange General Plan was also reviewed to determine if there are locally designated scenic highways within pmxWft of the project sits. County of Orange General Plan Transportation Element Figure IV -11 does not identify designated scenic higbways in the vicinity of the project site (County of Orange 20041 Furthermore the Mqieqt site does not consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality. There are no historic buildings on site or in the p�roiect area that would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage ascenic resources along a scenic hi way, and no impacts would occur. For an analysis of the existing visual character or e- Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings? Less -tban- Significant ]Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is located in a fully developed planned community and would not damage any scenic resources. The proposed project would blend in with the existing character of the area and surrounding land uses. The maximain height of to the west of Von Kalman Avenue. Of the eight buildings surrounding the two retarding basins in the Kell Center. the PRES and Meyers buildings are the only single -story buildings Therefore, the Koll Center and the buildings surrounding the retarding basins offer a wide variety of heights and elevations. This variety adds a multi -level visual complexity to the existing visual setting. See Attachment A depicting the eight buildings and the local area surrounding the two retarding basins. asins. PRES OMce Building B August 2010 4 Initial StudylMitiga led Negative Declaration IGrJ8ee087&09 303 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND part of the visual character and guuality of the Koll Center, they are not designated visual resources according to the General Plan Natural Resources Element. There are no views of the project site from the northeast because the Meyers building has no windows facing the project site that would allow employees or visitors to that building to view the existing landscaped space and black asphalt office building with a maximum height of 47 feet 10 inches. Approximately 25% of the project site would be landscaped, and approximately 75% of the site would be paved. The proposed pL ject would remove approximately 2,000 square feet of existing landscaped space from the Koll Center. The proposed architectural style of the building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition of the building. The proposed office building would incorporate a mixture of textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, add canopy elements. Equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, would be screened from the public view by the height of the building. All equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of the equipment. PRES Office Building B August 2010 tntael SludylMitIgated Negative Declaration 4-4 icFa %sOM&DD 30-f ;, I - 0 lei /� \\ \ � � f -cc »« � ^ .= lei /� \\ \ � ^ .= _N'r 2 ? : � 77 4F; 0Ya.A.`.4.1 , 41 go .. 3. 5 f v r � _. 77 r,T v r � _. 77 'Aiik L r,T v r � _. 77 / i� �. L � t w i I r G<-J! x'Jr jj ` }i v" 1. I x'Jr - ' � � � Y r tf 1 �%Y J%� (� �1 s htlTy y Y� hX' M+"4'�-ti� I i a . �,� <4 � h �, T`}iA1 '� �tYy'�q; ri � Ki y 1�� � .(y '�y�•'1•� A y 1 As r ax.r�, °i �r i �% .. .. �. .9 t �' �;,.;, I 1'. � Y + } � I N^- '�{f1 Y.�. 1'xiS S r .y,�k'+� ^F� x+.6. K £^ I .:.1 Jit r .. `.:_., ICFJo�s& Attachment G Stokes Viewpoint #5 Southbound Von Karman Ave. Median View to Project Site PRIES Office Building 8 Y� R 5 z� sr� r �}�r �,: rte'; j. �M %A �.' "�. J u K � f �y� 4. J ^.yi�u 1` ` � ,t d T �'w \ � i� ~ �. a � �4�t ..r' y,.vw"�.s a �, b�'F . L•� ,Y.1 t� .hen l .,�c �.. Y� R 5 z� sr� r �}�r �,: rte'; i 4: CRY of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND The RMosed proiect would change the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. However, simply cbmwinu the existing visual character would The proposed pri iect would not substantially degrade the existing visual space smrounding the two retarding basins. The landscaped space offers no unique or different characteristic than any of the other landscaped space located more than 200 feet from the retarding basin across the street and Von PRES Office Building B Augusl2010 Initial StudylMidgated Negative Declaration 4.5 314 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISlMND Therefore, as the proposed project would be located in a fully developed planned community and the architectural components would blend in with the existing office - complex character of the area, impacts would be less than significant. IV. Biological Resources, Pages 3 -17 and 3.18 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According Figure NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located within an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Additionally, field surveys of the site confirmed that the project site is fally developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities, Specifically, ICF performed pelican (Pelecanus oecidentalis), ereat blue boron (Ardea herodias), and mallard (Anas olatvrhvnchos). Of the species listed, the brown pelican, a federally protected species when present in nesting colonies and communal roosts, is only direct impacts on the retarding basin. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community and no impacts would occur. A. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory frsk or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other undeveloped lands. According to Figures NRI and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not identified as a biological resources area, nor is it located in an Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a) and the site is not connected to any wildlife _ PRES Office Building B - Auguat 2090 Inaial StudyiMltigated Negative Declaration 4$ ICFASOOM99 315 City of Newport Beach Chapter4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND corridors. Therefore, the project site is not considered a part of a regional wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species from one area to another. Joaquin Marsh., The retarding basin is not within the project site boundaries, and the proposed and that the project is in the immediate vicinity of other large local estuaries that birds use, temporary construction- related impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The project site does not support daily movement of species. Because of the poor quality of foraging habitat that the ornamental lawn and ornamental trees provide, and because the protect is in the vicinity of local estuaries (San Joaquin Marsh. doper Newport Bap) used by birds, project- related impacts to wading bird foraging habitat would be considered less than significant. Although the existing ornamental trees on site do not mated to provide important habitat, the removal of ornamental trees on site would require compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (ABTA) Therefore, Mitigation Measure B1O -1 is proposed to minimize reduee the impact on migratory birds should the ornamental trees be removed during migration season. The incorporation of roosting bn ds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated., Vlll. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Pages 3 -34 to 3.35 C. Fora project within art airport land ase plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 Writes 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? PRES Office Building B August 2010 Initial StudylMiggated Negative Declaration 4-7 10FJxsooar8.os 3►( City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS/MND Less- than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (ABLUP) for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project is within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Pail 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. All building height restrictions identified in the Airport Environs Land Use-Plan (AELUP) have as their ultimate limits the imaginary surfaces-as applicable and defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. "Imaginary Surfaces" are defined by means of elevations. heights. and slopes in relation to individual Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for any constnrction or alteration that: • Exceeds 200 feet in height abov_at the ground level at its site. • Exceeds a height greater than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at specific slope characteristics at 70,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the airport runway. ■ Is a highway with specific characteristics. ■ Is occurring at an airport. The proposed project includes construction of a three -level office building with a maximum height of 47 feet 10 inches 39 feet. The project site is approximately 492 -feet above mean sea level . Therefore tine v..._.. 74 60- 1 i.efiee- Preliminary analysis has suggested that the gmposed . project does not meet the criteria for FAA requirements to file Form 7460 -1. However, the project site could be located in an instnunent approach area: and therefore the FAA may request the filing of Form 7460 -1 prior to construction. If it is determined the form is required- the applicant would submit the forms as a a PRIES Office Building B August 2010 Ini6ai Stud y/M19gated Negative Declaration 48 - roF assooerao9.. 317 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MND referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review is required due to the location of the proposal within the AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. general plan amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). The proposed project would comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land use Commission's John Wayne AELUP (Airport Land Use Commission 2008). The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. Although the proposed project is located within an airport land use plan, it would comply with all established standards, requirements, and plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Pages 3 -39 to 3 -42 Discussion Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land within the City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City ofNewport Beach 2006a). Each of these watersheds is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMP requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The project site is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed. San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin (City of Newport Beach 2003). The EPA and Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board have identified San Diego Creek as an impaired water body. Impairments are identified for nutrients, sediments and toxics (see Appendix B, Preliminary WQMP). The main tributary of the San Diego Creek Watershed, San Diego Creek, drains directly into Upper Newport Bay (City ofNewport Beach 2006b). The National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio System (IV. DES) stoamwater program was established under the Clean Water Act (EPA 2010). It is a hvo- phased national nrogram for addressing the non - agricultural sources of stormwater discharges that adversely affect the qualitLof receiving waters (EPA Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or PRE$ Office Building B August 2010 4.9 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Dedaration 1WJee 00673.0 318 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft 1S/AND redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The City is a co- permittee for the NPDES Permit (Gity e f- Nawpei4 n. seta 2009..) \ACA The permits - requires an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain City facilities like the M84, and use of BMPs in many residential, commercial, and development - related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Specifically, the City is required to do the following: x Control contaminants into storm drain systems. • Educate the public about stomuwater impacts. • Detect and eliminate illicit discharges. • Control runoff from construction sites. • Implement BMPs and other site - specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment. • Prevent pollution from municipal onerations, including fixed facilities and field activities. M Inspect industrial and commercial sites for c9MIiance with NPDES regulations (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Water Quality Management Plan tWQMP). SWPPPs are not only required under the NPDES program but are reouiredto comply with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SARWOCB. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of 1 acre or more, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sate, must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (2009 - 0009 -DWQ Permit effective July 20 10) (State Water Resources Control Board 2010a). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The S WPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a PRES Office Building B August 2010 Initial StutlylMlUgatetl Negative Declaration 4-10 ICFJ&SM73. 9 31q City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Drag IS/MND visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (State Water Resources Control Board 2010b). The Le4uirements of the SWPPP are based on the construction design specifications additional requirements under the SWPPP prior to grading and in compliance with the City's NPDES permit (as described above). The proposed building footprint is approximately &,M 6 500 square feet; therefore, the amount of disturbed area during construction would be less than 1 acre and would not be part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not require the preparation or implementation of a formal SWPPP. However, since the project site is adjacent to a retarding basin, and is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed, which is impaired for sedimentation, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 is General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SARWOCB. WO-1 as described below would minimize the potential for construction activities to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. However, the proposed project would remove landscaped area, which would be replaced with surface parking and the proposed office building; therefore, slightly increasing the impermeable surface of the project site (see Appendix B for additional details). reviewed and approved by the Gify prior te the issuance of grading and bodding .peat sansfTsetient gtervvwater fmag from the proposed Projest site.- gardening preatioes, and the impacts ef litwing sad improper water disposal PRE$ Office Buliding B August=() Initial StudyUggated Negative Dederation 4-11 ]cr.waoosraoe 340 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND Gemmen ,, landseape ...d „d:,,.. a .. lizer/pestiside PM i Spill eent :..............1.... n hibit the diseliffges Ct •1' Vestiaides, a we stes to sireets F,i ains. i. n«.,6a.it bl .....:....... sweeping of d..t,ris into street eF st....., drains. Wehibit i hosing dev,% any paved SuFflineRwheFe the �Rult would be the Ilew of nen aeonwater into the street of storm drains. eastemem,, of a public. i '0..,,.:d.. regular dF y sweeping ei d„ 1...:......a ......,s ell.,., :...., instead a i The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) identifies additional BMPs to control the volume of stormwater generated and maintain.water quality. The Bh4Ps in the Preliminary WOMP include, but are not limited to: several nonstructural source control BMPs (e.g., activity restrictions, landscape management, etc), several structural BMPs (e.g., stormdrain signage. trash and waste storage, etc), several site design BMPs (e.g., nmoff volume reduction, etc.), and several treatment control BMPs (e.g., Filterra Roof Drain Planter) n older to maintain water guality. These various BMPs would control the pollutants of concern for the proposed prject. which include: bacteria and viruses, heave metals, pesticides, organic compounds. and sediment. -hese BhfPs juslude, but are net limited to, e€dminage planter These additional BMPs are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff during operation of the proposed project. Currently, stormwater runoff generated by the Proieot site (e.g., parking lot) and the surrounding tributary area (e.g.- remaining parking lot) are collected via sheet flow and discharged into an existing stormwater drain at the entrance of the parking lot adjacent to the parking ticket booth. This is then discharged into the existing 48 inch stormwater drain and routed to the manhole and concrete weir PRE$ Office Building B August 2010 Initial StudylMlagaled Negative Declaration 4-12 IWASM73.09 32-1 City of Newport Beach Chapter. Errata to the Draft ISININD The protection of water quality is related to the land use enF erating the stortnwater and to the volume stormwater flow generated under storm everits. A The County of Orange requires that new development perform a hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) assessment and incorporate 13MPS to ensure any HCOCs created by the new development are mitigated {County of Orange 2010). An HCOC exists wben the hydrologic regime of a site is altered or may be altered, and there is a potential for impacts on downstream channels alone or In conjunction with impacts of otber projects (County of Orange 2010) The County of Orange technical document specifically defines HCOCs if the following conditions exist: r post development nln off volume for the 2 -year. 24 -hour storm event exceeds that of pre - development conditions by more than 5 percent: or ■ time of concentration' of post development runoff for the 2 -year, 24 -hour storm event is less than the time of concentration of the pre- development condition by more than 5percent. (County of Orange 2010). If these conditions do not exist post - development, then an HCOC does not exist and does not need to be considered further (County of Orange 2010. The 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm event hydra t{ lic calculations for the existing conditions and proposed pyooiect conditions were perfonned using sofhvare written per the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual (1986). The existing conditions roiect site plus the sunrounding parking lot) and Oie proposed project conditions (project site with proposed project plus the surrounding parking lot) are included in Table 3 -6.1 °bellow. As showm, the difference between the two is negligible and the peak flow under proposed project conditions is nearly identical to existing conditions. See Drawing 1 of 2 and Drawing 2 of 2 of Anpendix H, which depict the existing and proposed project peak flows on a nroiect area map. ' Time of concentration is P-eneral y defined as the length of tune it takes from stonnwater nmoff to travel from the highest point before Table 3 -T PRES Office Building B August 2010 4 -13 initial SludyRditigaled Negative Declaration ICFASM73.09- 322- City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft MAND Table 3.6.1. Change between Existing and Proposed Flow Rates Lxistine Conditions Flow Rate Pronosed Proiect Flow Rate Storm Event (Cubic Feet Per Second) (Cubic Feet Per Second) Difference L 1.11 1.1706 010 2.05 2.14 0.09 9j 00 3.18 3.32 0.14 Westland Gme 2010. concentration of 1.76 percent and a 10 -year storm event has a difference in the time of concentration of 1.03 percent between nre- and post - development. Since both of these are less than 5 percent, an HCOC would not result as part of the pEWosed pr ject per the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document discussed above. Similarly, the stoma volume difference before and after be contained by BW. pesticides, organic compounds, and sediments). Appendix H includes a letter of confirmation from the manufacturer of the Filters Bioretention System that the PRES Office Building B August 2010 lnlgal StudylMlttgated NegatNe Declaration 4-14 iCeassooanae 9M City of Newport Beach Chapter4. Effete to the Draft ISJMND Therefore. operation of the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP by preparing the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP, which is required for approval as part of the issuance of building and grading permits, will demonstrate that the BMPs discussed above and in Appendix B and Appendix H will control storrawater runoff and maintain water quality. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riper, bra manner that would result In substantial erosion or siltation on site or offske? Less- than - Significant Impact. The existing project area is in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The existing landscaped areas surrounding and located on the project site drain predominately into the retarding basin to the northwest ofthe project site (TGR Geotwhnical, Inc. 2008) (Appendix B). The existing parking areas drain via sheet flow to concrete ribbon gutter within the existing perking lot. Stormwater generally travels westerly along the gutter and is discharged into an existing catchment basin in the southwest comer located in the main enhance into the project site, along the west side of the site (Appendix B). No streams or rivers are currently located on or around the project site and the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The proposed project would involve some grading and minor soil disturbance during construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would comply with the DAMP (described above in Section IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality). Once operational, the proposed project would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site as the existing site is already largely paved with surface parking. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of exposed soil thereby contributing to siltation or erosion. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) provides BMPs such as pavement- detention, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff- minimizing landscaping, and a roof drainage planter to control the volume and quality of runoff generated by the slight increase in impervious surface on site. As described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) and the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix H). flow would continue to drain in a westerly direction into the existing catchment basin. Therefore, the operation of the project site as an office building would not result in a substantial change to the PRES Office Building B August 2010 4-15 What Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration as•asaooersos 3z� City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MND existing drainage. Impacts associated with erosion during operation and construction, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ofsarface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. Substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil because of the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site is-(84 surface parking spaces). During construction, runoff quantities and velocity from the project site would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), operation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site. As discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), BMPs would be used saptafe stormwater volumes. These BMPs are iffoluded to improve treatment and storage capacity for the proposed project, which is an improvement over the existing site conditions. Any changes in hydrology are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff, providing partial flood relief to receiving waters. Furthermore, peak flows are erg rerally4he same under the existing conditions as the proposed nroiect conditions. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d Create or contribute runoff ivater that would exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Less-than- Sigutticant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Overall, urban street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2003). As described above in Section IX(d), the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site as 84 stalls of surface parking would not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not substantially increase the impervious area as discussed in Section IX(a), (c), and (d) above. The Koll Center Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site. Koll Center Newport Planned Community maintains the retarding basin (Tong pers. comm. a). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce the flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly PRES Office Building B August 2010 4 -10 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration tcr.wsoaeraoa 325 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND undersized downstream facilities will be able to cant' the discharge from new development areas upstream (City of Newport Beach 2000). The existing stormwater infi-astructure is designed to first discharge volumes into the existing stormwater drain in Von Karman Avenue generated by low -flow storm events and then discharge volumes into the retarding basin generated by bi -flow storm events). Final WONT will include a BMP such as the Colter Model PAC 150 to reduce The proposed project would comply with the policies outlined in the General Plan to minimize runoff - related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.11, NR 3.20 and NR 4.4 and implementation would reduce the volume of runoff generated and potential for flooding. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) for the proposed project discusses operational BMPs, inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality. Storrowater drainage flows from the proposed PRES Oirwe Building B August 2010 Initial StudylMiligated Negative Dedruntion 447 I(7J&SOW3.e9 32(o City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND project would be accommodated by the capacity of the existing catchment basin (Tong. pers, comm. b). Furthermore, as discussed in Section IX(a), Filterm Bioretention Systems arepr000sed for this site and are included in the Preliminary WOMP and would be included in the Final WOMP as a method to maintain existing water quality. Appendix H includes a letter of confirmation lary Final WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. At that time it would be finalized and would demonstrate that the BMPs discussed in the Preliminary WQMP and the Preliminary Hydrology Report will control stormwater runoff and maintain water quality. Furthermore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during construction. Increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain system& or generate polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts on stormwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. XII. Noise, Page 3 -53 a For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, sphere such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles ofa public airport or public use alrport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less - than- Signitieant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan shows the existing 65 dBA CNBL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 shows that the project site is located approximately 0.25 to 0.5 mile outside the 65 dBA CNBL noise contour for John Wayne Airport (City of Newport Beach 2006x). reduction requirements are needed. PRE$ Me Building B - August 2010 4-18 Initial Studytkatigated Negative Declaration ICFJ000873.00 327 City of Nevrport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MND Therefore, noise impacts related to air traffic would be less than significant. XIV. Public Services, Pages 3 -56 to 3 -57 Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: aL Fire protection? Less - than - Significant Impact. services. linplementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, including possible additional demand on and use of fire equipment and medical supplies at the project site. , The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. There are eight fire stations strategically located throughout the City so that a fire unit can respond to residents and businesses in less than S minutes. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered an all -risk Fire Department and provides services for all types of emergencies (City of Newport Beach 2009b). The project site is served by the nearest fire station, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7, which is located at 20401 Southwest Acacia Street at the intersection of Southwest Acacia Street and Mesa Drive, approximately 1.9 miles to the southwest of the project site. The Fire Department reviewed the proposed Droiect's site plans and project descriodon on March 26 and June 2. 