Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0_Koll Center Residences_PA2015-024�EWPpRT o� e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ra = January 18, 2018 C,�,F00.N�P Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) SITE LOCATION: 4400 Von Karman Avenue • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015- 001 Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2016-003 • Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-002 • Traffic Study No. TS2015-002 • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2016-027 • Development Agreement No. DA2015-001 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-001 APPLICANT: Shopoff Land Fund ll, LP OWNER: KCN A Management, LLC PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner 949-644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A mixed-use residential development of up to 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 square feet of retail use, a freestanding parking garage, a 1.17 -acre neighborhood park to be built on the 13.16 -acre surface parking and common landscape areas of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. STUDY SESSION The study session is intended to provide the Planning Commission and public an opportunity to review and discuss the proposed project including the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The study session is for discussion purposes only, and no action will be taken by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a study session; 2) Continue the project to a future date; and 3) Direct staff to prepare a recommendation for action, including any necessary resolutions for consideration. 1 9 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 2 VICINITY MAP XW, Project Site w �; ,�• IIr •¢ �� � � ! :fad» I �? 41e BIRCH STREET v _ 4490 Von 'Karman tit •�* r �:� „ ��' 49108irch 4440 Von_ ![w s�i'�., 5000 Birch Karman!�:1�`-r ((�� w Q • t _ Existing Parking Y r fr f r}+. M Structure y I s t P • D q 4350 Von \''{{�'' - �-� •H , •- it, Karman 4340 Von z �Dc tr tiGF Karman n' 't,L�.Y'�S r T qqo n �• r� �. Uptown 's ' 't �� �✓ .� Newport Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 3 15 GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU 22 LEGEND: Commercial CG - Commercial General COG Q Commercial Office E CO -G- Commercial Office General ACI - Airport Supporting Districts Project Site AO -Airport Office B. Mu.Hz Use Districts Mixed Horizontal Mi ` no Mu�HY A19 ,. Q E -Use Public, Semi -Public and Institutional Public Facilities co c � / _ Mu.Hz a Q Sub -Area 0 Conceptual Development Plan Area i ` '1.Land Use Delineator Line A 1..Highway °O MU Hz _ O -\.65 CNEL Noise Contour 49 Refer to anomaly table © , m mu Hs ;4 co G u.Hz ' / ky LAND USE POLICY CA, uMen,an9 uses'. OIRCe. 110 .aupppNng RaaM. N Re9GBNaI Village I Heail"NIp MpW USY v "" With fiulEellnes Mr Dueiyl rM pevelepnulx) { ©ummsuprolma ee^n.,.^ y C Can..a l and 011 e 1= 15 w Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU23 _________.___ Legend ':'.,lin SITS A PROPOSED OPEN SPACES EYMVED RE9DEMAI STREETS PROPOSED RE9DENTLAL STREETS 11111 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS ���• 66 CNEE N06E CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL RAN KOJ06D 7 2 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 5 ZONING OA 7XN Project Site PC -11 PC -58 C6 0.5 �' `� LEGEND: 0.0 Single -Unit Residential \90� i ��` ll R -A R-1-6000 R-1-7200 sq R-1-10000 ' �% Commercial e `1CG- Commercial General ii SP-7�M�, Fir / i' CV- Commercial Visitor -Serving 2 Commercial Office PC -4 M OA -Office -Airport PC -32 CG C G Special Purpose Zoning Districts 05 05 -Open Space PC- Planned Community Specific Plans \ ` ' PC -42 SP -7 - Santa Ana Heights LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE MU -H2 (Mixed -Use Office Site B of PC 15 Surface parking & landscape ON-SITE Horizontal 2) (Koll Center Newport areas of Koll Center Newport Planned Community) MU-H2/CG (General NORTH Commercial PC -15 Office & hotel developments SOUTH MU -H2 PC -15 & PC -58 Office & mixed-use Uptown Newport) developments EAST MU -H2 PC15 & PC -58 Office & commercial developments WEST MU -H2 IPC15 I Office developments Project Setting The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport near John Wayne Airport and approximately 13.16 acres in size. It is an irregularly shaped property generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing 0 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 6 office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south. The two-story office building located at 4490 Von Karman Avenue and the four- story office building located 4910 Birch Street are not a part of the project. The three-story 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building is a part of the project to allow for the provision of landscaping and sidewalk improvements and the reconfiguration of accessible parking. The subject property is currently improved with surface parking lots and common landscape areas for Koll Center Newport office development. It is surrounded to the northwest by the four-story Extended Stay America Hotel and the 10 -story Duke Hotel. To the northeast and the south are one- to four-story office buildings. To the southeast are two- to ten -story office buildings, California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center, fast food restaurants, and Uptown Newport mixed use project. Project Description The applicant, Shopoff Land Fund II, LP., proposes to demolish the existing surface parking and landscaping within the project site and construct 260 condominium units, 3,000 square feet of retail use, a 1.17 -acre neighborhood public park, and a 492 -stall free- standing parking structure. The reconfiguration of existing surface parking within the project area is also proposed. The applicant's project description is provided as Attachment PC 1. Hard copies of the project plans are provided only to the Planning Commission due to their size and bulk. An electronic copy is available online at the City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=l 347. The application consists of the following components: • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-001: An amendment to Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business Office Site B. • Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2016-003: A transfer of 3,019 square feet of unbuilt office/retail area from the Koll Center's Professional & Business Site A to Office Site B in General Plan Land Use Element Statistical Area L4. • Site Development Review No. SD2015-001: A site development review in accordance with the amended Koll Center Planned Community and Section 20.52.80 (Site Development Reviews) for the construction of the project. • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-002: A tentative tract map to establish lots for residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). 10 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 7 • Traffic Study No. TS2015-002: A traffic study pursuant to NBMC Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). • Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2016-027: A tentative parcel map to subdivide the project site for finance and conveyance purposes. Development Agreement No. DA2015-001: An agreement between the applicant and the City that identifies public benefits of the project and conveying a vested right to develop the proposed project. • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-001 (SCH#2017011002): An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). Project Components: Residential Buildings The proposed 260 condominium units would be located in three residential buildings with a maximum height of 160 feet. These buildings will have an equal mixture of one, two and three bedroom for -sale units, ranging from 1,240 square feet to 3,160 square feet in size. Building 1 is located at the northerly tip of the project and consists of 87 residential units and 1,768 square feet of retail use located on ground level (Level 1). Designed as a podium -style building, it includes 13 levels of units and 5 levels of parking (3 levels below ground and 2 levels above ground). There will be 426 parking spaces for residences and nearby office use. Building 2 and Building 3 are located to the south of Building 1 and are designed with a shared podium and parking structure below. Buildings 2 has 86 residential units, and Building 3 has the remaining 87 residential units. The remaining 1,232 square foot retail use will be located at the ground level (Level 1) in Building 2. Both buildings would include 13 levels of residences and 3-4 levels of parking. Below is the summary of residential and retail components of the project. 11 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 8 The proposed residential buildings are designed with a contemporary architectural design using the traditional "tri -partite" approach of distinct base -middle -top. The vertical elements on the buildings are designed to transition from heavier to lighter materials as the height of the building increases. The "base" portion of the buildings would be constructed with heavier materials consisting of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC), glass, and metals. The "middle" portion of the buildings would have expansive glass -window wall systems to create a sleek, lighter feel than the base level. Vertical extensions of GFRC at select locations would continue from the base level through the mid -levels. Exposed concrete slab edges and cantilevered balconies would provide horizontal building articulation and recesses increasing visual interest. The "top" two levels of the buildings would have step -backed terraces and prominent canopy extensions that would open to the sky. The step -backed terraces provide massing breaks at the roofline. The proposed building materials consist of a warm and neutral color palette. The base material would be sand color with a sandblast finish to add texture. The matte finish with minimal reflectance accented metals would be used for building trim and window frames and warm medium grey shades for canopies. A light blue/green tinted transparent glass material would be used throughout the buildings. Reflective or shiny materials would not be used to reduce reflected glare. Vehicular Access Three existing driveways on Birch Street (Driveways 1, 2, and 3) and two driveways (Driveways 4 and 5) on Von Karman Avenue currently provide the vehicular access to Koll Center Newport business park. These existing driveways will be maintained and continued to provide access to the entire business park, including the proposed development. However, Driveway 4 on Von Karman Avenue will be modified to be restricted for egress only. The existing cross access driveway called "Spine Street' is the 12 Residential Unit Type Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total One Bedroom 17 16 17 50 Two Bedroom 60 60 60 180 Three Bedroom 10 10 10 30 Total 87 86 87 260 Retail Building 1 Building 2 & 3 Total Total 1 1,768 1,232 13,000 The proposed residential buildings are designed with a contemporary architectural design using the traditional "tri -partite" approach of distinct base -middle -top. The vertical elements on the buildings are designed to transition from heavier to lighter materials as the height of the building increases. The "base" portion of the buildings would be constructed with heavier materials consisting of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC), glass, and metals. The "middle" portion of the buildings would have expansive glass -window wall systems to create a sleek, lighter feel than the base level. Vertical extensions of GFRC at select locations would continue from the base level through the mid -levels. Exposed concrete slab edges and cantilevered balconies would provide horizontal building articulation and recesses increasing visual interest. The "top" two levels of the buildings would have step -backed terraces and prominent canopy extensions that would open to the sky. The step -backed terraces provide massing breaks at the roofline. The proposed building materials consist of a warm and neutral color palette. The base material would be sand color with a sandblast finish to add texture. The matte finish with minimal reflectance accented metals would be used for building trim and window frames and warm medium grey shades for canopies. A light blue/green tinted transparent glass material would be used throughout the buildings. Reflective or shiny materials would not be used to reduce reflected glare. Vehicular Access Three existing driveways on Birch Street (Driveways 1, 2, and 3) and two driveways (Driveways 4 and 5) on Von Karman Avenue currently provide the vehicular access to Koll Center Newport business park. These existing driveways will be maintained and continued to provide access to the entire business park, including the proposed development. However, Driveway 4 on Von Karman Avenue will be modified to be restricted for egress only. The existing cross access driveway called "Spine Street' is the 12 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 9 main vehicular access throughout the existing office development and currently allows drivers to access all gated parking areas by key card or parking ticket. With the proposed development, the Spine Street would become an open (ungated) access through the project site allowing public access from Von Karman to Birch Street and the proposed public park. On -Site Parking All residential parking will be provided onsite and within the residential building parking structures, with additional on-site surface parking for the proposed public park and retail uses. Office parking removed during construction of the project will be provided in a new freestanding parking structure, within Building 1, and in reconfigured surface parking areas. Building 1 Parking Structure The Building 1 gated parking structure has 426 spaces total, of which 238 spaces will be allocated to the office tenants, 161 spaces will be allocated to the residents, and 27 spaces will be assigned as guest parking. Office and residential parking will be separated via gated access within the five -level parking structure. Vehicular access into the parking structure for office tenants will be from Driveway 1 on Birch Street and Driveway 4 (exit only) on Von Karman Avenue. Vehicular access for residents will be from Driveway 2 on Birch Street and from the Spine Street. Buildings 2 and 3 Parking Structure The gated, 369 -space parking structure under Building 2 and Building 3 will be used for residential parking, of which 316 spaces will be assigned to the residents and 53 spaces will be guest parking. Access to this parking structure will be from the Spine Street only. Freestanding Parking Structure The proposed 492 -space parking structure will be located at the southeast corner of the project site, southeast of the 5000 Birch Street parking structure. The office -only parking structure is approximately 50 feet in height above grade and has nine parking levels, three below grade and six above the ground. Vehicular access to the parking structure would be available on the west side of the structure, from Driveways 2, 3, and 5. 