2010. The Fire Department reviewed the PRES Office Building B August 2010 4.19 Initial StudylMiugated Negative Declaration ICFASODUTSa9 W City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND proposed project for consistency with the California Fire Code, including the size and location of the building, occupancy safety, fire hydrant necessity, and fire truck and emergency access. Therefore. Tthe proposed.project would include all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers, and would be required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City, including compliance with applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations. Emergency vehicle access for the proposed project would be provided to the project site from Von Karmen Avenue. —The proposed project would be within the current capacity of the Newport Beach Fire Department and would not create the need for any new facilities or personnel (Bunting pens. cotnmJ. Impacts would be less than significant. a2. Police protection? Less- than - Significant Impact. As discussed above and in Section MIL "Population and Housing," emplpyees that would work at the site would like]y reside in the Orange County area: therefore, the project would not result in The Newport Beach Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately 3.5 miles from the project site. The project site is located in Newport Beach Police Department Area 2 (Newport Beach Police Department 2010). The department would be able to accommodate the increase in professional office employees. As dissussed alw�ffl in Response XWEal), although the proposed Department. Additionally, the department is currently patrolling the project site and surrounding areas. Therefore the proposed project would not require new or additional police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. XVi. Transportation and Traffic, Pages 3 -59 to 3 -63, a, Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectipenessforthe performance of the circulation system, taking Into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components ofthe circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, aped mass transit? PRES Office Building B - August 2010 4,20 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration iJ� I City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft iSIMND In 2009 as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, existing conditions of roads and intersections around the project site were determined'(LSA 2009). They are described in Appendix E., employees and visitors to these offices could use the other access road off Von Karmen Avenue. Furthermore, since construction would last approximately 8 months, employees and visitors to these offices would use the other access road off Von Karmen Avenue during construction tine, after which normal access would be restored. Therefore, impacts associated with circulation due to construction staging would be less than significant. During construction, the maximum daily trips would depend on the number of truck trips received in a day and the number of employees at the construction site. Furthermore, no more than 15 construction workers would be at the construction site at one time. Table 3 -12 below provides the estimated daily mundtrip truck trips and number of construction employees associated with each phase of construction. Table 342. Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees Construction Phase Construction Activity Duration Worker Per (Daysr Day Construction Worker Roundtrips Per Day Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Phase Roundtrip Truck Trips Per Day° Total Trips Per Day Demolition 6 6 12 20 3 15 Grading 24 6 12 40 2 14 Construction, 168 15 30 120 2 32 asphalting, and architectural finishing 'Phase; duration assumes a six -day construction work week a There is overlap between the construction of the proposed project, asphalting, and architectural finishing. c Twelve rounduip truck trips would only occur during a I week (5 day) period of asphalting °Bombers are rounded to nearest whole number. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion managementprogram, including, but not limited to level ofservice standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by lire conno, congestion management agencv for designated roads or hlglnvays? Less - than- Sigaiscaut Impact. Within the defined Orange County Congestion Management Program highway network, intersections and freeway segments are not allowed to deteriorate to a condition worse than LOS E, or the base year LOS PRES Office Building B - August 2010 4 -21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Dedaraaon [MiU srsm 330 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS/MND if it is worse than E (Orange County Transportation Authority 2007 and 20092003). The following intersections are Congestion Management Program intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project: MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, I -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road, and 1 -405 southbound ramps/Jamboree Road. Table 3 -14 below summarizes the 20073 AM and PM peak hour LOS for these Congestion Management Program intersections. Table 344. Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program Intersections' Intersection 20073 -AM Peak Hour LOS 20013 PM Peak Hour LOS MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road C D E 1-405 northbound ramps/Jamboree Road C C 1405 southbound ramps/Jamboree Road. D C-D I Finure 5 pa¢ 2 of 3 "Otanye C u q CPgRestion Mangeenient P ¢ram Lo el of8mice 2009" in the Qmge C unn 2009 Congest' n Management Prod on, (Orange County Tmnsportafton Authority 20091 does not identiA• a deterioration of LOS at any of the intersections above. Newport Beach. as they are located in the Ci , of Irvine. All intersections in Table 3 -14 are operating at LOS -E D or better. The 19 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM Peak hour trips generated by the proposed project would be dispersed throughout the roadway system and would not affect anyone CMP intersection at any one time. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project's 19 AM peak hour trigs and 18 PM peakhour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the intersections described above to LOS DIE or worse per the CMP LOS requireme Gity ..rN,....port rte eh and the Gity of livine. FuAeEmare, the addition of the proposed prejeet's PA4 deseribed abe%* to WS E, far these inteaseetiens shared be!w The proposed project was included in the cumulative projects list of the traffic study for the City Hall Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan, which included other cumulative projects located within the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine (LSA 2009). Table 17 of the City Hall DEIR summarizes the cumulative analysis and identifies there would be no significant impacts at any of the studied intersections, which include the intersections identified above, in 2013 (LSA 2009). Furthermore, for all intersections shared by the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach a LOS of E is acceptable during AM and PM peak periods. Table 22 of the DEIR indicates the MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LSA 2009). Finally, the Orange County Congestion Management Program (2007) Appendix B -2 identifies specific criteria for which projects are exempt. Any development applications PRE-9 Office Building B August 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative tra=AS00ern.o9 ve Declaration - 1 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft ISIMND generating vehicular trips below the ADT threshold for CMP traffic analysis include any project generating less than 2,400 ADT total, or any project generating less than 1,600 ADT directly onto the CMP Highway System. The proposed project would generate approximately 132 trips per day, and thus would be below the criteria established by the Congestion Management Program Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard and impacts would be less than significant. C. Result in a change in air traffle patterns, Including either an increase In traffic levels or a change In location that results in substantial safety risks? Less- Than - Significant Impact. As described in Section VIII(e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the boundaries of the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project would be within the height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. The proposed project includes constructing one flu-ee -level office building with a maximum height of 47 30 feet 10 inches. The project site is approximately 44Z feet above mean sea level. As discussed in Section VIII(e) the oroiect site could be located around the airs) Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change of air traffic patterns including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks. Impacts would be less than significant Chapter 4. References County of Orange. 2004. General Plan. Cormty of Orange. 2010. Exhibit 7111 Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Ouality Management Plans (WQMPs). Submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board May 24. Available at: http: / /evrw.ocNvatersheds. coin/ Doctinient s/Tcchniea]Guidance.pdf. Accessed on: July 27.2010. PRES Office Buitdhg B August 2010 4-23 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IWASe0a73.09 332 Cftyof Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MND Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Frectuently Asked Questions. Available: < http •/ %fpub.epa.gov/npdes/fags.ef n >. Accessed: June 18 2010: Heartford, Bill. Lt. Support Sevices Division of the City of Newport Beach Police Department. June 16.2010— Email. Orange County Flood Control Division. 1986. Orange Couny, Hydrology Manual. Available at: < htto: /Iiva,%v.00flood com/ Documents /udUOC Hydrology Manual.ndf> Accessed on: July 27, 2010. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2007. Orange County Congestion Management Program. Orange County Transportation Authority, 2009, Orange County Con ese lion Management Program. Available at: <ht_pt : /hvww.octa.net/pdf /cmp09.pdf> Accessed on: July 27, 2010. PRE$ Office Building B August 2010 InIOal Study/Mitlgated Negative Declaration 4-24 tcFAsossn.oa 333 534 Appendix I Biological Memorandum II 3s5 Biological Memorandum 11 Date: August 13, 2010 To: Nicole Williams, Project Manager From: Kurt F. Campbell, Senior Biologist Subject: Updated Evaluation of Potential Effects on Biological Resources Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments This memorandun was prepared by ICF International (ICF) to supplement the )une 28, 2010 Evaluation of Potential Effects on Biological Resources Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (Appendix G of the Final 1S /MND). The project site and surroundings for the proposed project were previously evaluated by an ICF biologist, and comments have been received requesting additional consideration of potential impacts to biological resources including letters on June 7, 2010 and August 5, 2010 from Palmieri, Tyler, Weiner, Wilhelm, and Waldron, LLP. To address these comments an updated evaluation of such impacts was conducted. Specifically, the August 5, 2010 comment letter raised three biological resource issues (pp. 11-13): (1) the ICF survey was not conducted at appropriate times, (2) omission of the study of other special- status species, and (3) foraging and flight path. This updated evaluation consisted of review of relevant biological literature, data sources, and project - specific information, an evaluation of conditions and resources at and adjacent to the proposed project site, and an analysis of this resulting information in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum summarizes methods, results, and findings for the additional evaluation. The project site consists of a single area that is approximately 0.15 acres. The proposed project consists of constructing a three-level, 11,960-square-foot, single tenant office building at 4300 Von Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, within the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. This is within the area of the Tustin, California, 7.S- minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (Tustin 1981;10 -foot contour intervals). Literature Review A comprehensive review of potentially relevant species, natural communities, and biological functions was conducted as follows. Searches of the current California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 20101 and California Native Plant Society online inventory (CNPS 20 10) were completed to compile an initial list of wildlife, plants, and natural communities for review. The CNDDB search provided data results for eight USGS quadrangles centered on the Tustin, California quadrangle, or approximately 500 square miles surrounding the project site. These searches replace the earlier check of the CNDDB and cover a larger and more relevant geographical area than included in Appendix G. Based on the biologists' extensive knowledge of the region and checks of relevant 336 literature (e.g., California Consortium of Herbaria 2010, CDFG 2008, Hamilton and Willick 1996, Lemm 2006, Roberts 2008, Shuford and Gardali 2008), other species and /or natural communities not In the CNDDB list were then added. This step is often necessary to ensure inclusion of poorly - reported or overlooked species, such as those for which special status is relatively recent or local. The resulting list of special - status species and natural communities is provided in Table 1 at the end of this letter. Finally, the context of the project site was examined at coarse scales using Google Earth (2010) online remote imagery, the relevant USGS 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (cited above), and the current Thomas Brothers map book for Orange County (Rand McNally 2009). See the discussion below for application of this information In the evaluation. Field Visit A field visit was conducted by Kurt F. Campbell (credentials attached to this letter) on August 12, 2010. The project site was visited from 3;32 p.m. to 4:28 p.m. and the surrounding areas before and after that for a total time of three hours. Initial conditions were 81 °F, 46% relative humidity, wind 0 to 4 miles per hour from south to east, 0% cloud cover, and good visibility. Upland ground surfaces were dry, there was no fog or precipitation during the visit, and end conditions were similar. The entire project site was surveyed on foot. Adjacent areas were also examined on foot to a distance of no less than 250 meters (about 820 feet), with no constraints encountered to visiting any relevant areas. The site location and boundaries were confirmed with map and project information provided before the visit by ICF staff and through follow -up discussion with staff after the visit The project site consists of approximately 0.15 acres and is comprised of a paved parking lot and a smaller area of planted and maintained turf grass lawn and ornamental plantings, primarily American Sweet Gum (Liquidambarstyracii luo) and Australian gum trees (Eucalyptus slip.). Areas adjacent to the project site consist of paved parking lots and parking structures, office buildings, additional ornamental plantings, paved roadways, a retention basin holding water at the time of the visit, temporary supply storage areas, fast food restaurants, and a small reflecting pool. No fallow, weedy, or remnant natural areas are present. Associated with the areas of standing water are Fragrant Waterlilv (Nymphaea odorata), ornamental umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.) and broad - leaved cat -tail (Typha latifolia). Ornamental plants in the area are varied and include American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacocia), a cultivar of African fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), pampas grass (Cortaderla selloana) Natal plum (Anecltltes nerlum), and Paper Flower (Bougainvillea glabra x B. spectabilis), Nearly all vegetation present is obviously planted and maintained; some species are also considered invasive weeds when in natural areas (Cal -IPC 2006, 2007). Exceptions to intentional presence include a few small weeds such as Spotted Sandmat (Chamaesyce maculata); the pampas grass may also be present as a weed as it is known to be highly invasive and was not obviously planted based on the presence of a few, isolated individuals. All non - ornamental plants and wildlife detected on the site or buffer area during either field visit are listed in Table 2. The plant community classification system followed is the Orange County habitat Classification System (OCHCS) (1992). At both coarse and fine scales (Le, down to a few square feet), no area of the project site supports natural communities or fallow areas that are either barren (e.g, bare dirt or rock) or dominated by volunteer, ruderal (disturbance- adapted) plants. The only portion of adjacent areas with fallow land or natural vegetation is a small extent of the retention basin dominated primarily by Broad - leaved Cattail (T),pha latifolla). See Appendix G for figures depicting 3P (1) parks and ornamental plantings (OCHCS code 15.5) and urban (OCHCS code 15.1), and (2) representative photographs of the site and adjacent areas. The project site itself contains 0.05 acres of parks and ornamental plantings and 0.10 acres of urban lands, totaling about 0.15 acres. The project site and adjacent areas are embedded within a long - standing urban area. The nearest open space is a regularly plowed, weedy field providing some level of open -space buffer for San Joaquin Marsh, a restored system of wetlands maintained by the Irvine Regional Water District on the far side of the fields. The space between the proposed site and the weedy field is roughly 275 meters (900 feet) to the southeast of the site across heavily- trafficked Jamboree Road, an active commercial strip, and paved parking lots. john Wayne Airport lies to the northwest several times as far away as the field, across high- density urban development The airport has no fallow areas or natural communities, the closest facsimile being heavily maintained, very short -cut grassy or weedy areas among paved runways. Evaluation and Conclusions Special - status legal and regulatory categories vary in the degree to which they correlate with biological endangerment Due to specific definitions and criteria, all species with the following types of special status were assumed to qualify as biologically rare, threatened or endangered under CEQA: (1) endangered, threatened, proposed endangered or threatened, or candidate under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts; (2) rare under the state Native Plant Protection Act; (3) state fully protected species and state species of special concern; and (4) on CNPS lists 1A, 1B, or 2. As a next step in the evaluation process, Information on species in the list which lack any of the above types of status were analyzed with respect to whether the site has reasonable potential to be regionally important. Regional Importance refers to situations where loss of even a small, isolated population or substantial portion thereof would be a potentially significant effect under CEQA because, for example, the population is an important outlier or connector geographically or available data suggests it is biologically unique. Species which lack the above types of special status and for which there is also no evidence of potential for regionally significant effects from the proposed project were then dropped from further review. Communities and special- status species remaining under review at this step were then evaluated for any reasonable potential to occur either within the project site or within a surrounding buffer of 250 meters (about 820 feet). For those with such potential, the evaluation then addressed whether there is any reasonable potential for the proposed project to have direct, indirect or cumulative effects to those species or communities. Finally, the project site and surroundings were evaluated with regard to any special biological functions they may provide, such as buffering an adjacent natural area or being part of an important movement corridor or habitat linkage. As indicated under Literature Review, above, Information used in the multi-step analysis was developed through a broad review of published and unpublished resources. This addressed relevant species' habitat requirements, current and historic distribution, population trajectories, relevant conservation issues, and both tolerances to and requirements for disturbance. Also incorporated was information provided by other biologists over time and developed through experience and knowledge of the biologist across several decades in the region. For evaluation of 3 , ��LB project effects the specific project design, existing project site, and site context at multiple scales were all considered, At all times, caution was applied where particular uncertainty of information was relevant Timing of Field Surveys It is generally both unnecessary and infeasible to conduct daily biological fieldwork for project evaluation under CEQA for entire seasons or years. This Is because conclusions are not only based on direct observation. The purpose of general biological fieldwork for CEQA is to gather sufficient Information about the site for relevant judgments; direct observation or confirmation of absence for most potentially relevant species and issues is unnecessary. Multiple visits are normally unnecessary except where potential for a particular, focused issue is known or uncovered by the initial work and the particular Issue must be addressed using special methods (e.g, wetland delineation or a multi- visit, protocol survey for a particular species). For example, determining the presence and condition of a particular natural community on or near a site may immediately clarify potential for an array of species dependent on that community. The current biological evaluation was competently conducted, complete, soundly- based, and found neither a need for further fieldwork nor any basis for a fair argument of a potentially significant impact to biological resources under CEQA. Special Status Species The omission of the study of other specfal-status species from Appendix G is In principle correct; the additional species mentioned in Exhibit of the August 5, 2010 letter (letter from Mr. Paul Lehman) should have received explicit review previously. The commenter states that potential impacts must be disclosed. This has been done, however, where there are no Impacts, no impacts are available for disclosure. Exhibit A suggests that many of the species mentioned have little chance of occurrence. No substantial evidence is presented by the commenter or Mr. Lehman that the proposed project may have any specific direct, Indirect, or cumulative effects to biological resources on the site or surroundings, such as on the retarding basin. Regardless of this, the current review includes all species previously reviewed, all those mentioned by commenter, and others. Few have any reasonable potential to occur on the project site even as rare visitors and most have no reasonable potential to occur even In the vicinity in that role (see Table 1). The few that might rarely occur would, like the retarding basin, be entirely unaffected by the proposed project No fair argument is presented in Exhibit A of the letter based on substantial evidence that there is a reasonable potential for the proposed project to result fn. significant impacts to any of the species under CEQA. One factual error in the August 5h� letter should be addressed. The commenter states that, "several species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are listed on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals List have been observed, and may be expected to occur, at the Project " This is incorrect Exhibit A of the comment letter includes the statement that an Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorussosfn) was observed near the project site; Exhibit does not assert any special - status species have been detected on the project site. In addition, Allen's Hummingbird is not Species of Special Concern. FInally, the reason this species is on the Special Animals list is due to apparent long -term declines in the subspecies occurring well north of the project site region, while the subspecies in the project region is In fact expanding its range. This example appears in keeping with other biological issues raised. Regardless of the low potential for stray observations of rare occurrences of species with minor special status, no relevant species have been detected or claimed at the project site. All relevant species are unlikely or less than reasonable 339 and, beyond this, the proposed project has no reasonable potential to affect any such species even If they did, surprisingly, appear. Foraging and Flight Path At relatively fine scales of context, the project site is in an established, urban context with a high density of existing buildings, several of which are taller than the proposed project Several of the existing structures have expansively smooth, mirrored surfaces (!mown to he of potential risk to flying birds), while the proposed project would have a broken - surfaced face In the'direction of the retarding basin. During the fieldwork on and adjacent to the project site, a search was conducted for bird kills at the bases of the surrounding buildings. None were found, though quick removal by scavengers could explain this as well as simple absence of mortality, as crows and sign (scat and food leavings) of Black Rats (Rattus rattus) were present and both species are known to scavenge bird strikes. No indication was seen that the retarding basin receives substantial use by birds. It is divided by a busy road, the water does not appear clean, no small fishes or amphibians were detected (a few large fish, perhaps Common Carp JQpprinus carpio) were detected), and no staining, droppings, or other evidence of numbers of waterfowl were found at the basin's edge or in or below adjacent, taller trees. These factors and the specific context of surrounding human activity makes substantial use of the retarding basin by special - status birds appear very unlikely. For example, based on extensive experience'with their occasional use of freshwater foraging, it appears highly unlikely that either Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalls) or Least Terns (Sternala antillarum) would be willing to visit the retarding basin except in very rare and unusual circumstances. No Indications were detected of substantial or important movement through the project site and surrounding area by birds or other wildlife. Standing at varied points at and near the project site, no natural or obvious potential flight pathway incorporating the project site at relevant altitudes was detectable. A review of the site context at coarser scales using Google Earth, USGS topographic maps, and the current Thomas Guide street map, suggest one reasonable flight path that might be important and cross over the site. This would be movementbetween San Joaquin Marsh southeast of the proposed project site and either Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve or the Fairview Park /Talbert Regional Park / Costa Mesa Golf Course areas, both to the northwest of the project site. This is a flight distance of roughly six to 12 miles, quite reasonable for waterbirds to utilize in a daily routine such as moving between roosting to foraging areas. However, nearly all of the intervening space between those endpoints is urban. As mentioned above, the project site does not contrast with its urban surroundings with regard to potential flight paths. There are existing, adjacent buildings at varied heights and the project site does not present a gap or flight path through the area. Waterbirds moving between San Joaquin Marsh and the other natural areas are unlikely to fly low amongst buildings and parking lots, they generally make use of prevailing winds to fly along coastlines or high above wind obstructions for greater efficiency and safety. This well - established pattern In urban areas along southern California coastal areas has been observed by Mr. Campbell in particular on a number of professional projects over the years. This includes an ongoing study generating quantitative data on bird flights for a proposed wind turbine project along the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These flight patterns hold across seasons, across times of day, and across a broad array of waterbird groups. No fair argument Is presented in Exhibit A based on substantial evidence that a reasonable potential exists that the 3-1-0 proposed project would interrupt a substantial flight path or result in any detectable increase in bird mortality. Migrant landbirds generally migrate thousands of feet above the height of the proposed project and therefore would not be attracted to the site as a stopover or feeding area. The Draft IS /MND and Appendix G of the Final IS /MND included one mitigation measure, designed to allow the proposed project to avoid violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and similar sections of the state Fish and Came Code. These laws protect nearly all native birds; MBTA for example currently covers more than 1000 species, many of which do not migrate. It should be clarified that for the proposed project, the need for this mitigation measure under CEQA arises only to ensure consistency between the project's CEQA compliance and that for these other legal requirements. It is not needed to reduce potential CEQA impacts of the proposed project to a level of less than significant This is due to the fact that the potential level of impacts to species covered under those laws from this proposed project would otherwise be extremely small in a CEQA context, limited to few or no individuals of a few very common species. While MBTA protects individual birds (of covered species) and affords no explicit protections to species per se, CEQA addresses the significance of impacts to species and populations at biologically meaningful (significant) scales. Summary of Conclusions Based on a comprehensive review of species, natural communities, and biological functions; findings from site examinations by two of ICF s biologists, and evaluation of potential project effects at multiple scales, ICF makes two determinations: (1) the proposed project has no reasonable potential to result in significant adverse effects on biological resources; and (2) there Is no fair argument based on substantial evidence supporting the potential for any such effects. 3 +1 References California Consortium of Herbaria. 2010. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria; accessed 11 August 2010 at hitp.//ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR), version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA: Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Dept. of Fish and Game. Element reports for the Tustin, California and immediately surrounding USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle maps. Data date: 11 August 2010. [Cal -IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. Dated February 2006. Accessed at: www.cal- ipe.org. [Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2007. New Weeds Added to Ca14PC Inventory, Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Coundl, Dated February 2007. Accessed at: <http: / /www.cal- ipc,org /ip /inventory /pdf/ WebUpdate2007.pdf�. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, Online Edition. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Accessed 11 August 2010 at http: //www.cn p. &o rg11nventorv. Google Earth. 2010. Google Earth imagery software program, version 5.2.1.1547. Mountain View, CA: Google Corporation. Imagery accessed 11 August 2010. Gray, ),and David Bramlet 1942, Habitat Classification System Natural Resources Geographic .Information System (GM Project County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Planning. Santa Ana, CA. Hamilton, R. A, and D. R. WBlickc 1996. The Birds of Orange County: Status and Distribution. Irvine, CA: Sea and Sage Press. Lemm; J. M. 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rand McNally. 2009. The Thomas Guide: 2010 Orange County Street Guide, Chicago, IL: Thomas Brothers Maps, Rand McNally & Company. Roberts, Jr, F. M. 2008. The Vascular Plants of Orange County, California: An Annotated Checklist, 3rd ad. San Luis Rey, CA: F. M. Roberts Publications. Shuford, W. D, and T. Gardali, eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern. Studies of Western Birds No, 1. Camarillo, CA, and Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game. 3 +2 Tustin. 1981. Tustin, California 7.5- minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Color 1978, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000,10 -foot elevation contours, datum NAD27. 3 -13 Table 1. Reviewed Special - Status Species and Natural Communities DOSS Data Date = 2128/2010 CNPS accessed = 8/1112010 ' "Terms for Evaluated Potential LTR = two than reasonable potential to *Least Status Codes occur. There Is no basis to conclude CNPS Status Codes that occurmnce at this Uma, In the Federal 1A = Presumed exUnct In California defined area, has any reasonable E = Endangered 10 - Rare, threatened, or endangered in potential. T = Threatened California and elsewhere FP - Proposed for Endangered or 2 - Rem, threatened, or endangered in LOW = Low but reasonable potential. Threatened Callfomla, but more common elsewhere Occurrence at this time, In the defined BGEPA - Said and Golden Eagle 3 = More Information needed area, appears unlikely but net less than Protection Act 4 = Llmiled distdbudon; Watch List reasonable. 0.1= Seriously endangered in California slate 0.2 = Fairly endangered In CaUlomis MOD = Moderate potential. There Is E = Endangered 0.3 = Not very endangered in California some basis to anticipate occurrence In T = Threatened the defined area, but also substantial C - = Candidate for listing as CNDDB = Tracked by CNDDB but currently uncertainty. Endangered or Threatened with no formal special status (eg., federal R = Rem (Nature Plant Protection Species of Concern, a category no longer NE - No potential effects and no Act only) evaluated); Includes plant communities potential fair argument for adverse SC = Species of Special classified by CDFG as depleted or high effects under CEOA at either the level Concern pdodly for inventory of significonce or the level of FP = Fully Protected Species cumulatively considerable contribution to a regionally sl nificent ImarmL Scientifllc and English Names Legal Status* Evaluated Potential " F/S /CNPS On Site I In Buffer ' Effects Abronia vitlosa var. aurita Chaparral $and-verbena - 1-/18.1 LTR LTR NE Acc)piter cooperl Cooper's Hawk CNDDB LOW LOW NE Acalpiier striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk CNDDB LOW LOW NE Actinemys Inamorata Western Pond Turtle - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Agelaius tdcolor Tricolored Blackbird - /SC /- LTR LOW NE Atmophila rullceps canescens Southern Cal€fomia Rufcus- crowned Sparrow CNDDB LTR LTR NE Ammodramus savannamm Grasshopper Sparrow - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Amphlspiza bells belii Bell's Sage Sparrow CNDDB LTR LTR NE Anaxyrus californicus Ar o Toad E/SCA LTR LTR NE Annlella pulchra puichra Silvery Legless Lizard - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat -/SC!- LOW LOW NE Aphanisma biitoides A hanisma -1-/16.2 LTR LTR NE Aquila chrysaetos Golden Ea le BGEPA/FP /- LTR LTR NE Ardea alba Great Egret CNDDB LTR LOW NE Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron CNDDB LTR LOW NE Asio flammeus Short -eared Owl - /SCI- LTR LTR NE Aslo otus Long-eared Owl - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Aspidoscalis hyperythra Oran ethroat Whi tail - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Aspidoscetis tigris stejnegert Coastal Whi tail CNDDB LTR LTR NE Astragalus brauntonii Braurdon'sMllk -vetch E/-11B.1 LTR LTR, NE Astragalus oocarpus San Diego Milk -vetch - / - /1B.2 LTR LTR NE Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl -/SC /- LTR LTR NE Atriplex coulterl Coulter's Seltbush 441B.2 LTR LTR NE Atriplex pacifica South Coast Saltscale 441B.2 LTR LTR NE Atriplex parishii Parish's Brittlescale - 4-H6.1 LTR LTR NE Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson'sSaitscals / -liB.2 LTR LTR NE Aythya americana Redhead - /SC /- LTR LOW NE Aythya valisineda Canvasback CNDDB LTR LOW NE' Baccharis malibuensis Malibu Baccharls -/ -/16.1 LTR LTR NE Baeolophus inomatus Oak Titmouse CNDDB LTR LTR NE Bassariscus astutus Ring-tailed Cat -lFP /- LTR LTR NE Berbads nevinii Nevin's Barber E /E11B.1 LTR LTR NE Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern CNDDB LTR LTR NE Branchinecta sandlegonensis San Diego Fairy Shrimp E/d- LTR LTR NE Brodiaea filifolla Thread - leaved Brodiaea T/01B.i LTR LTR NE Buteo regalia Ferruginous Hawk CNDDB LTR LTR NE Callitropsis forbesii Tecate Cypress -141 B.1 LTR LTR NE Calochortus plummerae Plummet's Mariposa-Ill 4-116.2 LTR LTR NE Calochortus weedii ver. intermedius Intermediate Mariposa-Ill -1416.2 LTR LTR NE CAlypte costae Costa's Hummingbird CNDDB LOW LOW NE Campylorhynchus brunnsioapillus sandie ensis / Coastal Cactus Wren •!SC /- LTR LTR NE Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence's Goldfinch CNDDB LTR LOW NE Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana Sucker TISC /- LTR LTR NE 10 ^�� Caulanthus simulans Pa son's jewel- flower - / -/4.2 LTR LTR NE Centromadta parryl ssp. australls Southern Ta Iant -141611 LTR LTR NE Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutfs Pincushion -1 -116.1 LTR LTR NE Chaenactis parishii Parish's Cheenacgs 4-11 B.3 LTR LTR NE Chaetodipus caltfomicus femorails Dulzura Pocket Mouse -1SC/- LTR LTR NE Chaetodipus follax Wax Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse - /SC/- LTR LTR NE Chaetura vauxt Vaux's Swift -/SC /- LOW MOD NE Chamdrius alexandrinus nivosus Western Sno Plover T /SCP LTR LTR NE Charina trivirgata Rosy Boa CNDDB LTR LTR NE Choeronycteds Mexican Mexican Lon -ton ued Bat 4801- LTR LTR NE Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow CNDDB LTR LOW NE Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley S ineflower C /E /1B.1 LTR LTR NE Chorizanthe polygonotdes var. longispina Long-spirted Winoilower -1 -116.2 LTR LTR NE Cicindala gabbti Western Tidal -flat TI er Beetle CNDDB LTR LTR NE Cicindala hirdoollis gravida Sandy Beach 'n er Beetle CNDDB LTR LTR NE Cicindala latesignata latesignata Western Beach Tiger Beetle CNDDB LTR LTR NE Circus cyaneus Northem Harrier -1SC /- LTR LTR NE Cistothorus palustris clarkae Clark's Marsh Wren -1SC /- LTR LOW NE Coelus globosus Globose Dune Beetle CNDDB LTR LTR NE Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Dieno Banded Gecko CNDDB LTR LTR NE Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolie Summer Holly - / -1 B.2 LTR LTR NE Contopus cooperi Olive -sided Flycatcher -1SC1- LTR LOW NE . Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. marittmus Salt Marsh Bird's -beak E/E/16.2 LTR LTR NE Crotalus tuber ruber Northern Red - diamond Rattlesnake -/Seb LTR LTR NE Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly CNDDB LTR LOW NE Dendroica occidentalis Hermit Warbler CNDDB LTR LOW NE Dandroica patechia brewsted Yellow Warbler - /SC1- LTR LOW NE Diadophis punctalus similis San Diego Rtn neck Snake CNDDB LTR LTR NE zx 2.A 1�0 Dipodomys merdami colllnus Earthquake Merriam's Kangaroo Rat CNDDB LTR LTR NE Dipodomys stephensf Ste hens' Kan aroo Rat Err /- LTR LTR NE Dudleya mullicaulis Man - stemmed Dudl a 44913.2 LTR LTR NE Dudleya stolonlfera Laguna Beach Dudleya Tfr /16.1 LTR LTR NE Egretta thula SnowV Egret CNDDB LTR LOW NE Elanus leucurus White- tailed Kite - /FP /- LTR LTR NE Empidonax trailifl brewsted Little Willow Flycatcher -/E/- LOW MOD NE Empidonax trailifl extimus Southwestern Willow FI atchar E/E/- LTR LOW NE Eremophila elpestrfs actia California Horned Lark CNDDB LTR LTR NE Erfastrum densifoflum asp. sanctomm Santa Ana River Wooll tar FJE118.1 LTR LTR NE Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater Gob E/SC /- LTR LTR NE Euderma macula €um Spotted Bat -18C /- LTR LTR NE Eumeoes skiltonianus Interparietalis Coronado Skink 4SC 1- LTR LTR NE Eumops pero€is califomicus Western Mastiff Bat - /SC /- LOW LOW NE Euphorbla misera Cliff Spurge 442.2 LTR LTR NE Euphydryas editha quino Quino Checkerspot Butterfly FJ -/- LTR LTR NE Falco oolumbarius Merlin CNDDB LOW LOW NE Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon - /FP /- LOW LOW NE Gavia immer Common Loon - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat -/SCI- LTR LOW NE Gila orcuffii Arroyo Chub -ISC /- LTR LTR NE Helianthus nuttailii asp. padshii Los Angeles Sunflower 4411A LTR LTR NE Horkelia cuneata asp, puberula Mesa Horkelia 4416.1 LTR LTR NE Icteria vixens Yellow breasted Chat 4SCI- LTR LTR NE Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern -ISCJ- LTR LOW NE Lampropeltis zonata pulchra, California Mountain IGn snake San Diego population) 4SC /- LTR LTR NE Lanius ludovtcfanus Loggerhead Shrike 48C6 LTR LTR NE Larus call€ornicus California Gull CNDDB LOW MOD NE 12 347 Laslurus cinereus Hoary Bat CNDDB LOW LOW NE Lasiurus xanthinus Westem Yellow Bat - /SCI- LOW LOW NE Lasthenia glabrata asp. coulted Coulter's Goldfields 4 -118.1 LTR LTR NE Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California Black Rail - /T,FP /- LTR LTR NE Lepechinia cardlophylla Heart- leaved Pitcher Sae -1418.2 LTR LTR NE Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego Black- tailed Jackrabbit 45C6 LTR LTR NE Lithobates piplens Northern Leopard Fron -/SCI- LTR LTR NE Macrotus californicus Califomia leaf -nosed bat - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Monardella macrantha asp. hallii Hall's Monardella */1 B.3 LTR LTR NE Monardella nana asp. leptosiphon San Felipe Monardella - 141 B.2 LTR LTR NE Myotis yumanensis Yuma M offs CNDDB LTR LTR NE Name stenocarpum Mud Name 442.2 LTR LTR HE Nasturtium gambehi GambePs Water Cress EIT /16.1 LTR LTR NE Navarretia prostrate . Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia !•/18.1 LTR LTR NE Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata Coast Woolly-heads 4418.2 LTR LTR NE Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego Desert Woodrat -/SCl• LTR LTR NE Molina cismontana Peninsular Molina 4 -116.2 LTR LTR NE Nyctioorax nycficorax Black- crowned Night-Heron CNDDB LTR LOW NE Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed Free - tailed Bat CNDDB LOW LOW NE Nyctinomops macrotis Big Free - tailed Bat -/SC /- LOW LOW NE Onychomys torridus ramona Southern Grasshopper Mouse - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Pandlon hallaetus Osprey CNDDB LTR LTR NE Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Beldin 's Savannah S arrow - /E/- LTR LTR NE Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus Savannah Sparrow - /SCI- LTR LOW NE -Large-billed Pelecanus erythrorbynchos American White Pelican - /SCI- LTR LTR NE Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican - /FP /- LTR LTR NE Penstemon californicus California Bearditon ue / -/16.2 LTR LTR NE Pentachaeta aurea asp. allenii Allen's Pentachaeta 4-/18.1 LTR LTR NE 13 R ��V Perognathus longimembris brovinasus Los Angeles Little Pocket Mouse - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific Little Pocket Mouse FISC /- LTR LTR NE Phalacrocorax auritus DDuble- created Cormorant CNDDB LTR LOW NE Phrynosoma blalnvillii Coast Homed Lizard -/SC/- LTR LTR NE Plcoides nuNailit Nuttall's Woodpecker CNDDB LTR LOW NE Piranga cobra Summer Tana er -/SC /- LTR LTR NE Plegadis chihi White -faced Ibis CNDDB LTR LTR NE Poiloptila califomica callfomica Coastal California Gnatcatcher T /SC/- LTk LTR NE Pooecetes gramineus aftinis Oregon Vesper Sparrow CNDDB LTR LTR NE Pseudognaphallum leucocephalum White Rabbit- Tobacco - 142.2 LTR LTR NE Quercus dumosa NuttalPs Scrub Oak f 116.1 LTR LTR NE Ralus longlrostris levipes Li ht- footed Clapper Rail E/E.FP /- LTR LTR NE Rhlnichthys osculus sop. 3 Santa Ana Speckled Dace 4SCI- LOW LTR NE Ripads riparla Bank Swallow -fTl- LTR LOW NE Rynchops niger Black Skimmer dSC1- LTR LTR NE Salvadora hexalepis virguftea Coast Patch -nosed Snake - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Selasphoms rufus Rufous Hummin bird CNDDB LOW MOD NE Selasphorus sasin Allen's Hummingbird CNDDB LOW MOD NE Sensolo aphanactts Chaparral Ragwort 442.2 LTR LTR NE Sidalcea neomeAcana Salt Spring Checkerbloom 4-12.2 LTR LTR NE Sorex ornatus salicornicus Southern California Saltmarsh Shrew - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Spas hammondft Western Spadefoot -ISCf- LTR LTR NE Spizella browad Brewer's Sparrow CNDDB LTR LTR NE Splzella passedna Chipping Sparrow CNDDB LTR LTR NE Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern CNDDB LTR LOW NE Sternula antillarum browni California Least Tern E/E.FP /- LTR LOW NE Streptocephalus woottoni RIverside Fairy Shrimp E/ -/- LTR LTR NE Suaeda esteroa Estuary Seabiite 4418.2 LTR LTR NE 14 �� 1 Symphyatdchum defoliatum San Bernardino Aster -/-/I B.2 LTR LTR NE Taricha torosa torosa Coast Range Newt -/SC /- LTR LTR NE Taxidea taxus American Badger -/SC /- LTR LTR NE Themnophls hammondil Two -str3 'ed Garter Snake - /SCI- LTR LTR NE Thamnophis sirtalis ssp. South Coast Common Garter Snake - /SC /- LTR LTR NE Tryonia lmltator Mimfo Tryonia = CaliforniaBrackishwater Snail) CNDDB LTR LTR NE Verbesina disslta Big-leaved Crownbeard T r /18:1 LTR LTR NE Vireo beilll pusillus Least Belts Vireo E/E/- LTR LTR NE Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow- headed Blackbird -/$C/- LTR LTR NE California Walnut Woodland CNDDB LTR LTR NE Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub CNDDB LTR LTR NE S. Calif. Arroyo Chub /Santa Ana Sucker Stream CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southard Coastal Salt Marsh CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Dune Scrub CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Foredunes 'CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Interior Cypress Forest CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Riparian Scrub CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland CNDDB LTR LTR NE Southern Willow Scrub CNDDB LTR I LTR NE Valley Needle mss Grassland CNDD8 LTR i LTR NE CNDDB Date Date= 212912010 "Terms for Evaluated Potential CNPS aocessed = 8/11/2010 LTR - Less than reasonable potential to 'Least Status Codes - occur, There Is no basis to conclude CNPS Status Codes that occurrence at tits ifine, in the Federal 1A= Presumed extinct In California defined area, has any reasonable E = Endangered 16 = Rare, threatened, or endangered In potential. T = Threatened Califomla and elsewhere FP = Proposed for Endangered a 2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered In LOW = Low but reasonable potential. Threatened Calffomla, but more oon mon elsewhere Occurrence at this thee, In the defined BGEPA =Bald and Golden Eagle 3 = More Information needed area, appears unlikely but not less than _ Protection Act 4 = Limited distribution: Watch List reasonable. 01 = Seriously endangered In Calffomto State 0.2 = Fairly endangered In California MOD = Moderate potential. There Is E = Endangered 0.3 = Not very endangered In California some basis M anticipate occurrence in T = Threatened the defined area, but also substantial C = Candidate for fisting as CNDDB = Tracked by CNDDB but currently uncedalnty. Endangered or Threatened with no formal special status (",, federal R = Rare (Native Plant Protection Species of Concern, a category no longer NE = No polentlat effects and no Act only) evaluated); Includes plant communities potential fair argument for adverse SC - = Species of Special classified by CDFG as depleted or high effects under CEQA at either the level Concern priority for inventory of significance or the level of a FP = Fully Protected Spades - cumulatively considerable eonbibulion to a regionally significant Impact. 15 35'0 Table.2. Detected Non - ornamental Vascularplant and Vertebrate Wildlife Species Species Common Name Vascular Plants *Chamaesyce maculata Spotted Sandinat *Cortaderfa seRoana Pampas Grass *Polypogon monspelfensis Annual Beard -grass *Sonchusoleraceus Annual Sow-thistle 7ypha lat jblia Broad - leaved Cattail *(none; appears to be of cultivar /hybrid origin) turf grass Vertebrate Wildlife Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Fulfoo americana American Coot *Columba llvia Rock Pigeon *Streptopelfa decaocto Eurasian Collared -Dove Sayornisnigricans Black Phoebe Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Carpodacus mexicanus House Pinch *Passer domestcus House Sparrow Sylvilagus audubanl Desert Cottontail *Rattus rattus Black Rat * - Nonnative species 16 35f Kurt Campbell Senior Biologist Kurt has over 30 years of experience as an active field and conservation biologist with extensive and integrated knowledge of animals, plants, ecology, and conservation biology. He has an extensive knowledge of environmental regulations, Including CEQA, NEPA, the federal ESA, the California ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CWA, and the state Lake and Streambed Alteration Program in the context of natural resources. He has several peer - reviewed, scientific publications in print relevant to California conservation biology. He is widely known throughout California as an expert In the ecology, distribution, natural history, and identification of birds, and was an author and regional editor for four years for North American Birds magazine. Kurt has conducted numerous speclal- status species studies, Including focused surveys and habitat evaluations. Kurt's expertise extends to nearly all California bird species and many other vertebrates, Invertebrates, and plants. Project Experience South Region High School 015 Implementation of Biological and Archaeological Monitoring Plan -Los Angeles Unified School District, San Pedro For a proposed wind turbine component of a new high school, Kurt designed, prepared, and implemented a wind turbine long -term management and monitoring program incorporating existing research on turbine impacts to birds and bats and an adaptive management study design. Work Included negotiations among dienL public stakeholders, and staff at multiple agencies. Construction and Mitigation Monitoring for California Gnatcatcher at Diamond Valley Reservolr— Metropolitan Water District Kurt managed a 3- person monitoring team that surveyed and monitored construction activities for California gnatoatchers over more than 1000 acres of pristine coastal sage scrub in the North Domenigoni Hills during six years of construction for the Diamond Valley Reservoir. Evaluated results, made management recommendations, and produced or reviewed all annual reports. 1CF INTERNATIONAL Kurt Campbeil f 352 1CF INTERNATIONAL 2 Kurt Campbell California Gnatcatcher Dispersal Study — County of San Diego Kurt contracted and supervised a field team to document nesting, monitor, and color -band young gnatcatchers for a study of natal dispersal across Interstate 8 in Lakeside, Documented color- marked Juveniles' successful crossing of the multiple -lane freeway. Results were Interpreted and discussed in light of relevant conservation biology and management Issues at both local and regional scales. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Studies —Glenn Lukos Associates, Los Angeles Under contract to Glenn Lukos Associates for the County of Orange and the Irvine Land Company in both 2001 and 2002, Kurt conducted and reported on a focused survey for southwestem willow flycatcher, including riparian habitat suitability evaluation over several hundred acres In the Irvine Lake area. Unusual survey results In 2001 and unusual conditions (drought) in 2002 were Interpreted In light of current research and changing survey protocols related to the species. Avian point Count Surveys —San Diego Natural History Museum As part of a museum contract to the U.S. Forest Service, Kurt conducted over 100 point counts to Cleveland National Forest, San Diego County, California. This Included substantial logistical efforts locating and confirmtng existing point count locations on a tight schedule, along with preliminary data interpretation and review of the draft museum report. Biological Reference Evaluation and Management Recommendations— County of San Diego Under state funding in 2001 and 2002, Kurt conducted a thorough reference evaluation of baseline conditions for newly acquired conservation lands In the Lakeside Archipelago of lands conserved under the southwestem San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program. This included documentation of existing conditions through compilation of extensive plant, Invertebrate, and vertebrate species lists (over 400 species recorded in all), mapping of vegetation communities and other resources, detailed evaluation of California Gnatcatcher populations beyond presencelabsence, evaluation of wildlife corridor and linkage issues, establishment of an avian monitoring program using point counts, thorough discussion of historic and existing disturbance Impacts, and analysis of site needs and opportunities at multiple scales. 353 w Ul �S�chlxecxs wolnwsorvuz OCWp HY W,3* q l3DVARTNoa N% 16It% art 01, 'NE�O�T9EAC8 PI¢P -OIIIw NkM asc vW w...W pvm WypR &WpU %P0O w�wL T w WaseO 0��w�v W spa Yid s�MVy� W w A.100 t_5�« ww. eom. awaeo wb va %ama ♦vuw wrrun pwAU amw m°TMnm wm"'"w. mRi w a a HIRER Mt ' I::Ms- =1� =,rte i! =1 l— Q-,,.. t_5�« ww. eom. awaeo wb va %ama ♦vuw wrrun pwAU amw A.300 In m°TMnm wm"'"w. mRi w a a A.300 In rna Mo m..ww e...Mw wM WMA JJ� JL� h —� wwo�v M/�1P W0. lu yP MOM ���ctllieats wiiNls PMS - q4a d6Np At0 Nn Ibnwn Aiwa 11(qul BmLA G 9MB0 a�pn M�.bMM a�ic� 6 NOM bulgy O ON@ SM m. N 0f1N 0 0 AM. 0.%=�AA. NryNyO =41V 0 6 pMY0.9p1L6 Our, 0 Ri E WRMWa tl 0 rffi-7 A.301 I ONE MARKET PLAZA, STEUARt TOWER, BTN FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105 -1008 Sect DETERT, MORAN 6 ARNOLO U P August 19, 2010 Via ElectmnicMail Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 www.sdxa.eem 478.781.7900 phone 418.781.2838 fax Anna Shinko anna.thimko xdma.rom Re: PRES Office Building B Project; No Recirculation of Negative Declaration Required Dear Chairman McDaniel and Commissioners, This firm represents Professional Real Estate Services, Inc., the proponent of the PRES Office Building B project (the "Project") that you will be considering at this evening's Planning Commission hearing. As you know, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "MND') has been prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') to examine the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The MND, published May 19, 2010, was updated via an Errata dated August 13, 2010. We understand that the question has been posed whether the changes made by the Errata to the original MND necessitate recirculation of the MND for an additional public review period before the MND may be adopted and applied to the Project approvals. We wish to assure you that we have thoroughly reviewed the MND and have concluded with certainty that none of the triggering circumstances exist that would require the MND to be recirculated. Rather, the Errata merely amplifies and clarifies data and conclusions already reached in the original MND such that the Planning Commission can confidently adopt and employ the MND at tonight's hearing. By way of brief introduction, I have specialized in CEQA law for the past 24 years, representing both private landowners and public agencies with CEQA compliance matters at the administrative level and in litigation. Some of our current clients include Home Depot, Safeway and Pixat on the private development side, and the localities of San Carlos, Foster City and Woodside on the public agency side. I have a particular CEQA sub - specialty in issues involving recirculation of negative declarations and environmental impact reports CURS "), having served as counsel td the University of California — San Francisco in the Supreme Court decision that set the standard for recirculation of EIRs,' and that prompted the formulation of the CEQA guidelines that govern your decision this evening. CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 provides that a lead agency must recirculate a negative declaration when it has been "substantially revised" after its release for public review, with "substantial revision" meaning that either (1) a new significant environmental impact has been identified and mitigation measures must be added to alleviate such impact, or (2) the lead agency, has concluded that the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level and new mitigation measures must be 1 L4wdHeigtn 1xp7on=xf, d'n A Aegmlr of the Unin imo ofC4dPro q 6 CaL 46 1112 (1993). 357 Chairman Earl McDaniel August 19, 2010 Page 2 added. CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4) provides that recirculation is not required where " [n]ew information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." Here, the additional explanation in the Errata expands upon and bolsters, but in no way alters, the conclusions of the originally published MND. The Project description has not changed, except so as to make the building slightly shorter, thereby arguably decreasing impacts. No new mitigation measures have been added, and none were needed given that all conclusions regarding significant environmental impacts remain identical to those reached in the MND published in May, 2010. The changes provided by the Errata simply provide additional explanation to the public and decision- makers of the basis for the conclusions already drawn by the MND. In my view and based upon my experience, this is a classic example of information being added to a negative declaration in order merely to amplify, clarify or make insignificant modifications to the document and in no way ttiggering a recirculation requirement. I urge you to adopt the MND this evening and to approve the Project. I invite any questions or comments at any time, and appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you on this issue. very truly yours, Anna C. Shimko Sedgm ick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Gaylen Olson Brad Schroth. John Fitzgibbon ti 352 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILBELM & WALDRON LLP A UNITED LABILITY PAR,NWSHIP INCLUDING PROFCHIRIUAL CORPORATIONS ANGINA J. PANMMRI GDBS49001 ROBERT !. WALDRON &MIMESIS 'MAN K MCNER- STEPHEN A SCHCCK ROSERT C. LHRK£' DONNA L SNOW JAM W L W WL - MAN N. EASTER OENNIS O. TYLER- ELSE A KERN MICHAEL A ORKENC. MEUSA R. PEREE DENNIS W. UHAN' EUVU)m VAIAOEZ aw;D D. PARR. AMER J. BANKER CNARLEE N. NAN2R- MICHAEL L KOIOC PATRICK A HENNESSEY ROBERT K GARRITBON DON FISHER RYAN M. PRAGER (BUSS" N. WEBER CHAOWICK M BUNCH WARREN A WILLIAN6 ANNIE M CHU JOHN R. USTCR JERAD BELIE CL'IaNA M. WOLCUTT HEATHER K WHHOEAD DAR' D. "Memo IPoN RANSARA NADW NCHAEL H. LOPM PINES K CERAMIC SCOTT K CARPENTER F. JULIAN PREIMAN M RICHARD A SALVE [RICA K 6OROSI(Y NORMAN J. RUIRCH CASEY W. BOURKC RONALD K CCLE MMSgKY C LVOMN HICNPEL L O'ANOCLO' 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SVITE 1300 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 926N 281 !9491 85I -9400 vmwPIwm%.00M August 19, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Robert Hawkins Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Bradley Hillgren Fred Ameri Planning Commissioners City ofNewport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. BON 19112 IRVINE. CA 92623-9712 WRIT2R -B MEET DIAL NUMBER (949) 881 -7280 WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER (849) 826 -6483 PIRM -S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBERS (049) 811146154 (9491 78T-0226 Jfreeman6ptwww.Dom REFER TO FRC N0. 31191 -001 Re: FIRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Amended Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (August 19,20 10 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4. PA2007 -213) Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: As you know, this office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns That certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), City ofNewport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building'), which is contiguous to the proposed project development of an approximately 48 foot high, 11,960- gross - square feet office building (the "Project ") at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center, in the City of Newport Beach (the "City "). 