13 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 10 Below is a summary of the proposed on-site parking allocation and location: Parking Summary Dwelling Units Proposed Parking Ratio Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total Total (du) Required Spaces' Total (du) Required Space a. Total (du) Required Spaces' Total (du) Required Spaces' Provided Spaces 1 Bdrm 1.8 17 31 16 29 17 30 50 90 2 Bdrms 1.8 60 108 60 108 60 108 180 324 3 Bdrms 2.0 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 60 Total Resident Parking 87 159 86 157 87 158 260 474 477 Guest 0.3 27 26 87 27 79 80 Required 186 183 186 5556 557 Provided in Buildings 1, 2, 3 426 369 795 Free -Standing Parking Structure (office use)` 492 Total: New Structured Parking 1,287 Surface Parking: Retail, Public Park 21 Surface Parking: Office 97 Total: Surface Parking 118 Total New Parking: Structured and Surface 1,405 Total Existing Parking 1,651 Total Demolished Parking -819 Total New Parking 1,405 Net Change 586 Note: Parking Ratio = number of spaces per bedroom; du = dwelling unit a. "Required" parking ratios are in accordance with the standards adopted for Uptown Newport. Source: Uptown Newport Village Parking Study Guidelines, DKS, 2012, and as proposed for the Project as part of the PC -15 amendment. b. Differences due to rounding c. Nine levels: three levels of belowground parking and six levels of aboveground parking including rooftop parking. Source: MVE + Partners, 2017. IM Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 11 Public Park, Open Space/Landscaping & Recreational Amenities Public Park The proposed project includes a 1.17 -acre neighborhood park to be located adjacent to Birch Street, east of Building 1. The proposed park will be improved and maintained by the applicant and dedicated to the City. Both passive and active recreational areas will be provided and may include pickle ball courts; garden and lawn areas; plaza areas with seating; and shade structures. Walkways will be provided within the park and adjacent driveways. The park will be landscaped with a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and succulents. No restroom facility is planned within the park; however, park visitors will have access to public restrooms that will be located approximately 150 feet away in Building 1. Open Space/Landscaping New landscaping will be provided throughout the project site. These areas would be landscaped by themes identified by the applicant: Entry Gardens, Stars of the Bay Plaza, the Marsh, and Von Karman Plaza. Planting materials would consist of a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and succulents and hardscape such as seating areas, water features, and enhanced paving, as well as trees and planters. Recreational Amenities Indoor and outdoor amenities are being provided for the residents within the proposed residential buildings that may include pools/spas, club rooms/conference centers, fitness centers, bocce ball courts, and lawn areas. These amenities would be located on Level 3 (the podium level) of the buildings. Pedestrian Connections The applicant proposes three pedestrian connections to the Uptown Newport planned community project located to the east of the project site. They are shown as Connections 1, 2 and 3 and could be found on Sheet L-13 of submitted plans. These connections are located within the existing Koll Center parking lots and designed with enhanced linear spaces, small parklets at intervals, pavers, and seating areas. Construction Phasing and Parking Displacement The demolition and construction activities for the proposed project will be in four construction phases, over an approximately 4.5 -year period and is summarized below. The applicant's goal is to provide a minimum of 1,651 parking spaces during all phases of construction as this number reflects the existing parking supply for the office uses. 115 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 12 Phase A: Freestanding Parking Structure Phase A includes the demolition of 137 surface parking spaces and landscaping, and the construction of the 492 -space parking structure in Lot 5, at the southeast corner of the project site. The proposed freestanding parking structure would replace surface parking temporarily and permanently displaced by the construction of the proposed residential buildings and public park. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 10 -month timeframe (month 0 through 10). At the completion of Phase A, there would be 2,022 parking spaces available for office tenants. Phase 1: Building 1 Phase 1 is the construction of Building 1, which includes the demolition of approximately 331 surface parking spaces to allow for the construction of Building 1 and its 462 -space garage structure in Lot 1. Additionally, accessible parking spaces for the existing 4440 Von Karman office building and the building's trash enclosure will be relocated from the south side to the north side of the building. Surface parking improvements adjacent to the building will be also completed. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe (months 10 through 32). At the completion of Phase 1, there would be 198 parking spaces available for Building 1 residences and 1,967 spaces for office tenants. 10 ... LOT 1 I I Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 13 -" - A {- LOT "C' uw ,PYi I LOT 5 Phase 2: Buildings 2 and 3 Phase 2 includes the demolition of approximately 242 surface parking spaces on the south side of Building 1 and the construction of Building 2 and Building 3 with their shared underground parking structure in Lot 3. This parking structure has 369 spaces to be available for residential parking only. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe (months 32 through 54). At the completion of Phase 2, there would be 372 parking spaces available for Buildings 2 and 3 residences, and 1,725 parking spaces for office tenants. Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 14 Phase 3 Phase 3 includes the demolition of 109 surface parking spaces in Lots E and 4 to allow for the construction of the public park and the reconfiguration of on-site surface parking and access ways. Phase 3 construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate six- to nine-month timeframe (months 45 through 54). nuervr sraecr _ _ I LOT .O. 'moi rwnari� LOTT 1 J LOT 3 — i1 iy .ohn, ALN 9. .,....LOT. 'i^ Ly Phase 3 Phase 3 includes the demolition of 109 surface parking spaces in Lots E and 4 to allow for the construction of the public park and the reconfiguration of on-site surface parking and access ways. Phase 3 construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate six- to nine-month timeframe (months 45 through 54). Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 15 RMW STREET LOT "C" wr-r :e..R•. •wawv: OT 1 LOT 2 u� a+ 8A!ud LOT 3 :wru LOTS e,ay m-'-:�•-.-..r- ... LOT 5 At the completion of Phase 3 or project completion, there would be 578 parking spaces available for residents and 1,659 parking spaces for office tenants. This number includes surface parking spaces along Spine Street available for the offices uses and the public park. Below is a summary of parking provision by construction phases. 19 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 16 Parking Supply by Project Phase Starting Parking Supply Parking Loss /Gain Ending Parking Supply Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Phase Office Residences Office Residences Office Residences Existing Parking Supply 1,651' 0 n/a n/a 1,651 0 Phase A- During Construction 1,651 0 -137' 0 11514 0 Phase A -At Phase Completion 1,514 0 508` 0 21022 0 Phase 1- During Construction 2,022 0 -3316 0 1,691 0 Phase 1- At Phase Completion 1,691 0 276` 198 1,967 198 Phase 2 - During Construction 1,967 198 -242° 0 1,725 198 Phase 2 - At Phase Completion 1,725 198 0 372 1,725 570 Phase 3 - During Construction 1,725 570 -109, 0 1,616 570 Phase 3 - At Phase Completion 1,616 570 43` 8 1,659 578 Net Change +8 n/a n/a = not applicable a. Reflects the changes in the office parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the proposed project. b. Demolished parking spaces. c. Added or replaced parking spaces. Phase A: Construction of new parking structure with 492 office parking spaces; 16 surface spaces Phase 1: Construction of Building 1: 87 dwelling units; 276 office parking spaces; 188 residential and guest spaces; 10 retail spaces Phase 2: Construction of Building 2 and Building 3: 173 dwelling units; 369 residential and guest spaces and 3 retail spaces Phase 3: Reconfiguration of surface parking and drive aisles, with 51 new surface parking spaces for office (43), park (5), and retail (3) Source: MVE + Partners, 2017. Environmental Review A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). 20 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 17 The DEIR was released for a 45 -day public review and comment from September 13, 2017 to October 27, 2017 and available online at the City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1 347 The DEIR was also forwarded to the Planning Commission for review within this timeframe. Due to the size and bulk, this document will not be reproduced and attached to the staff report. The 45 -day public review period was extended to include an additional 17 days, from October 27' to November 13, 2017, for a total of 62 days. During the review period, the City received 41 comment letters from governmental agencies, regional organizations, and individuals (some individuals sent multiple letters). In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City has evaluated the comments received on the DEIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. The Responses to Comments also includes clarifications and revisions to the DEIR and the document is attached as Attachment PC 2. On the basis of the DEIR analysis in consideration of the comments received, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment PC 3), with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • Air Quality — Construction -related emissions • Land Use — A potential determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (discussed below) • Noise — Construction -related noise impacts These three issues could not be reduced (mitigated) to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives. Therefore, should the City choose to approve the project, the City will need to identify project benefits that outweigh the identified significant environmental impacts. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend project approval to the City Council, staff will prepare a draft statement of overriding considerations. The DEIR, Responses to Comments, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the project plans are available online at the City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1 347 General Plan and Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Consistency The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include 21 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 18 regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area outside the high noise levels from John Wayne Airport. The MU -H-2 allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per net acre. A total of 550 of these units are identified as additive units meaning they are not replacement units. These 550 units may be constructed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (east of MacArthur Boulevard), as depicted on Figure LU22 Airport Area of the Land Use Element. The Conceptual Development Plan Area has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development and is further identified in Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram. Figures LU22 and LU23 are shown on Page 3 of the staff report. Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to: "Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll-Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The [CDP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Uptown Newport site (formally known as Conexant), and for the redevelopment of a 15 -acre portion of the Koll Center Newport office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures. 22 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 19 r .......... ... ..... t •, .,..... .-r. , . {y Uptown ` « Newport N. a t.. —��. ° • t 7 t Koll Center i s INTEGRATED CONCEPTUA- DEV ELOPMEN T F1 AN � r r•.yet t9, mm The ICDP also allocates 1,504 new residential units: 1,244 of which could be developed on the Uptown Newport property and the remaining 260 on the Koll Center Newport office park. All 260 of the new residential units on this site would be "additive" units since no existing office uses would be removed. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the ICDP area by the General Plan. Below is a summary of residential unit allocation within the ICDP. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation Project Additive Replacement Density Bonus Total Uptown Newport 290 632 322 1,244 Koll Center Residences 260 0 0 260 Total Unit 550 632 322 1,504 The approval of the ICDP was a pre -requisite for the preparation of the regulatory documents, pursuant to General Plan Policy LU6.15.11. The ICDP is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -grained network of pedestrian -friendly streets. 23 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 20 The ICDP also establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit a regulatory plan for their holdings as a basis for environmental review, public hearings and City action. The ICDP is a conceptual plan and its approval by the City did not convey any rights to develop. Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the ICDP, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units (except for any density bonuses for affordable units) and the connectivity between the subject property and Uptown Newport. On February 26, 2013, the City Council approved the zoning entitlements for the Uptown Newport project, which consists of a mixed-use planned community of up to 1,244 residential units; 11,500 square feet of neighborhood -serving retail space; and two, one - acre public parks (one for each phase of the overall project). The first phase of this development is underway. The overall mixed-use project site acreage must be 10 gross acres minimum per General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.6. This acreage may include multiple parcels if they are continuous or face one another across an existing street. The policy also allows contiguous properties in a different land use category (office, retail, etc.) to provide functionally proximate parking, open space or other amenity, in order to create the mixed- use environment. The project meets these requirements by having a site area of 13.16 acres, slightly more than the original proposal. Additionally, General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.7 allows a range of density of 30 to 50 units per net acre average over the total area of each residential village in the Airport Area. The net acreage is to be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways and neighborhood parks. The subject application consists the remaining 260 additive units allocated essentially the same location identified in the ]CDP and in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Element. The project has a net developable residential land area of 8.46 acres (Lots 1 through 5 of the proposed tentative tract), which equates to 30.73 units per acre. This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed- use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian - oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies can be found in the Land Use Section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. M Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 21 Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan Amendment The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) regulations (Attachment PC 4). The site is designated as Office Site B, which allows office and commercial uses; and residential use is currently not permitted. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting an amendment to PC -15 to allow residential and its related uses. Specifically, an overlay zone is proposed to allow 260 residential units, 3,000 square feet of retail uses, and a one -acre public park within specific areas of Office Site B. The proposed overlay zone is tailored to the development in question and it includes specific use and development standards. Part VI is a new section for the proposed residential buildings, which includes site acreage, project density, and allowable uses. The proposed development regulations such as building height, setbacks, and parking are also included along with the general provisions for on-site circulation, loading, landscaping, signage, lighting, recreation and open space, and notification of future residents. Part VII is also new and covers the one - acre public park and it contains criteria for site acreage, amenities, parking, and maintenance requirements. With the precise location and tailored regulations identified in the proposed overlay zone, staff believes the proposed mixed-use development can be effectively implemented consistent with the ICDP and applicable General Plan policies. The regulations will also provide effective and ongoing land use regulations after the project is constructed. Transfer of Development The applicant requests a transfer of development of 3,019 square feet from Office Site A (donor site) to Office Site B (receiver site) of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community in order to accommodate the proposed project. The Koll Company is a major land owner within the Office Site A and supports the transfer. Koll also owns the subject property. Office Site A is located on the opposite side of Von Karman, bounded by Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard. It is assigned as Anomaly #1 by the General Plan Land Use Element and has an overall development limit of 460,095 square feet, of which 3,019 square feet remains unbuilt. The subject site is located within Office Site B and assigned as Anomaly #2 and it has a development limit of 1,052,880 square feet and is fully developed. Both sites are located in the Statistical Area L4 as identified in the General Plan Land Use Elements, and as a result, a transfer is considerable pursuant to General Plan Policy LU4.3. This policy is implemented by NBMC Chapter 20.46 (Transfer of Development Rights) and the proposed transfer is consistent with this Chapter. The donor and receiver sites are located within the same Statistical Area. The maximum gross floor area allowed 215 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 22 on a donor site will be reduced by an equal amount the receiver site is increased, in this case 3,019 square feet. The transfer also will not result in adverse traffic impacts. The vehicle trips generated by the proposed transfer onto the subject property have been included and analyzed with the overall project in the Traffic Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Please see Traffic Phasing Ordinance Section below for the detailed analysis.) The potential increase in development transferred to the subject property will be compatible and appropriate to the existing office development as the proposed retail uses will provide convenience commercial services to future residents and existing office uses, thereby reducing vehicle trips when compared to expanding an office building in the donor site. Accordingly, staff believes that the findings for the approval of transfer can be made. Should the Planning Commission be supportive of the proposed transfer, a covenant or other legally binding agreement approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded against the donor site assuring that the transferred building area cannot be constructed in the donor site. Site Development Review Pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review), a Site Development Review is required for mixed-use projects to ensure a quality project with respect to consistency with the General Plan policies, the physical characteristics of the site, and minimizing potential negative visual impacts. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and ICDP as it would integrate a mix of residential and supportive retail uses, a public park, and recreation amenities into the existing Koll Center Newport business park as anticipated by the approved ICDP. Building Placement & Compatibility The proposed site plan and tentative tract map dictate the location and configuration of residential development, private driveways/streets, pedestrian ways, and locations of parks and open space. The site plan also identifies pedestrian connectivity between the Koll Center Newport business park and Uptown Newport planned community, vehicular and pedestrian access to Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The placement of the three residential buildings would allow for views through the project site to the surrounding office buildings. The massing breaks will add visual interest and reduce long obstructive building facades. The placement of these residential buildings is strategically staggered along Spine Street so they would be the least impactful to the surrounding office buildings and provided maximum pedestrian connections between these buildings. 20 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 23 The contemporary architectural style of the residential buildings would be compatible with the surrounding office buildings within the Koll Center Newport and the surrounding area as they generally exhibit modern and contemporary architectural styles. The proposed parking structure is designed to be compatible with the adjacent parking structure and office buildings. The applicant proposes that the facades of the parking structure to have a wall system that would obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure in order to minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the structure. The lighting for upper (roof) level will be limited to wall -mounted sconce lighting affixed to the interior side of the parapet walls and to bollard fixtures. The bollard fixtures would be no taller than the height of the parapet walls. Project Amenities and Neighborhood Park The proposed project includes a variety of quality -of -life provisions and enhanced amenities. Private amenities including pool/spa, clubroom, fitness center, and a conference center will be provided at the podium levels in the Building 1 and Buildings 2 and 3. The one -acre park will be improved and maintained by the applicant and dedicated to the City. Additionally, landscape zones will be provided throughout the project site with variety of themed amenities. Lastly, three pedestrian connections will be provided to connect the project to Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport project. Staff believes the number and type of amenities provided for the proposed development, based on its size, type, density and location are adequate to create a suitable urban living environment integrated to the existing office area. The ground level improvements also enhance the area for benefit of office tenants. Parking The parking for the residential uses will be provided at the same rate as that required for the nearby Uptown Newport mixed-use project. As illustrated in Parking Summary Table above, the minimum required parking for the residential component would be 555 spaces (2.13 spaces per unit). A total of 557 spaces will be provided of which 188 spaces will be provided for the residences and their guests in Building 1 and 369 spaces will be provided for the residences and their guests in Buildings 2 and 3. These provisions meet the identified standards and staff believes the number of spaces is adequate given the type of project and its setting. Additionally, 16 parking spaces will be provided along Spine Street for the retail component and 5 parking spaces will be exclusive to public park users. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. prepared a parking study dated September 2017 (Attachment PC 5). The purpose of the parking study is to evaluate the adequacy of the parking supply of the existing Koll Center Newport office park and the proposed project during each phase of the construction and upon completion of the project. Currently, the office parking supply within the project site is 1,651 spaces. Parking data collection and analysis was conducted to document the existing office parking needs, and 27 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 24 to determine whether the resulting office parking supply during the construction and upon completion of each of the project will be adequate to accommodate the actual parking demands of the office users. The parking study showed that the peak parking demand for the office park would be 1,243 spaces with the adjustment factor of 25% to account for office vacancies and other potential fluctuations in parking demand due to seasonal variations and miscellaneous activities. During the construction of Phase A (freestanding parking structure), the existing parking supply will be reduced to 1,514 spaces. To prevent the least disruption of parking supply for this phase, the applicant proposes a valet parking program, subject to the approval of City Traffic Engineer. Additionally, an onsite shuttle will be provided during all phases of construction to assist office tenants in getting between the available parking spaces and their offices. At the completion of the proposed project, all office parking impacted by the project will be replaced; however, the supply will be heavily concentrated to the southeast corner of the project site creating a farther distance for some office users to walk from their car to their destination. As illustrated above, staff therefore believes the findings to approve the proposed site development review could be made. Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2016-027 (County No. 2016-200) (Sheets C- 2 & C-3 of submitted plans) is to subdivide the existing two parcels located on the project site into four parcels: A, B, C & D for finance/conveyance purposes. Parcels A & D will be used for ingress, egress, reciprocal parking and traffic circulation, landscape and utilities. Parcel B will be improved with the proposed residential buildings. Parcel D will be dedicated to the City for the public park. The proposed Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-002 (County No. 17852) (Sheets C-3 & C-3.1 of submitted plans) subdivides the project site into lots for project development, public park dedication, common parking, and easements for vehicular and pedestrian access. The Tentative Tract Map also describes the plan for grading, drainage, and utility improvements to serve the subdivision. As discussed previously in the DEIR and this report, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and has concluded that they are consistent with the Subdivision Code. The project site has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is not within a zone deemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction. The site is also suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that the infrastructure serving the site, and surrounding area, can accommodate the proposed project. Please refer to the DEIR for the supporting analysis of the roadway and utility systems. The proposed project is not located near a fish or wildlife habitat and the design of the subdivision will not cause substantial damage to habitat. The site is developed in a highly urbanized area and no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site. W Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 25 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. Sufficient site access is provided as shown on the proposed maps and development plans. The proposed tentative tract map locates the buildings with adequate separation, which allows for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. In conclusion, staff believes facts are in evidence to support the required findings to approve both subdivision maps if the City chooses to approve the proposed project. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) of the Municipal Code requires a traffic study to be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has prepared a traffic study dated September 2017 (Attachment PC 6), under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer, pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and its implementing guidelines. The focus of a TPO traffic study is the conditions one year after project occupancy, or five years after project approval for larger projects not expected to be complete within five years. Baseline traffic conditions for a TPO traffic study include previously approved projects in the City. By comparison, the baseline conditions for the traffic analysis in the DEIR include previously approved projects and traffic from reasonable foreseeable projects. The entire project is anticipated to be complete within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis addresses the entire project development. The traffic study includes evaluation of the morning and evening peak hour of operations at 29 existing intersections that are in the City and the adjoining City of Irvine. The project is expected to generate an additional 1,207 daily trips, 149 during the AM peak hour and 151 during the PM peak hour. When these trips distributed to these studied intersections, the analysis concludes that there is no significant impact as the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at any impacted primary intersection, and all intersections are forecasted to continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the TPO requires findings that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the proposed project complies with the TPO. Development Agreement General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12, the ICDP, and NBMC Chapter 15.45 require a development agreement for all projects that include infill residential units in the Airport Area. The proposed project meets this criteria and a development agreement is mandatory. LU6.15.12 provides, "The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density and location of the housing units." 29 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 26 A draft of the development agreement is not available at this time, and it will be available at the next public hearing. The term of the agreement would be 15 years with one 5 -year extension provided the project has started construction and completed the first residential building. Staff and the applicant are in general agreement about the terms. Improvements proposed by the applicant include the public park and public access thereto. The City Subdivision Code requires parkland dedication in access of the planned 1.17 acres to be dedicated and improved as a park. The applicant would also be responsible to pay an in -lieu fee for the residual acreage less any eligible credits. These improvements are simply in partial satisfaction of the park dedication requirement, but none the less, the City will receive an additional small park for public use. The applicant also proposes to pay a public benefit fee that would be used by the City to offset increased costs to serve the development not covered by excise taxes or property taxes. The amount of the fee has not be agreed upon at this time. Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) and John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Section 4.11 require the City to refer the proposed project to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency determination with the AELUP due to the proposed zoning amendment (planned community development amendment). This process will be done between the Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the project. In the event that the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the project to the City Council, staff will submit the proposed project to ALUC for their consistency determination. If the ALUC finds the project consistent with the AELUP, no special action would be required of the City Council should they choose to approve the project. The potentially significant impact related to ALUC consistency would also not occur. Should the ALUC find the project inconsistent with AELUP, the City Council could choose to overrule the ALUC decision by following the procedure established in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 2176.5 if they choose to approve the project. The two-step procedure requires the City Council to conduct two separate noticed public meetings. The first meeting is to state the intent to override the ALUC determination and to provide notice to the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics. After a 45 -day notice period, the second meeting is to make specific findings that the overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. Staff is describing the override process due an inconsistency determination for the Uptown Newport project in 2013 and recent discussions with ALUC staff suggesting a similar determination for the proposed project. The anticipated action is cognizant of the 2006 ALUC determination that found the adoption of the current mixed-use land use designation for the Airport Area consistent with the AELUP. 30 Koll Center Residences Planning Commission, January 18, 2018 Page 27 Correspondence At the time of staff report printing, staff has received 33 letters commenting on the proposed project in addition to the comment letters received during the 62 -day public review period for the DEIR. Some comments show concerns with the project related to traffic, density and aesthetics. Some comments are in support of the proposed project due to its consistency with the General Plan and positive addition to the City. These letters are provided as Attachment PC 7. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner: 1) mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the property; 2) posting of the site; and 3) noticing through the City's e-mail notification system. The mailing, posting of the site, and notification occurred at a minimum of 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The environmental review process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: (ak,r_� — o alinh Ung As ociate Planner Submitted by: Jim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Project Description PC 2 Responses to Comments PC 3 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program PC 4 PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) PC 5 Parking Study PC 6 Traffic Study PC 7 Correspondence AUSERSTLMShe�ed\PMTAs-2015\PA2015-024TC-01-18\PCSWff Report-e1-18.docz09/21/17 31 S2 Attachment No. PC 1 Project Description 33 M. (December 23, 2017) The Koll Center Residences, Newport Beach, CA Overview The Koll Center Residences, a proposed mixed use development located on 13.16 acres of surface parking at the Koll Center office park between Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. The development will include 260 luxury residential condominiums, 3,000 SF of neighborhood serving retail, a 490 stall parking garage and a 1.17 acre public park (see figure A). The condominiums consists of (3) multi -floor residential buildings, 13 stories of residential over 2 levels above grade parking and 2-3 levels below grade parking, with retail at ground level. The proposed buildings would be up to 160' as measured to top of roof. Figure A 35 The Residences Building 1 consists of tower 1, a 13 story residential building perched on 5 levels of parking with ground floor retail (1,768 SF). The parking located at building 1 will serve existing office tenants, residents, guest and retail visitors. The parking will be segregated by use and for convenience, each residence will have semi -private access to their unit through a private lobby serving each building or from a secured residence only parking garage located directly below the buildings. Tower 1(87 units) located at building 1 consist of 1+den, 2 and 3 bedrooms with 2-3.5 bath and private patios. The units are configured as flats; sizes range from 1,244 to 3,162 and include a multi-level penthouse suite at the top floor. The building also includes private amenities at level 3 or the podium level, including pool/spa, club room and fitness. In addition, each building includes conference centers that can be utilized for residents for business use. Building 2 consists of towers 2 & 3, 13 story residential buildings perched on 4 levels of parking with ground floor retail (1,232 SF). The parking located at building 2 will serve residents, guest and retail visitors, it will not serve office tenants. Each residence will have semi -private access to their unit through a private lobby serving each building or from a secured residence only parking garage located directly below the buildings. Towers 2 & 3 (86 and 87 units respectively) located at building 2 consists of 1+den, 2 and 3 bedrooms with 2-3.5 bath and private patios. The units are configured as flats; sizes range from 1,244 to 3,162 and include a multi-level penthouse suite at the top floor. The building also includes private amenities at level 3 or podium level, including pool/spa, club room and fitness center. In addition, each building includes conference centers that can be utilized for residents for business use. The site is composed of three main landscape zones including the Park Gardens, Paseo Gardens and Plaza Gardens. The Plaza Gardens allow pedestrian circulation between the different buildings. Pedestrian seating and lounging areas along with activity themed gardens are located along the circulation spine. The Park Garden provides a mix of active and passive uses offering a variety of experiences for the users. The active spaces include pickle ball courts, barbecue, picnic/seating areas, and a chess court. A passive park is adjacent with outdoor botanical/exploratory gardens. so Existing Conditions The Koll Center office park provides a common pool of structured and surface parking spaces to serve the office tenants (see figure 1). Within our 13 acre site, we would temporarily displace 819 surface parking spaces; the temporary displacement of these spaces was carefully considered, a detailed plan was developed and is described in the "construction timing & process" section. BIRCH SiREeT off 1D, '.•V,AaoA, . roma mix-nms i MITEYs: Figure 1 Construction Timing & Process The parking displacement of 819 office parking spaces was evaluated extensively, it was determined that a multiple phase construction approach would be the least impactful to the ongoing business park operations, as such we implemented a best practices construction planning approach outlined in this section. Anticipated construction timing start to finish is 54 months. 37 Phase A includes the demolition of 137 surface parking spaces delineated by the dashed redlines (see figure 2) the demolition of spaces makes room for a new 490 stall parking garage located at Lot 5, future Uptown pedestrian connections and reconfiguration of the drive aisle around the parking garage. Upon completion of the new parking garage the office park would have a surplus of 369 parking spaces. A valet plan has been developed to accommodate the temporary loss of parking during the construction of the new parking garage. Phase A would begin in advance of breaking ground on the new mixed use development, construction timing to build the parking garage is estimated at 10 months. For project scheduling simplicity, Phase A would begin month 0 and end month 10. A construction logistics plan is included below (see figure 3). Figure 2 Parking Details Existing stalls located in Phase A (254); to be demolished (137); during construction (117), after construction (623) Type demolish construct net *Office 137 506 +369 *includes 490 spaces within parking garage and 16 new surface parking spaces (driveway reconfiguration). M Construction Logistics Figure 3 BIRCH STREET q L J ____ j ... .:....m....�.,..... \ i a \ \ lkf li xwrunxc sraucn mus. lk l I vs vy3 t Qyp +v DAVID EVRNS 80LL C8NT8R RE5m6NC63 NBKPoRT IgI�N� •MOA3SOCiATES me '- CONSTRUCTION STAGING TOR PARKING STRUCTURE 39 Phase 1 includes the demolition of 331 office parking spaces delineated by the dashed redlines (see figure 4) the demolition of spaces makes room for building 1 and construction staging located at lot 1 and C. Additionally, we will relocate the accessible spaces and trash structures from the south side of 4440 Von Karman to the north side. Building 1 includes the construction of tower 1, comprised of 87 residential units with 5 levels of parking structure and 1,768 square feet of retail. The loss of 307 office spaces has been accounted for with the addition of the parking garage outlined in the previous Phase A. It is expected that Phase 1 (building 1) will take 22 months to build. For project scheduling simplicity, Phase 1 would begin month 10 and end month 32. I Figure 4 LOT"C" LOT 1 i • I � �vnu 0� I 9L \ \ LOT 5 *the surplus of office spaces is the result of the phase A parking garage and added spaces at building 1. 40 Parking Details Existing Office Stalls Within Area of Impact (331) Type Demolish Construct net *Office 331 276 +314 Residential Retail Guest required Provided net 161 161 - 9 10 +1 27 27 - *the surplus of office spaces is the result of the phase A parking garage and added spaces at building 1. 40 Phase 2 includes the demolition of 242 office parking spaces delineated by the dashed redlines (see figure 5) the demolition of spaces makes room for building 2 located at lot 3. Building 2 includes the construction of towers 2 & 3, comprised of 86 and 87 residential units respectively, 4 levels of parking structure and 1,232 square feet of retail. The loss of 243 office spaces has been accounted for with the addition of the parking garages outlined in the previous phases of construction. It is expected that Phase 2 (building 2) will take 22 months to build. For project scheduling simplicity, Phase 2 would begin month 32 and end month 54. w •+w, xnpiut, --- LOT 3 n � Eo1 \ I ` I �— I" IIIIIIV s � \. Figure 5 nor c LOT I a ,..,a: xrxx ,OT,5�:�:�at Parking Details Existing Office Stalls Within Area of Impact (242) Type demolished construct net *Office 242 0 +72 Residential Retail Guest required provided net 316 316 - 7 3 -4 53 53 - *office parking surplus created with addition of phase A and 1 parking garages. GIM Phase 3 includes the demolition of 109 office parking spaces delineated by the dashed redlines Existing Office Stalls Within Area of Impact (109) (see figure 6). This phase of work includes driveway and parking lot reconfiguration and Lot E demolished (public park buildout). The loss of 132 office spaces has been partially accounted for with the net addition of the parking garages in the previous phases of construction. A valet plan has been 109 developed to accommodate the temporary loss of parking during the construction of this +7 phase. It is expected that Phase 3 will take 6-9 months to build. For project scheduling required simplicity, Phase 3 would begin month 45 and end month 54. net 5 = BIRCH STREET 0 S yI +3 r lo..E. µor 7 LOT 1 7 t 1 � I LOT 2 Lil-_ LOT 3 ' —-----.cy--� — — i 111141 ( }i FF .owex LOT 4 P-11 I raz.+e mtscid3 — — °oti o LOT 5 4� / � / vat .ew.u.me muerv.e roti ,,.�. � I , Figure 6 Parking Details Existing Office Stalls Within Area of Impact (109) Type demolished Construct net *Office 109 44 +7 Park Retail required Provided net 5 5 - 0 3 +3 *office surplus created with added and existing previous phases. 42 Post Construction parking figures are outlined below, including office, residential, retail, park and guest (see figure 7). _ ___ _-__ ____ �Er- - _ 9_ //LOT A - 5 LOT E LOT oAll .eo wu rauvu+ LOT 1 o I «�— ' I .owE., LOT 2 «.o wx, rwAuei .< vm amca LOT "4" � LOT 3 rI r LOT 4 enn�c ;m� -AIL I c, ooh -`�� i LOT ^ ML .nxrxas.nu�,�ixe erysl y-- MGA �+x r Figure 7 Parking Details Type demolished construct net Office Parking 819 826 +7 Residential Retail Guest Park required 477 16 80 5 provided 477 16 80 5 net - - - - Future Building Perspective Figure 8 The Entitlements The current General Plan land use designation is (MU -1-12) and the zoning falls under the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center) The project includes the following entitlement request (a Parcel Map is included; the objective of this map is to facilitate parcel conveyance between owner and applicant and future project financing. The 11.56 acre parcel will be further divided into 4 parcels, no development rights will be granted with the recording of this final parcel map, as such the project is still pursuing a Tract Map with corresponding development rights). • Planned Community Text Amendment: An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center) to allow for residential mixed use. • Development Agreement: A development agreement between applicant and City describing development rights and public benefits for the residential development pursuant to section 15.45.020.A.2.c of the Municipal Code. 44 • Traffic Study: a traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. • Site Development Review • Tentative Tract Map • Tentative Parcel Map • Transfer of 3,019 square feet of unbuilt office reallocated from Koll Center Block A to B. The Koll Center Residences- At a Glance Owner: KCN A Management, LLC Location: 4400 Von Karman Ave, Newport Beach CA 92660 Acreage: 13.16 Current Land Use: Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) Proposed Land Use: Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) No. of Units: 260 units, maximum Retail: 3,000 square feet of neighborhood serving For additional information, please contact., Michael R Murphy Shopoff Realty Investments 2 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92614 (949)417-1396 mmurphy@shopoff.com i2W 40 Attachment No. PC 2 Responses to Comments 47 42 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC H NO. 2017011002 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date January 2018 49 of Newport Beach Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Format....................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses..................................................1-2 2 List of Respondents............................................................................................ 2-1 3 Responses to Environmental Comments ............................................................ 3-1 3.1 Topical Responses..................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Topical Response: Cumulative projects............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Topical Response: Alternatives............................................................................................................ 3-5 3.1.3 Topical Response: Airport Noise........................................................................................................ 3-10 3.1.4 Topical Response: Energy Action Plan Consistency ........................................................................... 3-11 3.1.5 Topical Response: Senate Bill 32........................................................................................................ 3-12 Comment Letters and Responses Agencies(A).................................................................................. 3-15 Comment Letters and Responses Organizations(B).......................................................................... 3-43 Comment Letters and Responses Individuals and Businesses(C).................................................... 3-111 4 Native American Tribal Consultation.................................................................. 4-1 5 Clarifications and Revisions................................................................................ 5-1 Appendices Appendix A COMAC Comment Letter C -5b Attachments Olen Comment Letter C -7c Attachments The Koll Center Residences Project i Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 50 of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Table of Contents 51 City of Newport Beach 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Section 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017011002) for the Koll Center Residences Project located in the City of Newport Beach. The Draft EIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Newport Beach on September 13, 2017 for a 45 -day review period ending on October 27, 2017. The public review period was extended twice, from October 27, 2017 to November 3, 2017 and then to November 13, 2017. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Newport Beach, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. Secondly, this document includes information from associated with consultation with Native American tribe, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d), Assembly Bill 52. 1.2 Format The Final EIR for the Koll Center Residences Project consists of the Draft EIR and its technical appendices; the Responses to Comments included herein; other written documentation prepared during the EIR process; and those documents which may be modified by the City Council at the time of consideration of certification of the Final EIR. The City Council would also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a Statement of Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project. This Response to Comments document is organized as follows: Section 1 Provides a brief introduction to this document. Section 2 Identifies the Draft EIR commenters. Section 3 Provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter. Section 4 Summary of the City of Newport Beach's consultation with Native American tribe, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d), Assembly Bill 52. Section 5 Presents clarifications to the Draft EIR, identifying revisions to the text of the document. The Koll Center Residences Project 1-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 52 Section 1.0 City of Newport Beach Introduction 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204(d) states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section" In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 1-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 53 City of Newport Beach 2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS Section 2.0 List of Respondents In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft EIR received as of close of the public review period on November 13, 2017. Comments have been numbered and responses have been developed with corresponding numbers. Letter Reference Commenter Date of Correspondence Page No. Agencies (A) A-1 City of Irvine October 17, 2017 3-17 A-2 Irvine Ranch Water District October 25, 2017 3-25 A-3 Orange County Transportation Authority November 1, 2017 3-27 A-4 Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse November 14, 2017 3-33 A-5 SOCaIGas, James Chuang November 7, 2017 3-36 A-6 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County November 10, 2017 3-39 Organizations (B) B-1 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc., Patricia Martz, PhD September 30, 2017 3-45 B -2a Line In the Sand, Dennis Baker October 9, 2017 3-47 B -2b Line In the Sand, Dennis Baker November 13, 2017 3-50 B -3a Stop Polluting Our Newport (c/o Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP) October 9, 2017 3-59 B -3b Stop Polluting Our Newport (c/o Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP) November 13, 2017 3-62 B -4a SoCal Pilots Association, Joe Finnell October 11, 2017 3-94 B -4b SoCal Pilots Association, Joe Finnell November 13, 2017 3-96 B-5 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Adam Williams November 13, 2017 3-104 B-6 OC Flight Center, Gary Sequeira November 13, 2017 3-109 Individuals and Businesses (C) C -1a Bruce Bartram September 28, 2017 3-113 C -1b Bruce Bartram October 6, 2017 3-117 C -1c Bruce Bartram October 30, 2017 3-122 C-2 Bryan Perraud October 3, 2017 3-141 C-3 Don Krotee October 8, 2017 3-143 C-4 Don Harvey October 9, 2017 3-148 C -5a COMAC (c/o Murphy & Evertz Attorneys at Law) October 9, 2017 3-150 C -5b COMAC (c/o Murphy & Evertz Attorneys at Law) November 10, 2017 3-153 C-6 Meyer Properties October 12, 2017 3-193 C -7a Olen Properties, Julie Ault October 13, 2017 3-197 C -7b Olen Properties, Julie Ault (c/o Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP) November 9, 2017 3-200 C -7c Olen Properties, Julie Ault November 10, 2017 3-224 C -7d Olen Properties, Julie Ault (c/o Buchalter) November 13, 2017 3-248 C -8a Bitcentral, Inc., Fred Fourcher October 13, 2017 3-262 The Koll Center Residences Project 2-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 10 City of Newport Beach Section 2.0 List of Respondents Letter Reference Commenter Date of Correspondence Page No. C -8b Bitcentral, Inc., Fred Fourcher November 13, 2017 3-264 C -9a Von Karman Corporate Owners Association, Dana Haynes October 16, 2017 3-297 C -91a Von Karman Corporate Owners Association, Dana Haynes November 6, 2017 3-299 C-10 Rick Westberg October 26, 2017 3-305 C-11 Gregory M. Puccinelli October 30, 2017 3-306 C-12 Darrin Norton October 31, 2017 3-307 C-13 Robert Anderson October 2017 3-308 C-14 Cameron Jackson November 1, 2017 3-309 C-15 Madison Street Partners, Paul Root November 1, 2017 3-310 C-16 Scott Watson November 1, 2017 3-311 C-17 Mark E. Foster November 2, 2017 3-312 C-18 Ryan Eastman November 4, 2017 3-313 C-19 Coyne Development, Steve Coyne November 6, 2017 3-314 C-20 Jack and Robyn Hamilton November 6, 2017 3-315 C-21 Dean Laws November 8, 2017 3-316 C -22a Susan Skinner November 8, 2017 3-317 C -22b Susan Skinner November 12, 2017 3-323 C-23 Jim Mosher November 13, 2017 3-325 The Koll Center Residences Project 2-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 55 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 3 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS This section includes responses to all substantive environmental issues raised in comments received on the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR (Draft EIR). Many of the comments received during the public review period were on common issues or concerns. for this reason, topical responses have been prepared. This approach reduces redundancy throughout the responses to comments document and provides the reader with a comprehensive response to the broader issue. No topical response was provided where no comments or only very minimal comments were provided on the Draft EIR. After the Topical Responses, responses are provided for each of the comments received. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers, respectively, for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and =trikenlit for deletions. 3.1 Topical Responses 3.1.1 TOPICAL RESPONSE: CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two approaches to analyzing cumulative impacts. The first is the "list approach," which requires a listing of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects. The second is the projection approach wherein the relevant projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document that is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions are summarized. A reasonable combination of the two approaches may also be used. The Draft EIR used a combination of the list approach and the projections approach. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." If it is determined there would be a cumulative impact, then an EIR needs to evaluate whether the project's contribution is "cumulatively considerable" Where the incremental effect of a project is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not considerthat effect to be significant but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impacts analyses are included in Sections 4.1 to 4.15 of the Draft EIR. Commenters have suggested that additional cumulative projects in the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach should have been included and evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR evaluated known projects at the time that the Koll Center Residences Project Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published on January 4, 2017, and used information provided by the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach. The following addresses City of Newport Beach projects noted by commenters. Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project. The NOP for this proposed project was released on November 1, 2017 which was after the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR was distributed for public review. The NOP for the Koll Center Residences Project was released on January 4, 2017 and the Draft EIR was distributed for public review on September 13, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 50 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Newport Banning Ranch. On February 9, 2017, the California Coastal Commission affirmed its denial of the Newport Banning Ranch Project. On December 12, 2017, the Newport Beach City Council Approved Ordinance No. 2017-17, repealing all prior approvals of the project. The City has not received any applications pertaining to the development of the property, and the timing of potential future development or retention of the site in open space is speculative. Mariners' Mile Revitalization Master Plan. The City is not currently pursuing the adoption of the Master Plan because of significant concerns expressed by the community. Regardless, it is important to note that the draft Master Plan assumed that the land use designations and development standards specified in the General Plan and Zoning Code for Mariners' Mile would be maintained. The draft Master Plan did not assume an increase in residential or non-residential development. No CEQA analysis was prepared. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update. The City has not initiated the process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. Uptown Newport (identified in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR). The first phase of the Uptown Newport Project is under construction including 462 residential units and a 1 -acre public park. The approved Uptown Newport Project will include up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 sf of neighborhood -serving retail space, and 2 acres of parks. Although the Uptown Newport and Koll Center Residences project sites are proximate, the City received two separate applications for the two projects at two different times, and as such are processed them separately. The Uptown Newport Project was approved in 2013. As such, the Uptown Newport Project is assumed in the cumulative analysis set forth in the Draft EIR. NewportBusiness Plaza (identified in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR). As addressed in the Draft EIR, the project was approved by the City Council in 2011 but has not been constructed. It has been determined that the cumulative projects list provided by the City of Irvine did not include approved Irvine projects. However, it is important to note that although these approved Irvine projects were not on the City of Irvine's cumulative projects list, the traffic associated with these approved projects are included in the City's Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) forecasts. Therefore, these approved projects were already included in the Draft EIR traffic analysis of Irvine intersections. Where traffic associated with the Irvine approved projects would travel through intersections in the City of Newport Beach, the traffic analysis has been updated to evaluate potential effects associated with City of Irvine approved projects on Newport Beach intersections. As shown on Table 4.14-22, the inclusion of these approved Irvine projects does not change the findings and conclusions of the Project traffic analysis. Consistent with the findings set forth in the Draft EIR, the Project would have no project -specific traffic impacts or contribute to cumulatively significant traffic impacts. Under CEQA's cumulative impact analysis requirements, the pertinent question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact but whether the effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable. Thus, the analysis must assess whether the additional amount of impact resulting from the Proposed Project should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect. Importantly, this does not mean that any contribution to a cumulative impact should be considered cumulatively considerable. The Draft EIR analysis complies with this directive. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 57 5g Section 3.0 to Comments Table 4.14-22. Intersection Operation - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project No. Intersection Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. a 0.610 B 0.832 D 0.614 B 0.832 D 0.004 0.000 No No 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. 0 49 A 74 0 Q.w A 00 504 A 0.P4 A 0.011 0.005 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 9,632 0.653 B &y97 0.635 A Q-4378 0.652 0-.6"B 0.639 0AQ5 -0.001 0.004 No No 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd' 0�7y6 0.806 C 0-g2-1 0.866 D B.7-9 0.809 CDD 0.872 0.003 0.006 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd. SB at University Dr. 0.563 A 0.514 A 0.563 A 0.514 A 0.000 0.000 No No 6 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr.' 0.619 B 0.839 D 0.619 B 0.840 D 0.000 0.001 No No 7 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr. 0.650 B 0.742 C 0.652 B 0.744 C 0.002 0.002 No No 8 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St. 0^ 376 A 00 408 A Q-A 6. A 0.