399 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19,2010 Page 2 The Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study, as amended August 13, 2010 (the "Errata ") (which was released to the public on August 16, 2010), for the Project. As you are aware, this office submitted comment letters on behalf of Meyer on June 7, 2010 (the "Initial Comment Letter ") and August 5, 2010 (the "Second Comment Letter "), and provided comments at the continued August 5, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing on the Project. The City has amended the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that the Study and the Errata are still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), that a single EIR must be prepared for the Project and two related projects in the Koll Center, that analysis of cumulative impacts relating to the Project and the two related projects must be included in the EIR, that Newport Beach Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project and the related Koll Center office building project, that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan, and that the Project is inappropriate for the Koll Center. I, CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE .AND INTENT OF THE PROJECT. The Project proposes to build an additional building on the Project site, and does not propose to remove and replace an existing office building. An office building currently exists on the Project site, will remain on the Project site, and the Project proposes to remove a designated parking area to construct the proposed additional office building. The designated parking area that is proposed to be removed provides parking to the Koll Center buildings and was designed as a parking area to ensure ample parking consistent with the Koll Center Development Standards. Additionally, we would like to inform the Planning Commission of an important point that it may not have been aware of when discussing the Project at the meeting on 360 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 3 August 5, 2010. Planning staff and consultants for PRES informed the Planning Commission at the August 5th meeting that PRES intends to occupy the proposed new office building as its headquarters, and that PRES has spent considerable time and money working towards this end. Please note that PRES does not intend to occupy the proposed new building, as evidenced by the attached photograph of a sign at the Kell Center, prepared by PRES, advertising a "New Build -To- Suit - Opportunity" ( "Exhibit "A" ), and the attached marketing materials prepared by PRES for a "Build -To- Suit - Opportunity" ("Exhibit "B" ). Moreover, the sign depicted in Exhibit "A" is also depicted in the amended Errata, labeled Attachment I, "Viewpoint #7 East -side Sidewalk View to Project Site (moving north along Von Karman Ave.)." Accordingly, PRES's purported intent to occupy the proposed office building as its headquarters appears to not be true, and is not a valid consideration for approving the Study and the Project. It appears that PRES's intent is to obtain and sell valuable entitlements, solely for its own monetary profit, by asking the City to take extraordinary measures to amend the general plan and Koll Center Development Standards text in violation of the stated goals of these documents. II. UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT. As stated in the Second Comment Letter, the Project unlawfully piecemeals the whole of a project into smaller projects that, when analyzed independently, result in lesser aggregate environmental impacts then when analyzed together. The Project is part of a larger project affecting the Koll Center that proposes to completely reconfigure and alter the Koll Center by building a residential village (the "Residential Village Project"), which proposes to add several residential buildings and common areas to the Kell Center, and plans to designate the lake and common areas contiguous to the Project site as a park or otherwise use as amenities for the Residential Village Project. Additionally, the larger project affecting the Kell Center includes the addition of another office building in the Koll Center, commonly known as the Newport Plaza project, which will also require a general plan amendment and Kell Center Development Standards text amendment (the "Newport Plaza Project "). The Project, the Residential Village Project, and the Newport Plaza Project must be analyzed together in a single EIR. 361 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON UP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 4 CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(x). "Project is given a broad interpretation in " order to maximize protection of the environment," McQueen v. Board of Directors of Midpennsulia Region Open Space District, 202 Cal, App. 3rd 1136 (1988). California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project' consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not "split" a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping. a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (199 1) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3rd 263 (1975). Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Newport Plaza Project, an additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Newport Plaza Project, and a massive residential development project in the Koll Center and property contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Residential Village Project'). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the Project is required by CEQA to be analyzed together with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project. For further discussion of the City's requirement to combine the environmental analysis for the Newport Plaza, please see Section II of the Second Letter. III. THE STUDY MUST ANALYZE CUMULATIVE.IMPACTS. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15165, a public agency must comment upon the cumulative effects of similar projects of a public agency. Thus, even if the City is not required to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project in a single EIR (as we believe it is, as set forth in Section I of this letter), it must at least analyze the cumulative impacts associated with the three projects in each environmental document. The Study did not 3 G2 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 5 comment upon or analyze = of the cumulative impacts associated with the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project. The relevant portion of CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 provides as follows: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project is one of several similar protects of a public agency, but is not deemed a part of a larger undertaking or a larger [.Emphasis added]. The Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project are all similar projects of a public agency, the City. The Project proposes to develop an office building in the General Plan Statistical Area L4, Anomaly Location #2, and specifically located in the Koli Center. Likewise, the Newport Plaza Project proposes to develop an office building in the General Plan Statistical Area 14, Anomaly Location #2, and specifically located in the Koil Center. The Project and the Newport Plaza Project will certainly generate cumulative impacts, none of which have been analyzed in the Study. For example, impacts relating to, inter alia, construction, traffic, noise, land use and zoning, vibration, aesthetics, and air quality will all be more intense with the concurrent construction of two office buildings in the office park. These cumulative impacts must be identified and analyzed in the Study. Similarly, the Residential Village Project is a similar project of the City that will generate cumulative impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the Study. The Residential Village Project will be located in the Koll Center, and proposes to designate- the property contiguous to the Project site, including the lake, as a public park or to otherwise use such property as an amenity for the Residential Village Project. The concurrent general plan amendments and construction relating to the Project and the Residential Village Project will generate a panoply of cumulative impacts. There will be cumulative impacts relating to, inter alia, land use and zoning, vibration, construction, air PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel. Robert Hawkins August 19, -2010 Page 6 quality, noise, water quality, biological resources, traffic, and aesthetics. Again, none of these impacts were identified and analyzed in the Study. CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 clearly states that cumulative impacts associated with similar projects of a public agency must address cumulative impacts associated with such projects, whether they are addressed in a single EIR or independent EIRs. Clearly, the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project are similar projects that will generate some cumulative impacts that must be addressed in a single EIR, or at the very least in independent EIRs. The Study failed to identify and analyze these cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the Study is inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA. IV. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN. - . As discussed in both the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter, the Project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community tent (the "Koll Center Text'). The inconsistencies with the General Plan and the Koll Center Text establish a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Although the Planning Commission and Planning Commission staff have been put on notice of the significant environmental impacts relating to land use and planning, no revisions to the Study were included in the Errata. Accordingly, as stated in the Second Comment Letter, the comments regarding the inadequacy of the analysis of the impacts to land use remain unrefuted. The following comments regarding the inconsistencies between the Project and the general plan amendment are included in this letter to supplement the comments set forth in the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter. These supplemental comments are necessary to (i) ensure that the City complies with its General Plan regarding land use policies and obtaining necessary voter approvals, and (ii) emphasize the inadequacy of the land use analysis in the Study and to put the City on notice, for the third time, that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the 3� + PALMIERL TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 7 Project will have significant environmental impacts to land use, and therefore an EIR is required to be prepared for the Project. A. The General Plan May Not Be Adopted Without Voter Anuroval Pursuant to Charter Section 423- (Measure S). As set forth in further detail in the Second Comment Letter, approval of the general plan amendment for the Project requires voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. The general plan amendment for the Project is being considered by the Planning Commission separately from the general plan amendment for the Newport Plaza Project, even though each general plan amendment proposes to increase the maximum allowable development area above the maximum currently provided in the Newport Beach General Plan for the Airport Area, and specifically within the KoII Center. Indeed, as stated by Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner, at the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting, in response to a question from Commissioner Eaton, the allowable square footage for each general plan amendment was determined so that both general plan amendments could be adopted by the City, in either order, without requiring voter approval of the citizens of Newport Beach. If the square footage increase was combined into a single general plan amendment, such general plan amendment would be considered a "major amendment" under Charter Section 423 and would require voter approval. Simply put, these two general plan amendments must be combined into a single general plan amendment. Each amendment, independently proposes to expand maximum allowable development within the Airport Area, and specifically within the Koll Center. The cumulative impacts associated with expanding maximum allowable development via two separate amendments area are not identified and analyzed in the corresponding environmental review documents, and the public therefore does not have the benefit of reviewing such impacts. Moreover, the citizens of Newport Beach are entitled to approve by vote amendments to the General Plan in this area that exceed 40,000 square feet, pursuant to Charter Section 423. By splitting what should be a single general plan amendment into two general plan amendments, for the admitted purpose of avoiding the requirements of v6S PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDanieI Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 8 Charter Section 423, the City is deceiving its citizens and divesting them of their vested right to approve of such expansion within the Airport Area. B. The Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General Plan. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 5, 2010, the Planning Commission requested that Planning staff address the consistency of the Project and Land Use Policy 3.2. Accordingly, the staff report prepared for the August 19, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting (the "Staff Report") provides additional analysis regarding the Project's consistency with Land Use Policy 3.2, as well as with Land Use Policy 3.3. However, the analysis in the Staff Report is not included in the Study or the Errata. Any additional analysis of the impacts relating to consistency with land use policy must be included in the Study so that interested parties may review the environmental analysis pursuant to the procedures provided by CEQA. Additionally, regardless of the omission of this analysis from the Study and the Errata, the analysis of the consistency of the Project with Land Use Policy 3.2 and 3.3 is conclusory, incomplete, and inadequate. Furthermore, the analysis of the consistency of the Project with other Land Use Policies set forth in Section X of the Study and Appendix C to the Study is also inadequate. Accordingly, further analysis of the consistency of the Project with the General Plan Land Use Policies must be provided in an EIR. In addition, as discussed in detail in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study does not discuss the consistency of the Project with the General Plan's stated purpose and vision statement. The Project is in direct conflict with the General Plan's stated purpose. and vision statement and this conflict must be identified and analyzed in an EIR. 1. History and Purpose of the General Plan. The Introduction of the General Plan sets forth the history and purpose of the General Plan, and the efforts that led to its adoption on July 25, 2006. Specifically, the Introduction describes how thirty-eight residents representing all segments of the community (the "Committee ") developed the General Plan, after thorough study of input of thousands of residents. 3 .6 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Ear] McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 9 According to p. 1 -2 of the General Plan, the Committee spent more than four years "during the most extensive public outreach in the City s history" preparing the General Plan. Indeed, the Introduction celebrates the General Plan and the process by which the Committee and the City's residents participated to have their input incorporated into the document. The General Plan includes a "Vision Statement" that describes "what the residents want the City to be now and in 2025." Specifically, the Introduction states on P. 1 -2 that the General Plan was developed to ensure that the City achieves its Vision Statement by, inter alla, "[rleducing potential new commercial. office, and industrial space -by 1.45 million square feet." [Emphasis added]. The Introduction further states on p. 1 -9 that "the General Plan is also a tool to help City staff, City Commissions, and the City Council make land use and public investment decisions" and that "[fjuturc development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." [Emphasis added]. Here, the Project proposes to ex an the maximum allowable development in the Koll Center, which is in direct conflict with the Vision Statement. Despite this clear conflict, neither the Study, the Errata, nor any of the staff reports relating to the Project identify and analyze the Project's inconsistency with the General Plan's Vision Statement. 2. Land Use Policy 3.2. The Staff Report analyzes the Project's consistency with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2 ( "LU 3.21). This analysis does not provide a complete and objective analysis of the consistency of the Project with LU 3.2. To the contrary, the analysis merely sets forth conolusory statements and advocates subjectively in favor of the Project. An objective analysis of the consistency of LU 3.2 reveals that the Project is not consistent therewith. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2 states as follows: "Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, 36-7 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 10 and character. necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth. improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish New Beach as a special dace to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service." LU 3.2 limits the ability of decision - makers to make changes to established land use polices only under very narrow circumstances, none of which are present for the Project. First, the Project area is not economically underperforming. The Koll Center and the surrounding area are thriving in the heart of Newport Beach's business district. Having an open parking area to serve office buildings within an office park does not qualify as economic underperformance. The open parking area where the Project site is located was designed and built to serve the buildings of the Koll Center. Likewise, the conversion of the former restaurant building in the Koll Center to an office building does not qualify as economic underperformance. To the contrary, the restaurant itself was economically underperforming, and the conversion of the restaurant building to an office building has eliminated this economically underperforming use. It is also important to note that the Project applicant voluntarily converted the existing building from restaurant use to office use in 2005. This conversion resulted in additional square footage designated as office use in the Koll Center. A voluntary conversion of restaurant space to office space may not be considered when determining whether a space is economically underperforming. Second, the Project is not necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth. Nothing in the Study or the Errata documents any necessity to meet projected regional population growth. however, if the Project was being built to accommodate the population growth that will result from the Residential Village Project, then the Project should be considered part of, and evaluated in an EIR for, the Residential Village Project which is contiguous to the Project site. 3 6e PALMIRRI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 11 Third, the Project will not reduce commuting distance between home and jobs. The Koji Center is located in a business district that provides jobs to commuters from Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside Counties. Additional jobs in this area will only increase commuting distance; between home and jobs for those that commute to the Newport Beach business district. Finally, the Project will not enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place for its residents. The residents of Newport Beach determined when they dratted and adopted the Vision Statement that an express goal of the General Plan is to reduce commercial and office space in the City. This Project proposes to add, rather than reduce, additional office space to the City, and specifically to an area that would require a general plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development area. Furthermore, the general plan was planned and adopted with express develop limitations imposed on the Airport Area, and specifically the Koji Center. Expanding allowable development area, via the general plan amendments for the Project and the Newport Plaza Project, directly conflicts with the values set forth by the citizens of Newport Beach in the General Plan. 3. Analysis of Other General Plan Land Use Element Policies. Appendix C of the Study identifies various General Plan Land Use Element polices in a table and provides a brief analysis for each policy. The analysis in Appendix C concluded that the Project is consistent with every policy identified in the table. Many of the conclusions reached in Appendix C are supported by superficial analysis and provide no detailed analysis to support the conclusions. Specifically, Appendix Cdid not adequately analyze whether the Project is consistent with, inter atia, the following policies: • LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts. Corridors. and Open Spaces: This conclusion incorrectly states that the Project would blend in with the existing architectural characteristics.of the Koll Center. The Project proposes to build an office building that dwarfs the neighboring buildings that share the adjacent lake and parking area. Additionally, the architectural style is entirely different than the architectural style of the surrounding buildings. M PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP ' Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 12 • LU 5.4.1 Site Planning: This conclusion ignores the elimination of open space in the Koff Center area resulting from the construction of an additional office building in the Project area. • LU 5.4.2 Development Form and Architecture: This policy requires that new development of office buildings be designed to convey a unified character. The proposed office building is approximately 48 ft. and three - stories tall, while the surrounding buildings are only one or two stories tall. None of the buildings in the vicinity of the Project site are even close to being 48 ft. tall. Indeed, the Meyer Building located next door is only 14.5 ft, tall, and has a completely different architectural style. Furthermore, although the Planning staff described this building as only a two -story building at the August 5, 2010 hearing, the building is actually three stories tall, including the first floor parking structure, and is much taller than an average three -story building. Describing the Project building as 'two- story" is misleading. The height and architectural style of the new office building is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding buildings, and must be identified as such in an EIR. + LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development: The addition of a new office building in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Residential Village Project may result in cumulative impacts to land use policies that were not identified and analyzed in the Study and Errata. The common areas surrounding the proposed building are proposed to be designated as a residential community park, or otherwise serve as an amenity for such residential community, which is inconsistent with the addition of an office building to the Doll Center. These cumulative impacts must be addressed and analyzed in an EIR. • LU 6. 15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. This policy requires that business parks, commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods be integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. No analysis is provided regarding the integration of the Project with the Residential Village Project and the land to be designated as a residential community park contiguous to the Project site Further, no integrated development plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission that even contemplates the Project. 370 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 13 Additionally, Appendix C does not adequately analyze and discuss impacts to land use relating to inconsistency with the General Plan Circulation Element ( "CE "), and does not discuss cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent implementation and construction of the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15165. Namely, the analysis of the following policies, inter alia, in Appendix C does not include an adequate analysis of impacts: • CE 2. 1.1 Level of Service Standards: Cumulative impacts to levels Of service were not analyzed for both construction periods and post - construction periods for the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project. • CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes: The conclusion in this section inexplicably states that the Project will encourage the use of alternative transportation. It then states that the Project site is not located near bus transit. This conclusion contradicts the analysis set forth Appendix C. Neither the Study nor the Errata provides evidence in support of the Project encouraging the use of alternative transportation. Public transportation in the vicinity of-the Koll Center is limited, most commuters do not use alternative transportation to travel to the Koll Center, and therefore the Project is not consistent with this land use policy. • CE 7.1.1 Rewired Parking: The analysis in this section does not discuss the cumulative impacts to available parking associated with the Residential Village Project, including the proposed residential community public park or other amenity contiguous to the Project site associated therewith. Additionally, the conclusion that the Project is consistent with this policy is reached in spite of the analysis set forth in this section that recognizes that the Project will violate the Koll Center Newport Community Plan requirement that there be one parking space for every 225 square feet: Although the decision making body has the discretion to allow one space for every 250 square feet, such a decision will still violate the parking requirement set forth in the Koll Center Newport Community Plan and this inconsistency must be analyzed in an EIR. 371 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 14 • CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration: The analysis in this section does not discuss the cumulative impacts to parking configuration and parking management programs associated with the Residential Village Project, including the proposed residential community public park contiguous to the Project Site associated therewith. Furthermore, although the Planning staff pointed out the benefit of shielding the parking area from street view that will result from the Project at the August 5th meeting, the construction of a 48 ft. tall building to shield a designated parking area is unnecessary to accomplish this goal. There are many Iess intrusive options that may accomplish shielding of parking without taking a designated parking area and constructing a 48 ft. tall building, especially considering that the parking lot is already partially shielded because it is located behind the lake and set back more than 100 ft. from the street. Appendix C also does not adequately analyze and discuss impacts to land use relating to inconsistency with the General Plan Noise Element ( "N "), and does not discuss cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent implementation and construction of the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15165. Namely, the analysis of the following policies, inter aria, in Appendix C does not include an adequate analysis of impacts: • N 1.2 Noise Enosure Verification for New Development: Cumulative noise exposure impacts associated with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project were not analyzed in Appendix C. • N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts: Cumulative significant noise impacts associated with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project were not analyzed in Appendix C. • N 4.3 New Commercial Developments: The Project was not designed to minimize noise impacts, as required for commercial developments that abut residentially designated properties, including the Residential Village Project. Analysis of this inconsistency with N 4.3 must be included in air EIR for the Project. 372 PALMIER I, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 15 • N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities: This section does not include analysis of noise relating to maintenance or construction activities adjacent to the Residential Village Project's proposed residential areas. Analysis of this inconsistency with N 4.6 must be included in an EIR for the Project. V. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT RE DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AND THE STUDY. This office has submitted two comment letters to the Planning Commission detailing the inadequacy of the Study to serve as the environmental document for the Project. In response, the City has prepared and subsequently amended the Errata, and conducted additional studies relating to biological resources, to attempt to cure what otherwise is an incomplete environmental analysis of the Project, These additional efforts by the City to cure the inadequacies of the Study are a good start, but fall far short of the environmental analysis requirements set forth in CEQA. Indeed, many of the conclusions set forth in the Study and the Errata are not supported by any analysis. CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared for a project whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have A significant environmental impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 69, 75. [Emphasis added]. Although the Planning staff has conducted additional studies and provided additional analysis relating to certain environmental impacts, even if these additional studies and analysis are sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA (we contend that they are not sufficient), they have still not addressed many of the inadequacies identified in the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter, and these inadequacies therefore remain unresolved. VL CONCLUSION. As documented in detail in the Initial Comment Letter, the Second Comment Letter, and this comment letter, there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, an EIR must be prepared for the Project. Additionally, the Project is part of a larger project 3.7.3 PAUCHRI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 16 within the Koll Center, and therefore must be analyzed together with all three projects in the Koll Center, and cumulative impacts relating to these three projects must be identified and analyzed. Furthermore, the general plan amendments for the Project and the Newport Plaza Project must be considered a single amendment, and must be approved by the vote of the citizens of Newport Beach pursuant to Charter Section 423. Finally, regardless of environmental considerations, the Project is not consistent with the General Plan, including its land use policies, is inappropriate for the Koll Center, and must not be approved. Very truly yours, F. Julian Freeman III ttAia cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. Ryan M. Easter, Esq, 374 EXHIBIT "Ate 315 37G vi ces ., c - sI MV. IF . . . . . .... . Nl At ei K611 C'intb N e' part NeW, Bidld4-,-Td S u t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tPhlt -,P vi ces ., c - sI 378 EICBBIT "B" 37,0 WE f .. �� . �: .: 1 J. -: ��i`i � 1:� � Eu H e� �� ST�� W �! *� {3 SPI .v _ �; -s# ,� — _c...:...:_ _:— tee( =;i_:.: -•: BUILD -TO -SUPT OPPURTumw NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT USE: Commercial Office SITE AREA: .536 Acres ±23,383 Square Feet RENTABLE AREA: ±10,000 Square Feet NUMBER OF FLOORS: 2 PARKING: 42 Stalls ENTITLEMENTS: August 2010 OPPORTUNITY: Well located In the heart of Newport Beach's business district and the Koll Center. Close proximity to John Wayne Airport with easy access to 405, 55 and 73 Freeways. d m N aj g a \N r s 0 �_aru m h107 T a� � / tiMMN Y + w' y�I \Y O IIO�q CMIWM9%b &M1WT +/ SL ' ?. : •... Ft •,moo ` ,o- �p'.:S :: a�'t:.:M tip.. \N r s 0 �_aru m h107 T a� i` Attachment No. CC 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 rip RESOLUTION NO. 1819 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007 -009, APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006, APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005, AND APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED. 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2007 -213) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect to property located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit of the Land Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and 4) an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet. 2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross - square -foot commercial office building. 3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed- Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 5, and August 19, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance With the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, Was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. , -a Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 2 of 12 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for a 20 -day public comment period beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. An Errata to the MND, dated August 13, 2010, was prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft MND. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the MND is not required when new information is added to the document which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. 4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be .compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The MND and MMRP attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision for recommendation was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is identified as Anomaly Location #2. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU- 1­12). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may 39,9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 3 of 12 include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed new commercial office building is consistent with this designation. 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infiil with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: • The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface parking lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted it to office use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text in 2006, a restaurant is no longer a permitted use. As a result, there is now a surplus of unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is no entitlement remaining, future development on this site is limited to replacement of the existing building, with a new 7,266- square -foot building'. The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was originally used as a restaurant site with the required off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the project site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its highest and best use. The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the project site which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities for approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal location for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits would provide employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses are replaced with the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the Airport Area. The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs -to- housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the Airport Area. ' The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 4 of 12 The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area. 3. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.1 provides for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is consistent with this policy as follows: The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the Kell Center Newport Planned Community. 4. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling unit thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment, with the increased development limit of 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, does not exceed the non - residential floor area.threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trip threshold, and does not create any new dwelling units. 5. The General Plan includes several. goals and policies emphasizing high quality redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage control. The Kell Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page5of12 6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and a change the off- street parking requirements of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments. 7. The granting of the exception to subdivide land into two separate parcels, comprised approximately 23,383 square feet can be following findings: A. Finding: the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of of approximately 32,395 square feet, and made subject to the facts in support of That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. A.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because: • The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND). The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not exceed the maximum height requirements. • The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than other lots in the.vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karman: approximately 12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karman: 23,065. square feet; and 4040 MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet). M10990 . That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. -14-e Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Pape 6 of 12 B.1 Facts in Support of Finding: The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center. The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The plan review material shall include: 1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c) size 3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains and /or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity 5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit. B.2. Facts in Support of Finding: If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the minimum site area and parking requirements were. granted, the intent of the development standards would be substantially met because: • A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B. • The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of the -site. • The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and landscape requirements. • The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex. �y N' Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 7 of 12 8. The granting of the exception to the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet can be made because this parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66 of the NBMC, and adequate off- street parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided. 9. A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square- foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development of the new office building has been prepared in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: A. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and the MU -H2 land use designation. B. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed subdivision- would create two lots which would be physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building, and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for development. B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paqe 8 of 12 amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site. C. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Facts in Support of Finding: CA. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Errata to the MND dated August 13, 2010, was prepared in order to clarify data in the MND, and support the conclusions reached in the draft MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the MND is not required as a result of the Errata because in consists of new information added to the MND that merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND. D. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -fool parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with. E. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 9 of 12 Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E.1 The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map. F. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Califomia Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community), which does not allow agricultural uses. G. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision- making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: GA The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located within a specific plan area. H. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.9 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Page 10 of 12 Facts in Support of Finding_ HA The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 664 12.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding_ 1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779 - square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated. J. Findina: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (`RWQCB' . Facts in Support of Findina: J.1 The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB requirements. K. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone. M Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 11 of 12 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 to increase the maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet, and approve a change in the off - street parking requirement of one space for each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 to amend the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow an increase in the allowable building area for Professional & Business Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, as depicted in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006. 6. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does here recommend that the City Council approve the PRES Office Building B Project subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth herein in Exhibit "E." ILA Planning Commission Resolution No. 1819 PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Paae 12 of 12 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. AYES: EATON, UNSWORTH, MCDANIEL, AMERI, AND TOERGE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HAWKINS AND HILLGREN BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Mi a oerg� e S cretary EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for. Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation& Monitoring Initials Date Remarks Monitoring Agency .,Biological Resolrrs - BIO -1 The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not During construction Project be scheduled during the avian nesting season construction (approximately February 1 through August 31) contractor to ensure project conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and grubbing are proposed to occur between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds occur within the disturbance limits, a buffer around the nest shall be determined by a qualified biologist. All construction activities shall occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is complete and that no new nesting activity has occurred within the buffer area. G5illural Resources J:'[ - - _, _ = — CR -1 Project plans shall specify that that a qualified During construction Project paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that construction potential paleontological resources are contractor discovered. During constriction, the contractor shall halt site excavation or preparation if suspected fossilized remains are unearthed, Construction shall cease on site and shall not be resumed until a qualified paleontologist is contacted to assess the resources and identify appropriate treatment measures, if applicable. Treatment measures may include salvaging fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or temporarily halting or diverting equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be cumted into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be W No.. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance :Initials Date Remarks Implementation& Monitoring - Moultorlinz Agency. prepared and shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. GEO -1 Prior to approval of grading permits, soil Prior to issuance of City of Newport preparation measures to minimize expansion grading permits Beach Building potential shall be identified by the applicant in Department construction documents and grading permits. During construction, grading of the site by the contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved by the City. Soils required to bring the site to final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The site soils may be re -used as compacted fill provided the material is cleaned of organics, demolition debris, and other deleterious materials. Fill originating on the project site shall be moisture- conditioned to approximately 1300/6 of optimum and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 40% in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory compaction characteristics. The implementation of these measures shall be verified during field inspections. GEO -2 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City of Newport plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of grading permits Beach Building non- expansive materials, moisture- conditioned Department to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of optimum if cohesive or clayey. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan specifications. GEO -3 Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading Prior to issuance of City ofNewport plans shall stipulate that wall backfill soils shall grading permits Beach Building consist of granular, cohesionless backfill with Department sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion index less than 20. The characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to meet rading lan s ecifcmions. Hydrology aitd Water - WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance of City o €Newport applicant shall prepare and have approved by the grading permits Beach Public City a S WPPP to be implemented during Works construction, which shall include BMPs to Department prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall be Prepared as directed in the City's stormwater No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Com liance Implementation& Monitoring Initials., Date. Remarks Monitorina Agency protection requirements, and may include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Diversion of off site runoff away from the construction site. • Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities, ■ Installation of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off -site transport of sediment. ■ Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check dams in paved roadways. ■ Provision of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal. ■ Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping. N I All noise - producing project equipment and During final design City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines shall and prior to plan Beach Code be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers check approval Enforcement where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good City of Newport operating condition that meet or exceed original Beach Building factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" Department equipment (e.g„ are welders, air. compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment During grading, site City of Newport used on the proposed project that is regulated for preparation, and Beach Code noise output by a local, state, or federal agency construction Enforcement shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. City of Newport Beach Building . Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be used During final design City of Newport instead of pneumatic or internal combustion— and prior to plan Beach Code powered equipment, where feasible. check approval Enforcement During grading, site City of Newport preparation, and Beach Building construction Department N4 Mobile noise - generating equipment and During, grading, site City of Newport machinery shall be shut off when not in use. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department No.. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verltication of Compliance Initials Date Remarks. Implementation& Monitoring MonitoringA enc N -5 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During, grading, site City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be preparation, and Beach Code located as far as practical from noise- sensitive construction Enforcement receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -6 Construction site and access road speed limits During, grading, site City of Newport . shall be established and enforced during the preparation, and Beach Code construction period. construction Enforcement City ofNewport Beach Building Department N -7 The use of noise - producing signals, including During, grading, sito City of Newport horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for preparation, and Beach Code safety warning purposes only. construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -8 No project- related public address or music During, grading, site City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor. preparation, and Beach Code construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -9 The onsite construction supervisor shall have the During final design City of Newport responsibility and authority to receive and and prior to plan Beach Code resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process check approval Enforcement to the project proponent shall be established prior to construction commencement that shall During grading, site City of Newport allow for resolution of noise problems that preparation, and Beach Building cannot be immediately solved by the site construction Department supervisor. EXHIBIT "B" REVISED TABLE LUZ ANOMALY LOCATIONS • • Anomaly Number Statistical Area • • • Land use Designation O Development Limit (sO - Development ❑mlt (Me r) - Addiflonal Information 1 L4 MU -1-12 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU-1-12 4;860;1461.052.880 2a L4 MU-H2 18 810 11.544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square foots e 3 L4 CO-G 734,641 4 L4 MU -1-12 250,176 5 L4 MU.1-12 32,500 6 L4 MU -1-12 34,500 7 L4 MU -H2 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -H2 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -1-12 457,880 13 L4 CO -G 288;264 14 L4 CO- G /MU -H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16 L4 MG 344,231 17 L4 MU-1-12 3$,282 304 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retell: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 MG 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 ..- . . Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit s0 Development Limit Other Addiflonal information Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf 33 M3 PI 163,680 Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 L1 CO -R 484,348 35 L1 CO-R 199,095 36 L1 CO-R 227,797 2,050 Theater Seats (not 37 L1 CO-R 131,201 included in total square footage) 38 L1 CO-M 443,627 39 L1 MU -1-13 408,084 40 L1 MU -1-13 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (Included in total Square Footage) 41 L1 CO -R 327,671 42 1.1 CO -R 286,166. 43 1.1 Cv 611 Hotel Rooms 1,700 Theater Seats (not 44 Li CR 1,619,525 included in total square footage) 45 L1 00 -G 162,364 46 Ll MU -H3/PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU -1-13. 47 L1 CG 105,000 48 L1 MU -1-13 337,281 49 L1 PI 45,208 50 Ll CG 25,000 51 K1 PR 20,000 52 K1 Cv 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 J1 CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 In no event shall the total 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus combined gross floor area of 56 A3 PI both campuses exceed the 577,889 sf Lower Campus development limit of 1,343,238 sq. A. 57 Intentionally Blank 68 J5 PR 20,000 Anomaly SlatisUcal Land Use Development Number Area Desf nation Limit (so Development It Other Additionallnformalton , 157 Hotel Roams and 144 59 H4 MU -W1 487,402 Dwelling Units (included In total square footage) 60 N CV 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 ON 66,000 64 M3 ON 74,000 65. M5 ON 80,000 66 J2 ON 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 ON 75,000 70 D2 RM•D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) 71 Ll CO-G 11,630 72 L1 CO -G 81000 73 A3 CO•M 350,000 74 L1 PR 35,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices of the City of Newport 75 L1 PF Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter, EXHIBIT "C" REVISED FIGURE LU11 FOR STATISTICAL AREAS J6, L4 Y4-u Ow"F, com -4— s IC, ■ 3TY of NEWPORT BEAD. GENERALPLAN Figure LUll STA11611CAL AREAS SnNXUAgRe�OnAlMWh� I mamd DRAFT L4 PART 11 Section I. Group I EXHIBIT "D" KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT CHANGES COMMERCIAL Site Area and Building Area PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with property lines, (4) A, Building Sites (4) Site G 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) B. Allowable Building Area Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres(8)(10)(11) Site A 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site B 967,-801-squave feet (13)(16)(28)W 977,720 s ogre feet (13)(16)(28)(30) Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site D 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 24,300 square feet (4) Site G 45.000 square feet (8) 2.350,699 square feet (15)(*) *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) `t�� Total Acreage Site A 30.939 acres * (29) Site B 43.703 acres (11) Site C 18.806 acres (10) Site D 19.673 acres Site E 2.371 acres Site F 1.765 acres Site G 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) B. Allowable Building Area Office Acreage 30.939 acres *(29) 43.703 acres (11) 18.806 acres (10) 19.673 acres 2.371 acres 1.765 acres 5.317 acres (8) 122.574 acres(8)(10)(11) Site A 366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30) Site B 967,-801-squave feet (13)(16)(28)W 977,720 s ogre feet (13)(16)(28)(30) Site C 674,800 square feet (10)(15) Site D 240,149 square feet (8)(13) Site E 32,500 square feet (4) Site F 24,300 square feet (4) Site G 45.000 square feet (8) 2.350,699 square feet (15)(*) *(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and 2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within Office Site A. (3)(4)(16) `t�� 2. Site B Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. Allowable Building Area ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30) Site Area ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) a. 0 C. Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Parking X3259 cars Landscayed Oven Space (11) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Land Coverage (16,28,30) ............... 4-1— 11_22 acres ............... X748 acres .......... I.... 3:355.61 acres 4.44449 acres ............... 3, 3.74 acres 3-.W3.21 acres ............... 2-.78L81 acres ............... 2.472.49 acres ............... 22.24 acres 22.04 acres ............... 4451.87 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) MAQ7.16 acres Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30) ............... 545.32 acres ............... 9:449.06 acres ......... I..... 4�F10_93 acres ...... I........ 424812_05 acres ........ I...... 434212 ^80 acres ............... 4-3:6513_33 acres ............... 44:8413_73 acres I .............. 443514_05 acres ..........I...1 44.6914.30 acres ............... 448814_50 acres ............... 44 X4_67 acres EXHIBIT "E" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRES Office Building B 4300 Von Karman Avenue General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006 Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the PRES Office Building B Project including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007- 006, and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 2. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 3. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each tot corner; unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval Paae 2 of 4 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes. 5. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the property, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6: All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be .approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 7. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department. 8. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 9. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. 11. If required, prior to site plan approval and issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall file a notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA (FAA Form 7460 -1) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The City shall refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission for consistency analysis. The Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, if required, prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel. 12. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by the private work, public works improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and alley /street reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non -standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site. 15. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 394 - Z. PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval Paae 3 of 4 16. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical 17. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first plan check. The study recommendation(s) shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading the existing City sewer lateral shall be borne by the applicant. 18. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer lines along the southerly property lines. (Note: The new easements do not appear to impact the proposed development.) 19. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 20. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 21. The parking layout and circulation is subject to further review by the Public Works Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD- 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B. 22. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so it does not impact the overall circulation of the site. 23. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 24. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 25. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local- requirements. 26. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213) Exhibit "E'- Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 4 materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be. either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 27. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance.with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mitination Measures 28. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project. Attachment No. CC 5 Comment Letters dated August 5 and August 19, 2010 :::�R5 m LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP w uNli[D tM&Nh YAIIMOIEMP wewo w YROMNONM coRPOPwn9NS 2603 MAIN STREET ANOMO J. PAWIERI 1190849981 ROBERT F WALDRON 0921.19901 ANN K WIENER' STEPHEN A SCHUR ROBERT C. IMRME' - DONNA L $NOW JAMES L MJILHEW' THAN K IU TER DENNIS 4 MW EUBE K MR MICHAEL J. OREEHE' MEUSA R NUUM DENNIS W. ONMI' M1 MIM VAIADEt DAVID D. PARR' MM" A SAHMER CHMKS K WI MT ER' MICINCL L "HOE PATRICK A MENIIX%SET ROBERr M. SMINETBON DON INNER RYAN K PRA9CA "room N. WMLER CHNWOMI C. BUNCH WARREN A W S ANNE C. CNU JOHN R MSTER JEMO BUTZ CTMIMK M. WOLCOTT HEATMMi K WMREMLAD OMY C. Winsome MH BJQSMIA IUDMB MICHACL N. LMKR OEHFJI K OCMINME SCOTT R. CAWDOKR F. EXUUI MOVUIO RICINRD A SAWS MCA K 9DROSK, NORMAN J. NOWCM Casey 1E BOURNE RONAID M. COLE NMIRS&V C LVORIN 500100E. L W"OMO N MWY90MK CWMI MN EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CJIUFORNIA 926144281 (949) SSI -9400 www.Ptwmv.DDm August 5, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL, Chairman Bar] McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Robert Hawkins Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Baton Bradley Hillgren Fred Ameri Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. SOX 19712 IRVINC. CA 92623.9712 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (949) 961 -7340 WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBER (949) 926 -9404 (IAN'S DIRECT FACStMKE NUMBERS 1949) 881 -1664 (849) 7874226 reeatereptwww.00m REFER To FILE NO. 31191 -001 Re: PRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4; PA2007 -213) Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: This office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Kola Center "), City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building "). 30-7 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 2 The Meyer Building is contiguous to the proposed project development of a 50 foot high, 11,460- gross - square feet single- tenant office building (the "Project ") at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of Newport Beach (the "City"). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study (the "Errata ") (which was released to the public on July 30, 2010), for the Project. . Please note that Meyer did not receive notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on the Project scheduled for August 5, 2010. We discovered the meeting through our own research. Please ask City staff to ensure that all required notices for projects in the vicinity of or affecting the Meyer Building be sent in accordance with the law. As you are aware, this office submitted a comment letter on behalf of Meyer on June 7, 2010 (the "Initial Comment Letter'). The purpose of the Initial Comment Letter was to provide comments to the City regarding the inadequacy of the environmental review of the Project set forth in the Study, to inform the City that the proposed general plan amendment and amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards should not be adopted without first performing adequate environmental analysis pursuant to an environmental impact report, and that the Project is otherwise inappropriate for the Koll Center. The City has prepared the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, that the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ), that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and that the Project is inappropriate for the Koll Center. In addition to the proposed general plan amendment for the Project, another general plan amendment (see Agenda Item No. 5) is being proposed for a similar project 363 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WMELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 3 that is also within the Koll Center (the "Related Project "). This additional general plan amendment proposes to expand the additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, where both the Project and the Related Project are located, by 11,544 square feet. The general plan amendment for the Project also proposes to expand additional allowable development within Statistical Area 4 by 11,544 square feet. As discussed in detail below, these general plan amendments should not be considered independently, and should be combined into a single general plan amendment that is subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. A. Text of Charter Section 423. As noted on p. 8 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report for the August, 5, 2010 meeting, Agenda Item No. 4 (the "Staff Report! ), Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. The text of Charter Section 423 states as follows: "Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. A'major amendment' is one that uses coula eenerme, orsrenurcanrty Increases auowea aenslry or i tensi . 'Significantly increases' means over 0 Peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40.000 square feet of floor area fintensitl; these thresholds shall apply to the total of 1) Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years. 'Other amendments' does not include those approved by the voters. 'Neighborhood' shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City. to a public vote as a separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the city council at the same time as one or more other amendments to the City's General Plan. The city council shall set any PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 4 a rg eement with the applicant for the amendment, may call a special the applicant and the City as they may agree. In any election required by this Section, the ballot measure shall be worded such that a YES vote approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall be void and shall have no effect." [Emphasis added.] B. Addition ofNon- Residential Square Feet to Statistical Area M as Calculated in the StgiiReport. The Staff Report indicates that none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded by the proposed general plan amendment for the Project. This conclusion is based on the calculations set forth in Tables 1 and 2 of the Staff Report. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the additional square feet of non - residential floor area and increases of peak hour vehicle trips for two proposed general plan amendments, identified as GP2007 -009 and GP2008 -007, and a general plan amendment that was adopted on January 9, 2007, GP2006 -096. GP2007 -009 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Project and GP2008 -007 is the general plan amendment proposed to be adopted for the Related Project. The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the cumulative additional square feet of non - residential area that will be added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 39.992 square feet. As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase density by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area requires voter approval. Accordingly, Table 2 of the Staff Report indicates that the two proposed general plan amendments will fail merely 8 square feet shy of the 40,000 square foot limitation that would require voter approval. Please note that the calculation of 39,992 square feet was reached by characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a "past amendment," therefore reducing the additional square footage proposed to be added by the general plan amendment for the Project to 80 percent of the actual additional square 39a PAWERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 5 footage. As set forth above, the thresholds for Charter Section 423 are determined by adding the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself to 80 percent of the increases resulting from the other amendments affecting the same Statistical Area and adopted within the preceding ten years. Without characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, the total additional square footage resulting from the two proposed general plan amendments and the general plan amendment adopted in 2007 would be 42,300.8 square feet, which would require the general plan amendment to be subject to voter approval. C. Addition ofPeakrHorar Vehicle Triers. The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the additional peak hour trips that will be added to Statistical Area %4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is required under Charier Section 423, is 20.54 A.M. trips and 19.85 P.M. trips. As stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase peak hour trips by 100 requires voter approval. In the aggregate, the three amendments listed in Table 2 will increase A.M. peak hour trips by 85.25 and P.M. peak hour trips by 95.09. Collectively, A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips will be increased by 180.34, if the proposed general plan amendment is characterized as a "past amendment," and 188.4175 peak hour trips if the two proposed general plan amendments are combined into a single amendment. Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips. To the contrary, it merely states that "'significant increase means over 100 Peak hour trips." However, for purposes of analyzing whether the amendments are subject to voter approval, the Staff Report divides the peak hour trips into A.M. and P.M. When the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are combined, they are greater than 100. Regardless of whether the general plan amendments for the Project or the Related Project are considered together or in independent amendments, the aggregate peak hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. 391 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 6 D. The Proposed General Plan Amendments Are 3ublect to Voter Approval Pursuant to Charter Section 423. The two proposed general plan amendments each propose to increase the maximum development limit of the General Land Use Element of the General Plan by 11,544 gross square feet. Both general plan amendments are proposed for similar office building development projects within the same planned community business center, the Koll Center. Likewise, both projects will require an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase allowable building area for each proposed office site. Effectively, these two amendments are collectively proposing to expand office development within the Koll Center. Despite the cohesiveness inherent in planned communities, and documents relating to planned communities, the expansion of the office park has been split into two separate proposals. Given that both projects are being planned at the same time, are located within the same business center, and both propose to expand allowable development within Statistical Area L4, there is no apparent reason why the expansion of allowable development within the Koll Center would be pieeemealed into two separate general plan amendments. What is apparent, however, is that these two proposed general plan amendments would require voter approval if the amendments were not split. As detailed above, without the benefit of characterizing the general plan amendment for the Project as a past amendment, and therefore reducing the additional square footage for the Project by 20 percent, a general plan amendment that includes the additional square footage for both developments in the Koll Center would require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. The division of the proposed general plan amendments serves no purpose other than to circumvent voter approval. Approving these two amendments will effectively appropriate the power vested in the citizens of the City of Newport Beach to limit allowable development as set forth in the General Plan, Accordingly, these two amendments should not be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the amendments should be combined and reconsidered as one general plan amendment, and the combined general plan amendment should be subject to voter approval. 312 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIBNER. WI19ELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 7 II. UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT. CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). "Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment," McQueen v Board of Directors of Midpennsulla Region Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136 (1988). California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project" consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not "split" a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3rd 263 (1975). Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Related Project, an additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Related Project, and a massive residential development project in the Koll Center and property contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Residential Project "). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the Project is required to be analyzed together with the Related Project and the Residential Project. A. The General Plan Amendment and Amendment to Koll Center Development Standards. As discussed above, the proposed general plan amendment for the Project and the proposed general plan amendment for the Related Project should be combined into a single amendment. The cumulative impacts of these two projects must be reviewed in a single environmental impact report, and cannot be analyzed independently. These two projects may have many cumulative impacts that are not identified and addressed in the 313 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 8 Study and the Errata. Likewise, the cumulative environmental impacts relating to the amendments to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Project and the Related Project must be analyzed together in a single EIR. The cumulative impacts of the two projects will certainly be greater than the sum of the impacts of each project as analyzed independently. For example, each project will result in environmental impacts to traffic, inter alia, in the immediate vicinity of the Koll Center. The cumulative impacts to traffic associated with the development of two projects within the Koll Center simultaneously will certainly be greater than the traffic impacts identified independently for each project. As set forth above, CEQA Guidelines provide a broad interpretation of "Project" to include the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). It is clearly reasonably foreseeable that the Project and the Related Project within the Koll Center may result in direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that are attributable to the cumulative impacts of the two projects. Accordingly, the split of each project within the Koll Center is unlawful piecemealing, and an EIR must be prepared to identify and analyze the cumulative environmental impacts associated with both projects. B. General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 and Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual DeKlopment Plan. In addition to the Related Project, the Planning Commission is also considering a project within the Koll Center, and immediately adjacent to the Koll Center, that proposes to build a residential village and utilize many of the common area features of the KOH Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (defined above as the "Residential Development "). While the Planning Commission at its last meeting on July 22, 2010 continued further discussion on the Residential Development until an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is presented consistent with requirements articulated by the Planning Commission, the Residential Development is reasonably foreseeable. The Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project are all part of an immense development scheme to greatly expand the office development and residential 39+ PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 9 development within the Koll Center and adjacent properties. The cumulative environmental impacts associated with the three projects will be much greater than the environmental impacts associated with each project independently. Furthermore, environmental impacts for each project have been analyzed independently in three different studies (none of which is an EIR), omitting the requisite analysis of cumulative impacts. Also, please note that it is irrelevant that different developers plan to implement the construction of each project. Each project is a smaller part of a greater sized, reasonably foreseeable project to expand the Koll Center to include additional office buildings and residential use. Regardless of how many developers are involved, the projects cannot be split into fragments for purposes of environmental analysis. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the "whole of the project" cannot be piecemealed into smaller projects to fragment environmental analysis thereof. It is reasonably foreseeable that the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project, will result in direct and indirect environmental impacts attributable to the cumulative effect of the construction of all three projects within the Koll Center. Accordingly, the environmental impacts associated with the three projects must be analyzed in a single environmental impact report. III. AN EIR MAST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROMCT. Based on the information provided in the Study and the Errata, as well as the environmental impacts that were not analyzed therein, it is apparent that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR ") must be prepared for the Project. A. Preparagon O EIR Pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75. "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project q5 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 10 may have a significant impact." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado, (3d Dist. 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881 -885. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, and further detailed below, a fair argument may be made that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. B. Environmental Impacts Identified and Aru b ed in the Study and the Errata. As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, there are several environmental impacts in the Study that trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared,for the Project. Additionally, there are several environmental impacts that are identified in the Errata, and several environmental impacts that were not identified in either the Study or the Errata, that also trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project, as follows: 1. Aesthetics. The Errata does not expand on the identification and analysis of environmental impacts to scenic resources. Instead, the Errata revises the language relating to scenic resources to further limit any discussion of scenic resources to merely trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. As set forth in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study limited any analysis of impacts to scenic resources to the three examples provided in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway. The Errata confirms this limited scope of review of the environmental impacts to scenic resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Scenic resources are not limited to the three examples set forth in the CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The Lake and a 36 ft. tall mature tree located in the Project Area are scenic resources, impacts thereto must be analyzed, and such impacts were not analyzed in the Study nor the Errata. Accordingly, impacts to the Lake, the 36 ft. tall mature tree, and other scenic resources must be analyzed in an EIR. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 11 2. Biological Resources. The Errata expands the analysis of environmental impacts to riparian habitat from the limited analysis that was provided in the Study. Specifically, a biological survey of the site was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010 (the "ICF Survey ") to determine whether the Project would impact the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. While we appreciate that the ICF Survey was conducted, apparently in response to the Initial Comment Letter, the ICF Survey and the Errata are inadequate to overcome the deficiencies in the Study. Paul Lehman ( "Lehman "), an expert on avian distribution and identification and former editor of the American Birding Association's Birding magazine, detailed in a letter (the "Lehman Letter ") recent biological surveys of the Project site conducted by Hamilton Biological, Inc. (the "Hamilton Survey "). The Lehman Letter analyzes the ICF Survey, the Hamilton Survey, and is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A ", along with Lehman's curriculum vitae. The conclusions reached in the ICF Survey differ greatly from the conclusions reached in the Lehman Letter. Furthermore, the ICF Survey was not conducted at appropriate times, analyzed potential impacts to species that have no potential to occur anywhere near the site, and failed to identify and analyze potential impacts to special- status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located 0.8 mile southwest of the Project site, or San Joaquin March, located 0.6 mile east of the Project site, and likely to use the Lake as a habitat. Some of the more significant points raised in the Lehman Letter are as follows: a. The ICF Survey Was Not Conducted at Aanrooriate Times. The ICF Survey was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010. The Study also states that field surveys were conducted at the site (published prior to the ICF Study), but no specific studies are referenced in the Study and the ICF Survey is the only survey that is specifically referenced in the Errata. As stated in the Lehman Letter, various special- status species of wildlife are likely to visit and utilize the Lake at various times throughout the year. For example, the California Least Terns and Black Skimmers may forage at the Lake in the late Spring. No study was conducted during the Spring to determine whether special- status species forage at the Lake. Furthermore, as the Lehman Letter points out, the California Least Terns have failed in Upper Newport Bay and this year is not representative of typical �q7 FALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILRELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 12 years where such species would be expected to forage at the Lake. Likewise, the ICF Survey did not study during the known foraging patterns of other special - status species or study at appropriate times of day. b. Omission of the Study of Other Special- Status Species. The Lehman Letter identifies several species that are recognized as California Species of Special Concern that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Project site, but were not identified in the ICF Survey. These species include, without limitation, the following: (1) Least Bittern; (2) American Peregrine Falcon; (3) California Least Tern; (4) Black Skimmer;' (5) Clark's Marsh Wren; and (6) Tricolored Blackbird. Additionally, the Lehman Letter identifies several species that are included on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on the Special Animals list that have been observed, or may be expected to occur at the Lake and the Project site include, without limitation, the following: (1) Allen`s Hummingbird; (2) The Osprey; (3) Cooper's Hawk; (4) Costa's Hummingbird; and (5) Nuttal's Woodpecker. Several species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are listed on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list have been observed, and may be expected to occur, at the Project. However, the potential impacts PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 13 to many of the species were not identified in the Study or the Errata. The potential impacts to these species must be identified in an FIR. C. Foraging and Flight Path. It is also important to note that the discussion of impacts to riparian habitat in the Study and the Errata limited the scope of review to species that may nest in the Project area. However, the Errata failed to discuss species that nest elsewhere, but fora a in the Project area. Additionally, the Study and the Errata failed to identify and analyze any impacts to species whose flight path may be impacted by the erection of 50 R. tali building between the Lake and tipper Newport Bay. The Study and the Errata failed to identify the potential impacts to these special - status species that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Lake and the Project site. Accordingly, a more detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts to the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project site must be included in an EIR for the Project. 3. Additional Revisions Provided in the Errata. In addition to revisions to the discussion of environmental impacts relating to aesthetics and biological resources, the Errata provides revisions to the discussion of impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and transportation and traffic. None of these revisions discussed cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project. Furthermore, the revisions discussed in the Errata do not cure the inadequacies identified in the Initial Comment Letter. The significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Comment Letter must be fiuther analyzed in an EIR. In sum, these cumulative environmental impacts will be far greater than the impacts identified and analyzed independently in the environmental documents for each Project. Additionally, the analysis of the significant environmental impacts identified independently in the Study is inadequate. Accordingly, the environmental impacts must be identified and analyzed in a single EIR for the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project. 3qg PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 14 IV. GENERAL PLAN AND KOLL CENTER STANDARDS As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, the amendments to the General Plan and the Koil Center Newport Planned Community text are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth therein. Additionally, the proposed exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development standards (the "Development Standards "), and the accompanying tentative parcel map are inconsistent with the land use policies set forth in the Development Standards. A. The Proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General Plan. The Initial Comment Letter discusses in detail the inconsistency between the general plan amendment for the Project and the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. The Errata made no revisions to the analysis of the environmental impacts to land use, and therefore the analysis of environmental impacts to land use in the Initial Comment Letter remains unrefuted. Generally, the general plan amendment for the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan's maximum development limit square footage in specific areas of the City. This amendment is also inconsistent with the City's Vision Statement and the City's express stated goal to reduce potential new commercial and office space by 1.45 million square feet. Despite this limitation, the Project proposes to increase square footage limitations, in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals. B. Inconsistency with Kqll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards. The Project proposes to amend the Development Standards to allow for an exception to minimum site area requirements and to allow an exception to off - street parking requirements. The Staff Report concludes that there are sufficient facts to support the requisite findings to allow an exception to minimum site area requirements provided by the Development Standards. Likewise, the Staff Report concludes that the City Council has the authority to approve of an exception to the off - street parking requirements of the Development Standards. 'If PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 15 Exception to Minimum Site Area The Development Standards require that a site area consist of no less than 30,000 square feet. The Project proposes to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel into two separate parcels. One parcel would consist of approximately 32,395 square feet, and the second parcel would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet. The Staff Report concludes that the granting of the exception is compliant with the requisite findings necessary to support the exception, as follows: (1) the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and (2) that the intent of the Development Standards are substantially met. Despite recommending the draconian measure of amending a fundamental tenet of the Development Standards, the minimum site area, that is a foundation of the Koll Center planned community, the City does not attempt to explain what circumstances exist that justify allowing such an exception. The Development Standards serve the purpose of establishing and preserving the cohesive nature of a planned business community. The facts in support of the findings provided in the Staff Report are simply too superficial to justify this exception. Although the site area may comply with building envelope requirements, setback requirements, and will not exceed maximum height restrictions, as the Staff Report points out, this does not justify allowing an exception to minimum site area. Nor does the fact that the project site is fully developed and that there are lot sizes in the vicinity of the site that are similar to or smaller than the proposed lot size. The facts in support of the finding that the intent of the Development Standards are met are equally superficial. The principal intent of the Development Standards is to create a cohesive, planned community by establishing certain standards that will create a consistent and unified office park. Adopting an exception to any development standard is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of the Development Standards. Moreover, the Staff Report concludes on p. 12 that if the exception is granted, then the intent of the Development Standards will be met. These two concepts are mutually exclusive. The intent of the Development Standards must be determined by reviewing them prior to making exceptions. If the approval of an exception itself is manifest proof PALMIRRI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 16 of satisfaction of requisite intent, then the analysis of the intent of the Development Standards is a sham. Such a revision will set precedent for revising Development Standards in the future without actually considering the intent of the Development Standards prior to making such revision. The exception to the Development Standards for minimum site area is not supported by the findings set forth in the Staff Report, and therefore the exception for minimum site area should not be approved. 2. Exception to General Parking Reguirement Standards. The Staff Report determined that the City Council has the authority to lower the off - street parking requirements from one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. Additionally, the Staff Report recommends that this exception be granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Staff Report notes that, if the exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement were granted, the intent of providing adequate off - street parking would be met. Again, these concepts are mutually exclusive and the approval of an exception in and of itself may not be considered proof that the intent of the Development Standards was met. Furthermore, the analysis is too superficial to justify providing this exception. The Staff Report states that the off - street parking requirements are consistent with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "NBMC') for business and professional office use. This is irrelevant to the discussion of parking requirements that are specific to the Koll Center. The parking requirements in the Koll Center are more stringent than the general parking requirements set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code in order to preserve specific standards that were created for the Kell Center community. The general parking requirement standards were established to provide ample parking in the Koll Center, and to preserve standards that will create and preserve a consistent and unified office park. Accordingly, the exception to the general parking requirement standards should not be approved. 4 02 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August 5, 2010 Page 17 3. Tentative Parcel Map. The Project proposes to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. In order to approve a tentative parcel map, the decision - making body must make all of the I 1 findings set forth in Section 19.12.070 of Title 19 of the NBMC. The Staff Report concludes that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and that the facts set forth in the Staff Report support all 11 findings required by the NBMC. However, many of the findings required to approve the tentative parcel map cannot be met, including but not limited to the following: (1) The first finding requires that the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As discussed in detail above, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Development Standards. Therefore, the tentative parcel map is inconsistent with the first finding, which is required to be met in order to approve the tentative parcel map. (2) The third finding requires that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Furthermore, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Again, as discussed in detail above, the Study and Errata have not adequately analyzed the potential impacts to species located in the Project area. Furthermore, an Elk was not prepared for the Project, and therefore the decision - making body may not find pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that other considerations make infeasible other alternatives. Accordingly, the third finding set forth in Section 19.28.010 of the NBMC cannot be met. (3) The fifth finding requires that the subdivision not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed .103 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission August S, 2010 Page 18 subdivision. As stated above, the Residential Project proposes to utilize certain portions of the Koll Center as common areas for the benefit of the residents of the Residential Project. No analysis was provided in the Staff Report regarding any potential conflicts between the proposed Residential Project and the tentative parcel map. Not less than three of the I I findings required to support approval of the tentative parcel map cannot be met. Additionally, further analysis of environmental impacts relating to land use, biological resources, and cumulative impacts attributable to the Project and the Related Project is required to determine whether all I 1 of the findings may be met. Accordingly, the tentative parcel map cannot be approved under Section 19.28.010 of the NBMC. V. CONCLUSION. For the reasons set forth above, Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project, the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA, the general plan amendment and Development Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and the Project is inappropriate for and inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and Development Standards for the Koll Center. Very truly yours, /Ryan M. Easter RME:ff cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. F M• EXHIBIT "A" -405 I♦. August 5, 2010 James B. Hasty, Senior Vice President Meyer Properties 4320 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Biological Review, PRES Office Building B Dear Mr. Hasty, At your request, I have reviewed environmental documentation provided by the City of Newport Beach (City) regarding a mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared in support of a project known as the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (PRES). This letter report provides the results of my review. My qualifications to conduct this review are provided in the attached biography. Methods I reviewed all relevant portions of the MND, provided on the City's web page. This included: ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Report dated July 2010 prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Section IV, Biological Resources. ICF International. 2010. Summary of Biological Literature Review and Field Visit Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments. Memorandum dated June 28, 2010, from biologist Paul Schwartz to project managerNicole Williams. I also reviewed the letter dated June 7, 2010, from Ryan M. Easter of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, and the City's responses. Biologist Robert Hamilton of Hamilton Biological, Inc., visited the project site during the afternoons of July 31 and August 2, spending approximately one hour in the project vicinity during each visit. During these visits Mr. Hamilton noted plant and wildlife species present and the general condition of the project site and nearby man -made ponds on either side of Von Karman Avenue. Mr. Hamilton provided me with photographs showing the condition of the project site and the two nearby ponds. 407 Review Comments The main issues that stand out from my review of this project relate to the results of the literature search and the assumptions made by the project biologists about which species could, or could not, occur at the project site and adjacent retarding basin pond. The memorandum from Mr. Schwartz states: Prior to conducting the field survey, a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2010) search was completed to detect special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area. The species list resulting from the search is provided in Table 1. Table 1 include entries for numerous species of plant and wildlife that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site, and have no potential to occur anywhere near the site. These include Cismontone Nolina ( Nolina cismontana; occurs in the Santa Ana Mountains), Santa Ana River Woollystar (Eriastrum densfoliam sap. sanctoram; unrecorded south of Featherly Park near the Riverside County line), and even the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates p1piens), a species with a natural distribution that includes only the northern part of California. Given that the project site is located near two man -made ponds that support small fish and emergent marsh vegetation, Table t should have included certain special- status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located only 0.9 mile southwest of the project site, and/or San Joaquin Marsh, located only 0.6 mile east of the project site. The following special- status species of potential relevance to the proposed project are not included in Table I: Least Bittern (Ixohtycltas exills). This California Species of Special Concern is known to occur in stands of cat -tails and tules at San Joaquin Marsh and other freshwater marshes in Orange County, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention the Least Bittern and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. However, given the relative small size and isolated, urban nature of this cat -tail habitat in the retarding basin pond, it is very unlikely that Least BIttern nests on the site and this species wool" best --be a very irregular visitor. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinas anatam),Ibis state- endangered species is known to occur regularly at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh, and Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on the Marriott Hotel at Fashion Island in Newport Beach (Gallagher, S. J., and Bloom, P. H. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA). Although this species could occur on the project site, the MND failed to mention the Peregrine Falcon and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. The Peregrine Falcon would likely be an irregular visitor, mostly in search of possible prey at the retarding basin pond —and not to the actual proposed site of the PRES building. 2 � �e California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum brown). This species, listed as endangered by state and federal governments, nests on a sand island near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and is "regularly encountered at golf course ponds and similar sites within a mile or two of the coast" in Orange County (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA) and the same is true in San Diego County (pers. obs.). Given that their nearest nesting colony is located only 1.2 miles southwest of the project site (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and given the large population of small fish in the ponds adjacent to the project site (Mr. Hamilton noted that these fish are easily seen from the edges of the ponds), I believe that Least Terns might make rare or occasional summer foraging visits of these ponds during normal years. Mr. Hamilton did not see any terns at the ponds during his field visits, but the Least Terns have failed in their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.) and Mr. Hamilton has not seen them anywhere at the bay since early July (he monitors the ongoing dredging work at the bay and inspect the tems' nesting island approximately once a week). Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for Least Terns at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable Indication of the species' status there during a normal year. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger). Like the Least Tern, this California Species of Special Concern regularly nests near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and regularly forages "within a mile or two of the coast' (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA). Similar to the tem, skimmers could make rare foraging visits to the ponds near the project site during normal years, probably at night. Mr. Hamilton did not see any skimmers at the ponds during his field visits, but like the Least Terns, Black Skimmers have failed in their nesting at UpperNewport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.). Mr. Hamilton has seen low numbers of skimmers at the bay since early July. Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for skimmers at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period do not provide a reliable Indication of the species' status there during a normal year. Clark's Marsh Wren (Clstothorus palustris clarkae). This California Species of Special Concern is a sedentary bird that occurs in stands of cat -tails and rules at San Joaquin Marsh and Upper Newport Bay, although those stands are typically larger than those on the project site. The MND failed to mention Clark's Marsh Wren and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). This California Species of Special Concern breeds in emergent marsh vegetation and feeds in grasslands, sometimes including turf. Although it is doubtful that Tricolored Blackbirds make substantial use of this site, the MND failed to mention the Tricolored Blackbird and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. � gi Several other species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, or identified as California Species of Special Concern, are placed on a "Special Animals" list by the California Department of Fish and Game: "Special Animals" Is a general term that refers to an of the taxa the California Natural Diversity Data Base is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and Game considers the Casa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. ( ht tn: ti drp. ca. eovPoinp-wdnldcnddhWrs/SNAnimals IW CEQA documents typically identify and evaluate a project's potential effects on all Special Animals that are known or expected to occur on a given site. Mr. Hamilton observed an Allen's Hummingbird (Setasphorus sasin) across the street from the project site on August 2, 2010. The Osprey (Pandlon haliaetus) has been reported occasionally foraging in ponds near the project site (James Hasty pers, comm.). Other Special Animals with potential to occur on the site include Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi4, Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), and Nuttall's Woodpecker (Plcoi- des nuttallli). The Osprey, which has only recently recolonized Orange County, is now known to nest at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. It seems unlikely that this species occurs regularly at the ponds near the project site, but this question was not evaluated in the MND. The other species mentioned above are common across much of Orange County and the wider region, and so are not especially "sensitive," but again, it is the project biologist's responsibility to evaluate their potential for occurrence on the site and to analyze the potential significance of any impacts. None of these species was mentioned in the biological documentation for the MND. Conclusions The stated objective of the biological report prepared for the MND was to identify "special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the project area," but evaluated a number of species that do not occur within 5 miles of the project site and/or that have no potential to occur in the project setting. More importantly, the MND did not evaluate various special- status species known to occur within a mile of the project site, at Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. I cannot do more than speculate about the actual status of several of these species Identified in this comment letter, but it should be stated that some of them have been reported on or near the site and others could potentially use the ponds, at least on an irregular basis. Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on a building in Newport Beach. The definitive publication on the status and distribution of birds in Orange County states that both California Least Tems and Black Skimmers regularly forage at freshwater sites within a mile or two of the coast (including "golf course ponds and similar sites" for the tem). Whether either of these species forage at the two ponds adjacent to the project site is unknown because adequate surveys were not conducted during the late spring/early summer period in 2010 when these species were actively nesting at Upper Newport Bay. Now that their local nesting has failed, numbers of both of these species at the head of Newport Bay are reduced from their normal late- summer 4 410 levels (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.). and the birds that remain may not be following the foraging patterns they normally follow when they are raising young. It is my conclusion that the MND is deficient in its failure to fully (1) discuss these special- status species and their known patterns of foraging in Orange County, (2) conduct surveys at appropriate times of year and appropriate times of day directed toward determining their status on the site, or (3) evaluate the potential effects of adding a tall structure along the flight-line between the Koll Center ponds and Upper Newport Bay. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this review. If you wish to review any matters, please call me at (858) 268 -1937 or send e-mail to lehman.paul@vcrizon.net. Sincerely, Paul I. Lehman Attachment: Lehman biography 411 PAuL LEHMAN 11192 Portobelo Drive, San Diego, CA 92124 858 - 268 -1937 (home); 609- 313 -3129 (cell) lehman.paul@verizon.net Paul Lehman has written many articles and papers on avian distribution and identification. Formerly a lecturer in physical geography and environmental studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and past editor of the American Birding Assodation's Birding magazine for nine years (1989 -1997), Paul continues to give lectures on weather and bird distribution, migration, and vagrancy. He also leads bird tours throughout North America for Wings, Inc. He is an associate editor for both North American Birds and Western Birds magazines, and he has been a principal consultant on most of the popular field guides on the market today, primarily as the chief consultant and compiler for the range maps in The Sibley Field Guides to Birds of Eastern and Western North America, Roger Tory Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America and A Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America, the National Geographic Society's Field Guide to the Birds of North America and Complete Birds of North America, the Smithsonian Guide to the Birds of North America, and the National Wildlife Federation Guide to the Birds of North America. He was also chief editor of the ABA /Lane birdfinding guide to North America's major metropolitan regions; and was managing editor of the recently published Rare Birds of California book. -f 12. ONE MARKET PLAZA, STEUART TOWER, 8TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106.1008 Sedg O�C�R A ARNOLD LLP August 19, 2010 i /ra EledraxicMad Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 msm.sdma.rem 415.781.7900 phone 415.781.2636 fax Amaa Sbikke aqua. sb&h0@$Aiaa. solo Re: PRES Office Budding B Project; No Recirculation of Negative Declaration Required Dear Chairman McDaniel and Conunissioners, This firm represents Professional Real Estate Services, Inc., the proponent of the PRES Office Building B project (the "Project' that you will be considering at this evening's Planning Commission hearing. As you know, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (the `MND') has been prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') to examine the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The MND, published May 19, 2010, was updated via an Errata dated August 13, 2010. We understand that the question has been posed whether the changes made by the Errata to the original NIND necessitate recirculation of the MND for an additional public review, period before the MM may be adopted and applied to the Project approvals. We wish to assure you that we have thoroughly reviewed the MND and have concluded with certainty that none of the triggering circumstances exist that would require the MND to be recirculated. Rather, the Errata merely amplifies and clarifies data and conclusions already reached in the original MND such that the Planning Commission can confidently adopt and employ the MND at tonight's hearing. By way of brief introduction, I have specialized in CEQA law for the past 24 years, representing both private landowners and public agencies with CEQA compliance matters at the administrative level and in litigation. Some of our current clients include Home Depot, Safeway and Pixar on the private development side, and the localities of San Carlos, Foster City and Woodside on the public agency side. I have a particular CEQA sub - specialty in issues involving recirculation of negative declarations and environmental impact reports ("EIRs'), having served as counsel to the University of Califnrnia — San Francisco in the Supreme Court decision that set the standard for recirculation of EIRs,1 and that prompted the formulation of the CEQA guidelines that govern your decision this evening. CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 provides that a lead agency must recirculate a negative declaration when it has been "substantially revised" after its release for public review, with "substantial revision" meaning that either (1) a new significant environmental impact has been identified and mitigation measures must be added to alleviate such impact, or (2) the lead agency has concluded that the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level and nmv mitigation measures must be 3 Ilmm1 HeighfshxpmnxwtAss'a v. tiegents affix Udmaift 9fCahfinrin, 6 Cal. 4� 1112 (1993). �J Chainnan Earl McDaniel August 19, 2010 Page 2 added. CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4) provides that recirculation is not required where "[nlew information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or snakes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." Here, the additional explanation in the Errata expands upon and bolsters, but in no way alters, the conclusions of the originally published MND. The Project description has not changed, except so as to make the building slightly shorter, thereby arguably decreasing impacts. No new mitigation measures have been added, and none were needed given that all conclusions regarding significant environmental impacts remain identical to those reached in the MND published in May, 2010. The changes provided by the Errata simply provide additional explanation to the public and decision - makers of the basis for the conclusions already drawn by the MND. In my view and based upon my experience, this is a classic example of information being added to a negative declaration in order merely to amplify, clarify or make insignificant modifications to the document and in no way triggering a recirculation requirement. I urge you to adopt the MND this evening and to approve the Project. I invite any questions or comments at any time, and appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you on this issue. Very truly yours, X, c- Anna.C. Shimko Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Craylene Olson Brad Schroth John Fitzgibbon 41 LAW OPP1ces PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A UMRED HAMM P EHN2P NW WOIHO PAOMSSMNAL CORPORATIONS ANGELO J. PALNIERI 492618081 ROBERT F. WALDRON 0927IMS) ALAN H. WIENER, STEPHEN A. SCHKCK "Haw C. INMe DONNA U OHM JAMES C. WILHELM- RYAN M. EASTER OWHIS R TV" EWE K KERN MICHAEL J. OREME. MCUSA R FENCE DWNR W OHAN. EU zm VALADE2 OAMP 01 PARR- MON J. BANNER CHARLES K KA - NICNAEL I. REHOE PATRICK A HENNESSEY ROOM K OARRETSON DON IRONER RTAN K PRA39R GREGORY M. I Otm CHNMnCK C BUNCH WARREN A MWMR ANNE C. CPU JOHN R. USTOI JERAD BELIE CYMHM K WOLCOTT HEAM90 K RHffEMEAD GARY C. WEIBBCRO ERIN BALEMIA MANOR MKIUEL H. LEIPER OERML K D[{OWKE SCOTT a CMPENIEA r. JNIAN FREEMAN B RICHARD A SALUS ERA K SOROSIN NORMAN J RDDICH CASEY W. BOURNE RONALD K COLE RMBNNY C. LLR'MN MICHAEL L O'ANOELD M MOIOMNYL CMTMA114N 2603 MAIN STREET EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 EWME, CALIFORNIA 921)"201 (640) 861 -8400 WW ..piWMW F(f August 19, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL Chairman Earl McDaniel City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Robert Hawkins Charles Unsworth Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Bradley Hillgren Fred Ameri Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 P.O. BOK 19912 IRVINE. CA 92895.9112 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (949) 661 -7290 WRITER'S CIA= FACSIMILE NUMBER (849) 826.6433 FIRMS DIRECT FACSIMILE NUMBERS 19491 951 -1884 (9491 937.1228 JfreemaneptW W W.eom REFER TO nLE NO. 31191 -001 Re: PRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Amended Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (August 19, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4; PA2007 -213) Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: As you Arnow, this office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership ( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), City of Newport Beach, California (the "Meyer Building "), which is contiguous to the proposed project development of an approximately 48 foot high, 11,960- gross -square feet office building (the Troject") at 4300 Von Kaman Avenue, in the Koll Center, In the City ofNewport Beach (the "City"). . 9 95 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 2 The Meyer Building will be directly affected by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study, as amended August 13, 2010 (the 'Errata ") (which was released to the public on August 16, 2010), for the Project. As you are aware, this office submitted comment letters on behalf of Meyer on June 7, 2010 (the "Initial Comment Letter ") and August 5, 2010 (the "Second Comment Letter "), and provided comments at the continued August 5, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing on the Project. The City has amended the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment letter to inform the City that the Study and the Errata are still inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), that a single EIR most be prepared for the Project and two related projects in the Koll Center, that analysis of cumulative impacts relating to the Project and the two related projects must be included in the EIR, that Newport Beach Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general plan amendment for the Project and the related Koll Center office building project, that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment are inconsistent with the General Plan, and that the Project is inappropriate for the Koll Center. I. CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF THE PROJECT. The Project proposes to build an additional building on the Project site, and does not propose to remove and replace an existing office building. An office building currently exists on the Project site, will remain on the Project site, and the Project proposes to remove a designated parking area to construct the proposed additional office building. The designated parking area that is proposed to be removed provides parking to the Koll Center buildings and was. designed as a parking area to ensure ample parking consistent with the Koll Center Development Standards. Additionally, we would like to inform the Planning Commission of an important point that it may not have been aware of when discussing the Project at the meeting on 416 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 3 August 5, 2010. Planning staff and consultants for PRES informed the Planning Commission at the August 5th meeting that PRES intends to occupy the proposed new office building as its headquarters, and that PRES has spent considerable time and money working towards this end. Please note that PRES does not intend to occupy the proposed new building, as evidenced by the attached photograph of a sign at the Koll Center, prepared by PRES, advertising a "New Build- To-Suit- Opportunity" ( "Exhibit "A" ), and the attached marketing materials prepared by PRES for a "Build -To- Suit - Opportunity" (Exhibit "B' . Moreover, the sign depicted in Exhibit "A" is also depicted in the amended Errata, labeled Attachment I, "Viewpoint #7 East -side Sidewalk View to Project Site (moving north along Von Karman Ave.)." Accordingly, PRES's purported intent to occupy the proposed office building as its headquarters appears to not be true, and is not a valid consideration for approving the Study and the Project. It appears that PRES's intent is to obtain and sell valuable entitlements, solely for its own monetary profit, by asking the City to take extraordinary measures to amend the general plan and Koll Center Development Standards text in violation of the stated goals of these documents. II. As stated in the Second Comment Letter, the Project unlawfully piecemeals the whole of a project into smaller projects that, when analyzed independently, result in lesser aggregate environmental impacts then when analyzed together. The Project is part of a larger project affecting the Koll Center that proposes to completely reconfigure and alter the Koll Center by building a residential village (the "Residential Village Project "), which proposes to add several residential buildings and common areas to the Koll Center, and plans to designate the lake and common areas contiguous to the Project site as a park or otherwise use as amenities for the Residential Village Project. Additionally, the larger project affecting the Koll Center includes the addition of another office building in the Koll Center, commonly known as the Newport Plaza project, which will also require a general plan amendment and Koll Center Development Standards text amendment (the "Newport Plaza Project "). The Project, the Residential Village Project, and the Newport Plaza Project must be analyzed together in a single EIR. 117 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRDN LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 4 CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). "Project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors of Midpennsulia Region Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136 (1988). California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project" consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not "split" a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank Glendale - Pasadena airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3rd 263 (1975). Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Newport Plaza Project, an additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Newport Plaza Project, and a massive residential development project in the Koll Center and property contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (the "Residential Village Project "). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the Project is required by CEQA to be analyzed together with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project. For further discussion of the City's requirement to combine the environmental analysis for the Newport Plaza, please see Section II of the Second Letter. III. THE STUDY MUST ANALYZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15165, a public agency must comment upon the cumulative effects of similar projects of a public agency. Thus, even if the City is not required to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project in a single OR (as we believe it is, as set forth in Section I of this letter), it must at least analyze the cumulative impacts associated with the three projects in each environmental document. The Study did not 418 PALMIER], TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 5 comment upon or analyze = of the cumulative impacts associated with the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project. The relevant portion of CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 provides as follows: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project is one of several similar projects of a [Emphasis added]. The Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project are all similar projects of a public agency, the City. The Project proposes to develop an office building in the General Plan Statistical Area L4, Anomaly Location #2, and specifically located in the Koll Center. Likewise, the Newport Plaza Project proposes to develop an office building in the General Plan Statistical Area 14, Anomaly Location #2, and specifically located in the Koll Center. The Project and the Newport Plaza Project will certainly generate cumulative impacts, none of which have been analyzed in the Study. For example, impacts relating to, inter alla, construction, traffic, noise, land use and zoning, vibration, aesthetics, and air quality will all be more intense with the concurrent construction of two office buildings in the office park. These cumulative impacts must be identified and analyzed in the Study. Similarly, the Residential Village Project is a similar project of the City that will generate cumulative impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the Study. The Residential Village Project will be located in the Koll Center, and proposes to designate the property contiguous to the Project site, including the lake, as a public park or to otherwise use such property as an amenity for the Residential Village Project. The concurrent general plan amendments and construction relating to the Project and the Residential Village Project will generate a panoply of cumulative impacts. There will be cumulative impacts relating to, inter alia, land use and zoning, vibration, construction, air -liq PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM 8c WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 6 quality, noise, water quality, biological resources, traftie, and aesthetics. Again, none of these impacts were identified and analyzed in the Study. CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 clearly states that cumulative impacts associated with similar projects of a public agency must address cumulative impacts associated with such projects, whether they are addressed in a single EIR or independent EIRs. Clearly, the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project are similar projects that will generate some cumulative impacts that must be addressed in a single EIR, or at the very least in independent EIRs, The Study failed to identify and analyze these cumulative impacts. Accordingly, the Study is inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA. IV. BEAM GENERAL PLAN. As discussed in both the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter, the Project is inconsistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text (the " KOII Center Text "). The inconsistencies with the General Plan and the Koll Center Text establish a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Although the Planning Commission and Planning Commission staff have been put on notice of the significant environmental impacts relating to land use and planning, no revisions to the Study were included in the Errata. Accordingly, as stated in the Second Comment Letter, the comments regarding the inadequacy of the analysis of the impacts to land use remain unrefuted. The following comments regarding the inconsistencies between the Project and the general plan amendment are included in this letter to supplement the comments set forth in the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter. These supplemental comments are necessary to (i) ensure that the City complies with its General Plan regarding land use policies and obtaining necessary voter approvals, and (ii) emphasize the inadequacy of the land use analysis in the Study and to put the City on notice, for the third time, that there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the +Zd PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 7 Project will have significant environmental impacts to land use, and therefore an EIR is required to be prepared for the Project. A. The General Plan May Not Be Adopted Without Voter Approval Pursuant to Charter Section 423 ftasure S). As set forth in further detail in the Second Comment Letter, approval of the general plan amendment for the Project requires voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. The general plan amendment for the Project is being considered by the Planning Commission separately from the general plan amendment for the Newport Plaza Project, even though each general plan amendment proposes to increase the maximum allowable development area above the maximum currently provided in the Newport Beach General Plan for the Airport Area, and specifically within the Koll Center. Indeed, as stated by Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner, at the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting, in response to a question from Commissioner Eaton, the allowable square footage for each general plan amendment was determined so that both general plan amendments could be adopted by the City, in either order, without requiring voter approval of the citizens of Newport Beach. If the square footage increase was combined into a single general plan amendment, such general plan amendment would be considered a "major amendment" under Charter Section 423 and would require voter approval. Simply put, these two general plan amendments must be combined into a single general plan amendment. Each amendment independently proposes to expand maximum allowable development within the Airport Area, and specifically within the Koll Center. The cumulative impacts associated with expanding maximum allowable development via two separate amendments area are not identified and analyzed in the corresponding environmental review documents, and the public therefore does not have the benefit of reviewing such impacts. Moreover, the citizens of Newport Beach are entitled to approve by vote amendments to the General Plan in this area that exceed 40,000 square feet, pursuant to Charter Section 423. By splitting what should be a single general plan amendment into two general plan amendments, for the admitted purpose of avoiding the requirements of 4-Z► PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 8 Charter Section 423, the City is deceiving its citizens and divesting them of their vested right to approve of such expansion within the Airport Area. B. The Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General Plan. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 5, 2010, the Planning Commission requested that Planning staff address the consistency of the Project and Land Use Policy 3.2. Accordingly, the staff report prepared for the August 19,20 10 Planning Commission Meeting (the "Staff Report") provides additional analysis regarding the Project's consistency with Land Use Policy 3.2, as well as with Land Use Policy 3.3. However, the analysis in the Staff Report is not included in the Study or the Errata. Any additional analysis of the impacts relating to consistency with land use policy u1n st be included in the Study so that interested parties may review the environmental analysis pursuant to the procedures provided by CEQA. Additionally, regardless of the omission of this analysis from the Study and the Errata, the analysis of the consistency of the Project with Land Use Policy 3.2 and 3.3 is conclusory, incomplete, and inadequate. Furthermore, the analysis of the consistency of the Project with other Land Use Policies set forth in Section X of the Study and Appendix C to the Study is also inadequate. Accordingly, further analysis of the consistency of the Project with the General Plan Land Use Policies must be provided in an EIR. In addition, as discussed in detail in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study does not discuss the consistency of the Project with the General Plan's stated purpose and vision statement. The Project is in direct conflict with the General Plan's stated purpose and vision statement and this conflict must be identified and analyzed in an EIR. 1. History and Purpose of the General Plan. The Introduction of the General Plan sets forth the history and purpose of the General Plan, and the efforts that led to its adoption on July 25, 2006. Specifically, the Introduction describes how thirty -eight residents representing all segments of the community (the "Committee's developed the General Plan, after thorough study of input of thousands of residents. 42-2 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2014 Page 9 According to p. 1 -2 of the General Plan, the Committee spent more than four years "during the most extensive public outreach in the City's history" preparing the General Plan. Indeed, the Introduction celebrates the General Plan and the process by which the Committee and the City's residents participated to have their input incorporated into the document. The General Plan includes a "Vision Statement' that describes "what the residents want the City to be now and in 2025." Specifically, the Introduction states on p. 1 -2 that the General Plan was developed to ensure that the City achieves its Vision Statement by, inter alia, "[rjeducingpotential new commercial, office, and industrial space by 1.45 million square feet." [Emphasis added]. The Introduction further states on p. 1 -9 that "the General Plan is also a tool to help City staff, City Commissions, and the City Council make land use and public investment decisions" and that "[fJuture development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." [Emphasis added]. Here, the Project proposes to =and the maximum allowable development in the Koll Center, which is in direct conflict with the Vision Statement. Despite this clear conflict, neither the Study, the Errata, nor any of the staff reports relating to the Project identify and analyze the Project's inconsistency with the General Plan's Vision Statement. 2. Land Use Policy 3.2. The Staff Report analyzes the Project's consistency with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2 ("LU 3.2 "). This analysis does not provide a complete and objective analysis of the consistency of the Project with LU 3.2. To the contrary, the analysis merely sets forth conclusory statements and advocates subjectively in favor of the Project. An objective analysis of the consistency of LU 3.2 reveals that the Project is not consistent therewith. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2 states as follows: "Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, 423 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 10 and character. necessary to accommodate Nelyport Beach's share of Proiected re lg onal population agwth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish NeWort Beach as a Meecia] place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service." LU 3.2 limits the ability of decision - makers to make changes to established land use polices only under very narrow circumstances, none of which are present for the Project. First, the Project area is not economically underperforming. The Koll Center and the surrounding area are thriving in the heart of Newport Beach's business district. Having an open parking area to serve office buildings within an office park does not qualify as economic underperformance. The open parking area where the Project site is located was designed and built to serve the buildings of the Koll Center. Likewise, the conversion of the former restaurant building in the Koll Center to an office building does not qualify as economic underperformanoe. To the contrary, the restaurant itself was economically underperforming, and the conversion of the restaurant building to an office building has eliminated this economically underperforming use. It is also important to note that the Project applicant voluntarily converted the existing building from restaurant use to office use in 2005. This conversion resulted in additional square footage designated as office use in the Koll Center. A voluntary conversion of restaurant space to office space may not be considered when determining whether a space is economically underperforming. Second, the Project is not necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth. Nothing in the Study or the Errata documents any necessity to meet projected regional population growth. However, if the Project was being built to accommodate the population growth that will result from the Residential Village Project, then the Project should be considered part of, and evaluated in an EIR for, the Residential Village Project which is contiguous to the Project site. 42+ PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Dawkins August 19, 2010 Page 11 Third, the Project will not reduce commuting distance between home and jobs. The Koll Center is located in a business district that provides jobs to commuters from Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside Counties. Additional jobs in this area will only increase commuting distance between home and jobs for those that commute to the Newport Beach business district. Finally, the Project will not enh the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place for its residents. The residents ofNewport Beach determined when they drafted and adopted the Vision Statement that an express goal of the General Plan is to reduce commercial and office space in the City. This Project proposes to add, rather than reduce, additional office space to the City, and specifically to an area that would require a general plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development area. Furthermore, the general plan was planned and adopted with express develop limitations imposed on the Airport Area, and specifically the Koll Center. Expanding allowable development area, via the general plan amendments for the Project and the Newport Plaza Project; directly conflicts with the values set forth by the citizens of Newport Beach in the General Plan. .3. Analysis of Other General Plan Land Use Element Policies Appendix C of the Study identifies various General Plan Land Use Element polices in a table and provides a brief analysis for each policy. The analysis in Appendix C concluded that the Project is consistent with every policy identified in the table. Many of the conclusions reached in Appendix C are supported by superficial analysis and provide no detailed analysis to support the conclusions. Specifically, Appendix C did not adequately analyze whether the Project is consistent with, inter aiia, the following policies: • LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces: This conclusion incorrectly states that the Project would blend in with the existing architectural characteristics of the Koll Center. The Project proposes to build an office building that dwarfs the neighboring buildings that share the adjacent lake and parking area. Additionally, the architectural style is entirely different than the architectural style of the surrounding buildings. +Z 5 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 12 • LU 5.4.1 Site Planning: This conclusion ignores the elimination of open space in the Koll Center area resulting from the construction of an additional office building in the Project area. • LU 5.4.2 Development Form and Architecture: This policy requires that new development of office buildings be designed to convey a unified character. The proposed office building is approximately 48 ft, and three - stories tall, while the surrounding buildings are only one or two stories tall. None of the buildings in the vicinity of the Project site are even close to being 48 ft. tall. Indeed, the Meyer Building located next door is only 14.5 ft. tall, and has a completely different architectural style. Furthermore, although the Planning staff described this building as only a two -story building at the August 5, 2010 hearing, the building is actually three stories tall, including the first floor parking structure, and is much taller than an average three -story building. Describing the Project building as "two- story" is misleading. The height and architectural style of the new office building is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding buildings, and must be identified as such in an EIR. • LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development: The addition of a new office building in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Residential Village Project may result in cumulative impacts to land use policies that were not identified and analyzed in the Study and Errata. The common areas surrounding the proposed building are proposed to be designated as a residential community park, or otherwise serve as an amenity for such residential community, which is inconsistent with the addition of an office building to the Koll Center. These cumulative impacts must be addressed and analyzed in an EIR. • LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. This policy requires that business parks, commercial, and airport- serving districts and residential neighborhoods be integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. No analysis is provided regarding the integration of the Project with the Residential Village Project and the land to be designated as a residential community park contiguous to the Project site Further, no integrated development plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission that even contemplates the Project. 4 2(v PALMIERL TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 13 Additionally, Appendix C does not adequately analyze and discuss impacts to land use relating to inconsistency with the General Plan Circulation Element ( "CE" ), and does not discuss cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent implementation and construction of the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15165. Namely, the analysis of the following policies, Inter alia, in Appendix C does not include an adequate analysis of impacts: • CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards: Cumulative impacts to levels of service were not analyzed for both construction periods and post - construction periods for the Project, the Newport Plaza Project, and the Residential Village Project. • CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Modes: The conclusion in this section inexplicably states that the Project will encourage the use of alternative transportation. It then states that the Project site is not located now bus transit. This conclusion contradicts the analysis set forth Appendix C. Neither the Study nor the Errata provides evidence in support of the project encouraging the use of alternative transportation. Public transportation in the vicinity of the Koll Center is limited, most commuters do not use alternative transportation to travel to the Koll Center, and therefore the Project is not consistent with this land use policy. • CE 7.1.I Required Parking: The analysis in this section does not discuss the cumulative impacts to available parking associated with the Residential Village Project, including the proposed residential community public park or other amenity contiguous to the Project site associated therewith. Additionally, the conclusion that the Project is consistent with this policy is reached in spite of the analysis set forth in this section that recognizes that the Project will violate the Koll Center Newport Community Plan requirement that there be one parking space for every 225 square feet. Although the decision making body has the discretion to allow one space for every 250 square feet, such a decision will still violate the parking requirement set forth in the Koll Center Newport Community Plan and this inconsistency must be analyzed in an EIR. 427 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM Be WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 14 • CE 7.1.8 Parking Confiuration: The analysis in this section does not discuss the cumulative impacts to parking configuration and parking management programs associated with the Residential Village Project, including the proposed residential community public park contiguous to the Project Site associated therewith. Furthermore, although the Planning staff pointed out the benefit of shielding the parking area from street view that will result from the Project at the August 5th meeting, the construction of a 48 ft. tall building to shield a designated parking area is unnecessary to accomplish this goal. There are many less intrusive options that may accomplish shielding of parking without taking a designated parking area and constructing a 48 ft. tall building, especially considering that the parking lot is already partially shielded because it is located behind the lake and set back more than 100 ft. from the street. Appendix C also does not adequately analyze and discuss impacts to land use relating to inconsistency with the General Plan Noise Element ("N "), and does not discuss cumulative impacts associated with the concurrent implementation and construction of the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15165. Namely, the analysis of the following policies, inter alia, in Appendix C does not include an adequate analysis of impacts: • N I.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development: Cumulative noise exposure impacts associated with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project were not analyzed in Appendix C. • N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts: Cumulative significant noise impacts associated with the Newport Plaza Project and the Residential Village Project were not analyzed in Appendix C. • N 4.3 New Commercial DoTig ments: The Project was not designed to minimize noise impacts, as required for commercial developments that abut residentially designated properties, including the Residential Village Project. Analysis of this inconsistency with N 4.3 must be included in an EIR for the project. • PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 15 • N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities: This section does not include analysis of noise relating to maintenance or construction activities adjacent to the Residential Village Projeefs proposed residential areas. Analysis of this inconsistency with N 4.6 must be included in an EIR for the Project. V. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT REQUIRE DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AND THE STUDY. This office has submitted two comment letters to the Planning Commission detailing the inadequacy of the Study to serve as the environmental document for the Project. In response, the City has prepared and subsequently amended the Errata, and conducted additional studies relating to biological resources, to attempt to cure what otherwise is an incomplete environmental analysis of the Project. These additional efforts by the City to cure the inadequacies of the Study are a good start, but fall far short of the environmental analysis requirements set forth in CEQA. Indeed, many of the conclusions set forth in the Study and the Errata are not supported by any analysis. CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared for a project whenever it can be fairly aguo on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have g significant environmental impact. No 011, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75. [Emphasis added]. Although the Planning staff has conducted additional studies and provided additional analysis relating to certain environmental impacts, even if these additional studies and analysis are sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA (we contend that they are not sufficient), they have still not addressed many of the inadequacies identified in the Initial Comment Letter and the Second Comment Letter, and these inadequacies therefore remain unresolved. VI. co As documented in detail in the Initial Comment Letter, the Second Comment Letter, and this comment letter, there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, an EIR must be prepared for the Project. Additionally, the Project is part of a larger project I"2 PAUGERI, TYLER, WIENER, WiLHELM & WAt DRON ALP Chairman Earl McDaniel Robert Hawkins August 19, 2010 Page 16 within the Koll Center, and therefore must be analyzed together with all three projects in the Koll Center, and cumulative impacts relating to these three projects must be identified and analyzed. Furthermore, the general plan amendments for the Project and the Newport Plaza Project must be considered a single amendment, and must be approved by the vote of the citizens of Newport Beach pursuant to Charter Section 423. Finally, regardless of environmental considerations, the Project is not consistent with the General Plan, including its land use policies, is inappropriate for the Koll Center, and must not be approved. Very truly yours, F. Julian Freeman III FJF cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Newport Beach City Clerk Meyer Properties Michael H. Leifer, Esq. Ryan M. Easter, Esq. 130 EXHIBIT "A" 431 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i X132 I I Y t35 "1 L I f � I ' tfi �'ttivC: Y :�• :1 I I y1y� T v � TV i' VAN- 4"{idl -A RE Newport -A EXHIBIT "B" +15 a� � / \� / '�2 ��/ � � � � \�� Ej: /� � /d ����t � �� � \ \¥ y� � � yy� \� }� � » >a \\ . z� —�m. �. . a f�,��© ��� :� % ����������j� � � � � � � � � ��� \ BUILD -TO -SUIT OPPORT mry NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. PROJECT USE: Commercial Office SITEAREA: .636 Acres 123,383 Square Feet RENTABLE AREA' 110,000 Square Feet NUMBER OF FLOORS: 2 PARIQNG: 42 Stalls ENTITLEMENTS: August2010 OPPORTUNITY. Well located in the heart of Newport Beach's business district and the Koll Center. Close proximity to John Wayne Airport with easy across to 405, 65 and 73 Freeways. /4+-7 •Yi at ••. -- '4,��- ,'••••' 'w') .�-'�" ✓\C °� NgwWtl.KOnR10biYMM'B' tit w Q•zaec :�:E~.�.rsy_::�: ' IR.'S { :1 l ^ yg� 1; 7 i ..a. a em^f• �... �� m.we.w. II �tfit!5��� ' IIJ �' _ r LLl'��1�W4CfL•i)�.li'.'� �'/.' 1 {. w"".,`: Drrr...._. r... w..,... ,tw�w.........,�.«.,,...,r..�.. ..:•i.:s....+cq { 4. �=1 rl mo en.w