&416 A O�p 0.008 No No 9 Teller Ave. at Campus Dr.' 0.435 A 0.522 A 0.435 A 0.523 A 0.000 0.001 No No 30 Teller Ave. at Birch St. 13.4 B. 13.2 B 14.2 B 14.8 B 0.8 1.6 No No 11 Jamboree Rd. at 1405 NB Ramps ' 0.800 C 0.916 E 0.802 C 0.919 E 0.002 0.003 No No 12 Jamboree Rd. at 1405 SB Ramps' 1.133 F 1.019 F 1.134 F 1.020 F 0.001 0.001 No No 13 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr.' 0.901 D 1.079 F 0.904 D 1.080 F 0.003 0.001 No No 14 Jamboree Rd. at Dupont Dr.' 0.704 B 0.729 C 0.705 C 0.730 C 0.001 0.001 No No 15 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr. a 0.677 B 0.762 C 0.679 B 0.764 C 0.002 0.002 No No 16 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St.' 0.643 B 0.610 B 0.653 B 0.613 B 0.010 0.003 No No 17 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Rd.' 0.643 B 0.719 C 0.645 B 0.784 C 0.002 0.005 No No 18 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 04022 A 0.590 A 0^ 425 A 0.592 A 0.003 0.002 No No The Koll Center Residences Project 3-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 59 Section 3.0 to Comments Table 4.14-22. Intersection Operation - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project Without Project With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? ICU/ ICU/ ICU/ ICU/ No. Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 19 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. 5 2 C 0 780 C C C C) Doi 0.004 No No 00.7 0.762 0785 0.005 20 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way A 542 A 506 A 544 A 0.001 No No 0050$ 0^ 00 0^ 0.00 21 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr. B B C a 0.690 A C 0.002 No No 0P 0499 0.718 0.003 22 Carlson Ave. at Campus Dr. a 0.522 A 0.734 C 0.522 A 0.734 C 0.000 0.000 No No 23 University Dr. at Campus Dr. b 0.841 D 0.869 D 0.841 D 0.869 D 0.000 0.000 No No 24 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr. 620 A 786 C A C 0.004 0.002 No No 0.0 0.0 0.0602 0.788 Bristol St. S at Campus Dr./ &761 &643 4364 0:644 &061 25 Irvine Ave. 0.844 C 0.718 6 0.844 ED 0.719 8C 0.000 0.001 Na No 26 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr. 0.474 A 8:690 B 0.475 A 0,594B 0.001 400-1 No No 0.697 0.697 0.000 27 Bristol St. N at Birch St. 687 B 665 B 689 B B 0.002 No No 00 00 00 0.668 0.008 28 Bristol St. S at Birch St. A A A p A B 0.000 No No 0.&528 0.606 0.028 0� O.e 29 Bristol St. 5 at Bayview PI. A A 461 A 5p7 A 0.003 No No 0.4460 0.450 0^ 0^ 0.001 Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service. Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology, and average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM Methodology. a. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. b. A5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System(ATMS). Source: Kimley-Horn, 2017. The Kell Center Residences Project 34 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 00 City of Newport Beach 3.1.2 TOPICAL RESPONSE: ALTERNATIVES Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) sets forth the criteria for the selection of a range of reasonable alternatives for consideration in an EIR. "The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.... Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts". The criteria for selection of alternatives to the Proposed Project are discussed in Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR, and reflect the guidance set forth in the State CECA Guidelines. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. Comments were submitted to the City regarding the range of alternatives addressed in the Draft EIR, and the need to expand the number of alternatives for the purpose of further reducing potential environmental impacts and/or because of opposition to residential development on the project site. Project Objectives Limits the Range of Alternatives Some commenters allege that the Project's objectives make the Draft EIR's discussion of project alternatives inadequate. In San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App4th 1, 14, the court ruled that a lead agency has broad discretion to formulate project objectives. CEQA does not restrict an agency's discretion to identify and pursue a particular project designed to meet a particular set of objectives. Project objectives are relevant to a lead agency's consideration and review of a proposed project because they assist with development of a reasonable range of alternatives and aid decision -makers in preparing a statement of overriding consideration, if necessary (CEQA Guidelines §15124(b)). This is how the project objectives were used in the Draft EIR—to develop a reasonable range of alternatives. Moreover, CEQA does not impose any prohibition on the inclusion of project objectives that have any level of subjectivity. In conclusion, the objectives do not preclude the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative Sites Commenters suggested that the Draft EIR's analysis of off-site alternatives is invalid saying it failed to consider off-site locations capable of accommodating the Project. CEQA does not require this analysis. First, CEQA does not contain a categorical imperative requiring the consideration of off-site alternatives. "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project (emphasis added), which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This is consistent with the well -accepted principle that an EIR's discussion of alternatives is governed by the rule of reason set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). A lead agency's selection of alternatives for study will be upheld as long as there is a reasonable basis for the alternatives included (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 414). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-5 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 01 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments It was suggested that the Draft EIR address additional off-site alternatives including potential development sites outside of the Airport Area. The Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project, including whether there were reasonable alternative locations. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element includes an inventory and description of land determined suitable for residential development that can realistically be developed within the planning period (October 2021). The Sites Analysis and Inventory is organized by the key opportunity areas within City (i.e., Banning Ranch, Corona del Mar, West Newport Mesa, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Peninsula, Dover Dr./Westcliff Dr., Newport Center, and the Airport Area). The Housing Element states "To demonstrate the realistic development viability of the sites, the analysis also discusses: 1) whether appropriate zoning is in place; 2) the applicable development limits/densities and their impact on projected development capacity and affordability; 3) existing constraints including any known environmental issues; and 4) the availability of existing and planned public service capacity levels. Since a limited amount of vacant land remains in the community, future housing development would primarily be achieved through infill and reuse of sites with existing, underdeveloped or underutilized land uses. Table H32 summarizes the total residential development capacities identified in Sites Analysis and Inventory for each of the potential housing opportunity areas in the City." Table A summarizes the Sites Analysis and Inventory and identifies why the sites are not considered feasible for development of the Proposed Project. The use of the Housing Element as a means to identify possible alternative sites is reasonable given the scope of its prior analysis. The Draft EIR was not required to speculate as to the development potential of other sites not identified as a potential site for residential development. Any such analysis would require significant speculation, and would not contribute to informed decision-making. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 429 [CECA does not require perfection, but completeness and a good faith effort at disclosure]. Other Alternatives In addition to the suggestion that the Draft EIR address additional off-site alternatives, other alternatives were suggested and were generally variations to the alternatives already addressed in the Draft EIR. It was also suggested that the EIR needed to address an alternative that is consistent with the maximum square footage allowed in the "Anomaly Area" The City of Newport Beach General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations, identifies development limits for certain sites within the City. With respect to the consideration of an alternative consistent with the maximum square footage allowed in the Anomaly Area, this is not a feasible alternative. The City of Newport Beach General Plan land use category for the project site is "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12)". The MU -H2 designation specifically applies to some properties located in the Airport Area. It is intended to provide for the development of areas in a horizontally distributed mix of uses which may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Non-residential uses are permitted according to the limits included in General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations. The project site is within Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. Anomaly Location 2 has a development limit of 1,052,880 sf, which is only for non-residential development and is built out. For this reason, the Project proposes a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail square footage from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-6 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation WN Section 3.0 to Comments Table A Dwelling GeneralPian Zoning Unit Density (du/acre) or Areas Realistic Designation Designation Capacity- Development Limit Determination Vacant Banning Ranch RV and OS Planned 1,375 Maximum development limit of 1,375 du (1) development on the Banning Ranch site would require the Community (PC) acquisition of a 401 -acre property which exceeds the development footprint necessary for the Project; (2) development would result in environmental impacts not associated with development of the Project on the site under consideration. Far example, development on the Banning Ranch site would require site remediation including within areas with biological resources. Both site development and remediation would have biological impacts. These impacts could likely be mitigated but would not be caused at the project site. Significant noise im pacts during construction could also occur depending on where development occurred on the Banning Ranch site. Infrastructure would have to be extended to this site. On February 9, 2017, the California Coastal Commission affirmed its denial of the Newport Banning Ranch project. On December 12, 2017, the Newport Beach City Council approved Ordinance No. 2017-17, repealing all approvals of the project. Carona del Mar RM RM 6 Development limit of a du permitted TheProject could not be accommodated based on dwelling unit capacity. Infill/ Mixed -Use John Wayne Airport MU -H2 Planned 2061 30 du/ac min. and 50 du/ac max."• Please note that the alternative sites in Airport Area must have Area Community(PC) Development limit of 2,200 du permitted as MU -H2 designation to allowfor mixed-use residential. Because replacement of existing uses (550 du these 260 additive units are site specific per Figure LU22 of permitted as infill) Land Use Element and identified in the Integrated Conceptual Plan (ICDP) which is an implementation plan per Land Use Policy 6. 15.5 far the Airport Area, an amendment to the ICDP and Policy 6.15.5 would be required. Newport Center MU -H3 and RM Planned 608 Development limit of 608 du permitted as Site l(San Joaquin Plaza) has been developed. Sites 2 and Community (PC) infill assume a total of 84 units. Sites 2 and 3 as well as the conversion of any other sites within Newport Center would require both a General Plan Amendment and rezone. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-7 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 63 Section 3.0 to Comments Table A Dwelling General Plan Zoning Unit Density (du/acre) or Areas Realistic Designation Designation Capacity- Development Limit Determination Mariners'Mile MU -W1 and MU-Wl and 232 MU -W-1: The Housing Element identifies 23 potential sitesfor MU -H3 MU -MM Mixed -Use FAR: 1.0, with 0.5 for residential residential development. The largest site, Site 13, is 4.37 acres Multi -Family Residential: 12 du/acre(50%of with 113 units. site) MU -MM: Development potential is less than 50% of Proposed Project. Mixed -Use: FAR 1.5, with 1.0for residential West Newport Mesa RM RM 71 18 du/ac The Project could not be accommodated based an dwelling unit capacity. Dover Dr./ Westcliff Dr. MU -HI MU -DW 89 MU -DW: FAR 1.5, with 1.0 for residential The Project could not be accommodated based on dwelling unit capacity. Balboa Peninsula Area Lido Marina Village MUW2and RM MD -W2 and 62 MUW2:FAR 1.5, with 0.8 for residential RM The Project could not be accommodated based on dwelling (20/ac) (RM 2178) (20 du/acre) unit capacity. Cannery Village MU -H4 MU -W2 MU-CV/Jl St. 55 MU-CV/15th: The Project could not be accommodated based on dwelling and MU -W2 Mixed -Use: FAR 1.5, with 1.0 for residential unit capacity. Multi -Family: 20.1 to 26.7 du/net acre MU - W2: Mixed -Use: FAR 1.25, with 0.75 for residential Balboa Village MU -V MU -V 14 MU -V: FAR 1.5, with 1.0 for residential The Project could not be accommodated based on dwelling unit capacity. McFadden Square MILW2 MU -W2 39 MU W2: FAR: 1.25, with OJS for residential The Project could not be accommodated based an dwelling unit capacity. Totef 0,622 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Planning Division, General Plan, and Sites Analysis and Inventory MU -H1= Mixed-We(MU) - Horizontal 1; MU -H2 = MU -Horizontal 2; MU -H3 = MU -Horizontal 3; MU -H4= MU -Horizontal 4; MU -W1, MU -W2= MU - Water 1, 2; MU -MM, MU -DW = MU - Mariners Mile, MU- Dover Westcliff; MU-CV/15th SG = MU -Cannery Village/15th St.; MU -V = MU -Vertical; RM = Multiple -Family Residential; RV = Residential Village; OS = Open Space PC = Planned Community . Capacities reflect potential net increase in dwelling units above existing uses. As explained in detail within the Sites Analysis and Inventory, realistic capacities were based on average densities of actual constructed, permitted, or proposed projects within the City and accurately reflect achievable housing units. For example, although mixed-use designations permit densities of up to 26.7 du/ac, realistic capacities were calculated using 16 du/ac, based on actual mixed-use projects constructed within the City. "- Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2, a minimum density of 30 du/ac shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower- income households for urbanized areas. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-8 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 04 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments With respect to the consideration of an alternative that reduces density through the construction of two rather than three buildings, this suggested alternative could be considered a modification to Alternative D: Modified Site Plan that is evaluated in the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require consideration of multiple variations of different alternatives to a project. What is required is the production of information related to environmental effects sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives. The alternative suggested by commenters would not substantially deviate from the alternatives addressed. Therefore, under CEQA, it is not required. However, for purposes of full disclosure, the following addresses this suggested alternative. In summary, Alternative D assumes 260 residential units, 3,000 sf of retail uses, and a 1.17 -acre public park. All surface parking removed by construction and operation would be provided in the parking structure for Building 1. The free-standing parking structure would not be constructed and therefore the development footprint for Alternative D would decrease from 13.16 acres to approximately 12.46 acres. Valet and/or shuttle parking to another location(s) within and/or outside Koll Center Newport would be required until all parking spaces are available within the residential buildings' parking structures. Constructed in 3 rather than 4 phases, the estimated duration of construction would decrease from approximately 4.5 years to 3 years. Alternative D would require a larger subsurface building footprint to allow for the construction of additional below -ground parking for Project uses and the removed surface parking used by existing tenants and guests. The same number of below -grade levels of parking would be provided as for the Proposed Project. Alternative D would have a density of approximately 34 dwelling units per net acre based on 7.59 net acres (inclusive of Buildings 1, 2, and 3; access, parking; utilities; landscaping). The Proposed Project have a density of 31 dwelling units per net acre. For purposes of discussion, the suggested alternative would assume the construction of two buildings (referred to herein as Building 2 and Building 3). As described in the Draft EIR, Buildings 2 and 3 would be constructed with a shared podium. The location of Building 1 would be retained for surface parking. Approximately 1,232 sf of street level retail uses would be provided in the shared ground floor podium for Buildings 2 and 3. The free-standing parking structure would not be constructed and the development footprint would decrease from 13.16 acres to approximately 11.47 acres. The number of dwelling units could be up to 260 if the average square footage substantially decreased. Retaining the size of the dwelling units assumed for the Proposed Project would result in a reduction of units to approximately 173 units. Based on 6.77 net acres, the density could range from approximately 25.5 to 34 units per net acre. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.9 and the Airport Business Area ICDP require a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. By removing Building 1 and the free-standing parking structure, and retaining the public park, the size of the project site would be reduced. With the retention of approximately 348 surface parking spaces, when compared to the Project, the alternative would provide approximately 390 spaces within a shared parking structure for Building 2 and Building 3. Because the free-standing parking structure would not be constructed, valet and/or shuttle parking to another location(s) within and/or outside Koll Center Newport would be required until all of the parking spaces are available within the residential buildings' parking structure. This alternative would not eliminate the significant impacts of the Project but would reduce the duration of construction -related impacts. Constructed in 3 rather than 4 phases, the estimated duration of The Koll Center Residences Project 3-9 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 015 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments construction is anticipated to decrease from approximately 4.5 years to approximately 3 years. This alternative meets the Project objectives and is consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Business ICDP. While this alternative would cause a greater inconvenience to office tenants and visitors because parking would not be replaced until the project is completed, thisfactorwould need to be weighed against the reduction in time to complete the development. 3.1.3 TOPICAL RESPONSE: AIRPORT NOISE Several comments focused on potential aircraft noise impacts on Project residences due to airport operations at John Wayne Airport (JWA). General aviation accounts for the majority of1WA's total aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings). In 2016, there were 191,159 general aviation operations, which represent 67 percent of the Airport's total number of operations.' As discussed on page 4.10-32 of the Draft EIR, the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNEL contour (according to the 2008 Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport,' and the John Wayne Airport 2016 Annual 60-75 [5 dB intervals] CNEL Noise Contours).' Existing and future noise impacts from aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport were also analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 617, John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment (JWA EIR) (County of Orange, May 2014). The JWA EIR analyzed the environmental impacts (including noise impacts) for an increase in flights and passengers at John Wayne Airport as a result of extending the terms of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. According to the JWA EIR, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour under existing and future plus project conditions, and is not located within the arrival or departure flight paths at John Wayne Airport. Additionally, the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) has been adopted by the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation operations. John Wayne Airport maintains ten permanent noise monitoring stations. The GANO specifies noise limits at each noise monitoring stations that vary by time of day. The GANO also identifies private aircraft that may not meet the noise standards and specifically limits their operations unless the aircraft owner/operator can furnish evidence that the aircraft can operate within acceptable noise levels. John Wayne Airport noise impacts were also analyzed in the Environmental Assessmentfor the Southern California Metroplex Project (Metroplex EA) (United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, June 2015) forthe optimization of Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures at several airports in Southern California, including John Wayne Airport. This is accomplished by developing procedures that take advantage of technological advances in navigation, such as Area Navigation (RNAV). RNAV uses technology, including Global Positioning System (GPS), to allow an RNAV-equipped aircraft to fly a more efficient route. According to Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS) grid point modeling in the Metroplex EA, John Wayne Airport airplane noise levels at the closest modeled grid receptor (located approximately 0.19 mile to the north of the project site) with implementation of RNAV ATC procedures would be approximately 52.0 DNL (Day -Night Sound Level). As the project site is 0.19 mile further south John Wayne Airport, General Aviation, http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf, April 17, 2008. John Wayne Airport, John Wayne Airport 2015 Annual 60-75 [5 dB intervals] CNEL Noise Contours, http://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/cneinoisecontours/2016.pdf, 2016. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-10 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments from the modeled grip receptor, aircraft noise levels would be lower than 52.0 DNL and below the City's noise standards for residential uses. As discussed on page 4.10-27 of the Draft EIR, the combined mobile noise levels (i.e., aircraft noise and off-site traffic noise) at the future on-site residences could exceed the City's 60 dBA daytime exterior noise standards. It should be noted thatthe potential exceedance is conservatively based on airport noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL. As indicated above, the Project is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour; therefore, noise levels at the project site would actually be lower than analyzed in the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to reduce on- site mobile noise impactsto a less than significant level. MM 4.10-5 requires interior noise levelsto comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and MM 4.10-6 requires a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Compliance with these mitigation measures would ensure that airplane noise at John Wayne Airport would not impact future residents at the project site, and would comply with the City's noise standards, community noise compatibility guidelines, and General Plan Policies N1.1 (to ensure land use compatibility with the noise environment), N2.1, N2.2 (requiring new development to meet the City's interior and exterior noise level thresholds), and N3.2 (requiring residential development in the John Wayne Airport area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL contour). Compliance with MMs 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 would result in a less than significant impact. 3.1.4 TOPICAL RESPONSE: ENERGY ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY Prepared in July 2013, the City's Energy Action Plan (EAP) has the following primary objectives: (1) reduce the City's carbon footprint and its adverse effect on the environment; (2) conserve energy at the local government facilities; and, (3) raise energy conservation awareness in local community and improve the quality of life. The EAP was created in partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCG) and identifies municipal strategies to achieve the City's long-term electricity and natural gas efficiency goals. The EAP focuses on municipal energy consumption, municipal reduction measures, and municipal projects (i.e., LEED and Green Building in new municipal buildings, retrofits for mechanical equipment, lighting retrofits, personal computer power management controls, global temperature adjustment, etc.). The EAP identifies a municipal and community reduction goal of 15 percent below 2004 energy consumption levels by 2020. It should be noted that this reduction goal accounts for projected growth in the City. Although City policies emphasize a decrease in energy use, the policies do not prohibit energy consumption from new development projects in the City. As noted above, the EAP also identifies a 15 percent reduction goal for community energy use. However, the EAP does not provide specific project -level thresholds or reduction measures. As noted in Centerfor Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015) 224 Cal.App.4th 1105, a qualified GHG reduction plan must be "sufficiently detailed and adequately supported" The EAP is not a qualified GHG reduction plan as it focuses on energy emissions and does not include emissions inventories for all sectors, and was not adopted by the City through a public review process. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-11 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 07 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Nonetheless, Project consistency with the City's EAP was reviewed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Project energy consumption was assessed in Section 4.15.5, Energy Consumption, of the Draft EIR. As described in the Draft EIR, prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Utilities Department would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Project design features include high efficiencywall assemblies and windows to reduce heating and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency domestic hot water systems; and high efficiency light -emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units, common areas, and landscape design. The Applicant would pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification for the Project. 3.1.5 TOPICAL RESPONSE: SENATE BILL 32 As described in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Greenhous Gas Emissions, Senate Bill (SB) 32 codifies the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target in Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 and authorizes the State of California to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target. The bill states that the intent is for the legislature and appropriate agencies to adopt complementary policies which ensure that the long-term emissions reductions advance specified criteria. The Draft EIR used a bright line threshold developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and supported by substantial evidence in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (October 2008). The bright line threshold was further developed and discussed by the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group). On September 28, 2010, the Working Group recommended an interim screening level numeric bright -line threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT)of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually (MTCO2e/yr) and an efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 MT of CO2e per service population (SP; residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035 for non -industrial projects. The bright line threshold approach consists of identifying emissions levels below which a project would not have significant GHG emissions, and above which a project would require further evaluation using other thresholds. As discussed in the SCAQMD Guidance and by the Working Group, the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold was developed to capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed by SCAQMD staff to assess the likely project size for 3,000 MTCO2e/yr emissions. The 3,000 MTCO2e/year value is typically used in defining small projects that are considered less than significant. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not exceed the bright line threshold and further analysis and mitigation is not required. Furthermore, the Project's consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals is analyzed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table 4.6 to address post -2020 GHG emissions reduction goals. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS and would The Koll Center Residences Project 3-12 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation M Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments not interfere with SCAG's ability to achieve the region's post -2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS. In the interest of full disclosure, Project emissions can be compared to a region -specific efficiency metric to further demonstrate the Project would not conflict with the State's post -2020 reduction goals. An efficiency metric is calculated by dividing the allowable GHG emissions inventory in a selected calendar year by the service population (residents plus employees) which then leads to the identification of a quantity of emissions that can be permitted on a per service population basis without significantly impacting the environment. Under the efficiency metric, the Project's GHG emissions are evaluated relative to the emissions level in the Project's buildout year and the buildout year's associated efficiency metric. To that end, an efficiency metric was calculated based on the 2022 emissions level (year of Project buildout) and the Project's service population (sum of the number of anticipated employees and residents provided associated with the Project). Because there are no emissions data or efficiency metrics available for the Project's buildout year (2022), an efficiency metric was generated by interpolating the Working Group 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/yr and 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/yr efficiency metrics'for years 2020 and 2035, respectively. Interpolating for a buildout year of 2022 results in a Project -specific efficiency metric of 4.56 MTCO2e/SP/yr. As described in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the Project would generate 580 residents assuming 2.23 persons per dwelling unit. The Draft EIR also indicated that seven jobs associated with the proposed commercial use could be created; however, employees are conservatively not included in the service population calculation for the purposes of this discussion. Therefore, with a total of 2,157 MTCO2e/yr generated by the Project (including amortized construction emissions) and a service population of 580, the Project would result in 4.48 MTCO2e/SP/yr and would be below the 4.56 MTCO2e/SP/yr post -2020 efficiency threshold. It should be noted that these emissions conservatively do not include reductions from the Project's proposed LEED design features or reductions from future emissions reductions from the ongoing implementation of various State measures including the Renewable Portfolio Standards and the Pavley II Plus Tire Pressure Regulations. Additionally, the service population conservatively does not include employees associated with the proposed retail uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the State's GHG emission reduction goals. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group, Minutesforthe GHG CEQQ Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group X15, September 28, 2010. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-13 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-14 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 7O City of Newport Beach Comment Letters and Responses: Agencies (A) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-15 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 71 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-16 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 72 City of Newport Beach Letter A-1 City of Irvine Melissa Chao, Senior Planner October 17, 2017 Community Development 1 Civic Center Plaza. Wrie, CA 92806-5208 October 17, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments cltyofirvine.org 949-724-6000 Sent via USPS and email: Rung@newportbeachca.gov Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: First Screencheck Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project at 4400 Von Karmen Avenue within the Koll Center Newport development (SCH No. 2017011002) Dear Ms, Ung: City of Irvine staff has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the subject project. The proposed project is a mixed-use infill development on approximately 13.16 -acres within Koll Center Newport, a 154 -acre mixed-use development area as follows: .260 residential condominiums in three 13 -story podium buildings with two levels of above -grade and two to three levels of below -grade structured parking with a maximum building height of 160 feet; e 3,000 square feet of ground -floor retail uses; . a 1.17 -acre public park with active and passive recreational areas located adjacent to Birch Street; . a freestanding parking structure for office uses; . lighting, utility, landscaping, and pedestrian improvements; and . reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Based on the review of the Draft EIR, City of Irvine staff would like to provide the following comments: 1. Page 1-2: Confirm the square footage associated with the transfer of development rights. Last sentence in 2n° paragraph indicates "up to 3,000 SF of t unbuilt office/retail space from Koll Center Site A to Koll Center Site B." Notice of Availability indicates 3,019 SF. 2, Table 34, Parking Summary: Under required residential DU parking, revise 552 T 2 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-17 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 3 I cont'd to 555 spaces total. Any fractional parking spaces should be rounded up. 2 3. Table 3-4, Parking Summary, Table 3-5, Parking Supply by Project Phase and Figure 3-19, Parking Use Allocation: Please indicate the minimum parking requirements for the office (i.e., 4400 Von Kerman), retail and public s park uses for the project to clarify that the minimum parking requirements will be met through the provided residential building, parking structure, and surface parking for all project phases. 4. Page 4.9-6, General Plan and Zoning Designations and Page 4.9-10, Zoning Consistency: Unable to locate the proposed text for the Zoning Code 4 Amendment for PC -15 Koll Center Site B. Provide strikeout/highlight and proposed clean versions. 5. Expand the study area to provide the following intersections and arterials analysis, within the City of Irvine study area: • MacArthur/Douglas • MacArthur/Michelson • MacArthur/1-405 SB ramp • MacArthur/1-405 NB ramp Teller/Michelson Teller/Dupont Von Karman/Dupont 6. Check the following intersections existing and 2022 volumes used to calculate the ICU values: 6 • MacArthur/Campus — PM • Von Karman/Campus — PM Confirm volumes and V/C values for existing and 2022 data included in the traffic study. City's ITAM traffic volumes are much higher than the ones shown in the study: • MacArthur — Main to 1-405 NB Ramps • MacArthur —1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson • Von Kerman — North of Main • Von Kerman — Dupont to Campus • Jamboree — North of Main • Jamboree — Main to 1-405 NB Ramps • Jamboree —1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson • Jamboree — Michelson to Dupont • Main — MacArthur to Von Karmen • Main — Von Karmen to Jamboree The Koll Center Residences Project 3-18 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 74 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 3 • Michelson — MacArthur to Von Karmen (should be 100% more traffic than coned shown) 7 • Michelson — Von Karmen to Jamboree B. The City is requesting that a build -out analysis (Post -2035) of the T s intersections and arterials within the City of Irvine study area be provided in 1 the report or as appendix for staff review. 9. Provide a section in the traffic study to list the status of the intersections and arterials identified to be mitigated as part of the 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR and whether this project triggers the need for any of these improvements. Some of the improvements identified were along the boundary of the study limits at the intersection of Macarthur/Campus, Von Karman/Campus, Jamboree/Campus, Jamboree/Birch, Jamboree/MacArthur, and SR -73 NB ramps/Bonita Canyon, all of which lie partially within the Irvine city limits. 10. Provide a detailed SB Jamboree right turn and EB Birch left turn lane analysis of the intersection of Jamboree and Birch. One of the accesses off of Birch Road is very dose to Jamboree Road and it appears to be a convenient 10 route to 1-405 and, as such, detailed analysis of this intersection should be prepared. Use City of Irvine Transportation Design Procedures adopted February 2007 to perform a detailed operation analysis. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (949) 724-6395, or by email at mchao(e)citvofirvine.org. Sincerely, —X-e� MELISSA CHAO Senior Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst Farideh Lyons, Senior Transportation Analyst The Koll Center Residences Project 3-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 75 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The proposed revisions to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) would allow for a maximum of 3,019 gross square feet of commercial uses. The Project proposes 3,000 square feet (sf) of retail uses. Response 2 With respect to the total required parking spaces, Table 3-4. Parking Summary, has been revised to 555 and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Table 3-4. Parking Summary Dwelling Units Proposed Parking Ratio Building 1 Building 2 Building 3L(d Total Total (du) Required Spaces'. Total (du) Required Spaces' Total (du) RequireRequired Spaces' Spaces'' Provided Spaces 1 Bedroom 1.8 17 31 16 29 17 30 902 Bedrooms 1.8 60 108 60 108 60 108 324 - 3 Bedrooms 2.0 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 60 - Total Resident Parking 87 159 86 157 87 158 260 474 477 Guest 0.3 27 26 87 27 79 80 Required 186 183 186 55 557 Provided in Buildings 1, 2, 3 426 369 795 Free -Standing Parking Structure (office use)c- 492 Total: New Structured Parking 1,287 Surface Parking: Retail, Public Park 21 Surface Parking: Office 97 Total: Surface Parking 118 Total New Parking: Structured and Surface 1,405 Total Existing Parking 1,651 Total Demolished Parking -819 Total New Parking 1,405 Net Change 586 Note: Parking Ratio = number of spaces per bedroom; du = dwelling unit a. "Required" parking ratios are in accordance with the standards adopted for Uptown Newport. Source: Uptown Newport Village Parking Study Guidelines, DKS, 2012, and as proposed for the Project as part of the PC -15 amendment. b. Any differences due to rounding C. Nine levels: three levels of below -ground parking and six levels of above -ground parking including rooftop parking. Source: MVE + Partners, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-20 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 70 City of Newport Beach Response 3 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The parking supply for the existing Koll Center Newport development was previously approved for the site by the City of Newport Beach. The Project does not change the existing office square footage or the parking requirements for the existing Koll Center Newport development. The existing parking supply (1,651 spaces) and available parking supply by phase must be maintained. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. Response 4 The proposed new sections of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards that pertain to the Proposed Project are provided following the responses to Comment Letter A-1. Response 5 The study locations for the Project were discussed and agreed upon with City of Irvine staff at the start of the Project, and confirmed at the release of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The requested additional study locations are at the fringe of the study area, and the project -related traffic that would pass through those locations would be a nominal amount of traffic. Response 6 The City of Irvine provided existing peak hour count data for these two intersections. Based on direction from City of Irvine staff, any counts that were prior to 2016 were grown by a factor of 2 percent per year to develop Year 2016 existing volumes. The adjusted (grown) volumes provided by the City have been checked against the volumes used in the Existing ICU worksheets, and the volumes match. The Year 2022 peak hour forecasts for these two intersections were developed from the 2017 ITAM (Irvine Transportation Analysis Model) forecasts provided by the City of Irvine. For the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, the required TPO annual growth rates were applied and peak hourvolumes from Committed Projects provided by the City of Newport Beach were added. For the CECA (Cumulative) analysis, the peak hour forecasts consist of the 2017 ITAM forecasts, a 2 percent annual growth perthe City of Irvine, and peak hourvolumes from committed and cumulative projects in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Response 7 The City of Irvine provided existing (2016) average daily traffic (ADT) count data for most of the study roadway segments. In some cases, where 2016 data was not available, 2015 data was used. Any ADT counts that were prior to 2016 were grown by a factor of 2 percent per year to develop Year 2016 existing volumes. The existing (grown) ADT count data provided bythe City has been checked against the volumes used in the Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis table, and the volumes match. The City of Irvine also provided Year 2020 ITAM ADT forecasts. Based on direction from City of Irvine staff, the ITAM 2020 forecasts were grown by a factor of 2 percent per yearto develop Year 2022 ADT forecasts. The adjusted (grown) forecasts provided by the City have been checked against the volumes used in the Year 2022 Roadway Segment Analysis table, and the volumes match. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-21 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 77 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Regarding the comment specific to the segment of Michelson Drive from MacArthur Boulevard to Von Karman Avenue, the commenter states that the volume should be 100 percent more than shown. Research into that comment yielded the following findings: The segment of Michelson Drive from MacArthur Boulevard to Von Karman Avenue is bisected by Dupont Drive, The 2016 ADT data provided by the City contained just one ADT count — between MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue — without specifying if the count was taken west of Dupont Drive or east of Dupont Drive. Based on a review of 2015 ADT count data, it appears that the 2016 ADT count data provided by the City reflects the volume on Michelson Drive east of Dupont Drive (between Dupont Drive and Von Karman Avenue). This conclusion is reached, because the 2015 ADT count data shows that the volume on Michelson Drive west of Dupont Drive (between MacArthur Boulevard and Dupont Drive) is approximately 20,000 ADT, while the volume to the east of Dupont Drive drops to roughly half of that volume. Since the 2016 ADT data did not provide a roadway volume for the segment west of Dupont Drive, the higher volume from the 2015 count data (west of Dupont Drive) was grown by 2 percent peryearto 2016, and evaluated for the Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Analysis, with the following results: The level of service (LOS) on the segment west of Dupont Drive would be LOS C for Existing Conditions, which is an acceptable level of service, and the segment would not require additional peak hour link analysis. The 2020 ITAM ADT forecasts provided by the City did include a forecast volume for both segments of Michelson Drive (west of Dupont and east of Dupont Drive), and the higher volume (west of Dupont Drive) was used in all of the Opening Year 2022 scenarios. Response 8 The Project is fully consistent with the General Plan, and a buildout analysis would not be required. Response 9 The results of the analysis in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Study indicate that the Project would not result in a significant impact, and would not require traffic -related mitigation at any of the locations referenced. Response 10 The Project does not propose any changes to the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street, and does not propose to move any of the existing driveways for the Koll Center Newport development. The Koll Center Newport driveway closest to the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street is Driveway 3, which aligns with Teller Avenue, approximately 775 feet west of Jamboree Boulevard. (There are other driveways on Birch Street closer to Jamboree Road, but they are for other, existing developments.) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-22 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation No. of LOS E Existing Roadway Segment Facility Type Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS MacArthur to Michelson Drive Secondary 4 28,000 20,276 0.724 C Von Karman The level of service (LOS) on the segment west of Dupont Drive would be LOS C for Existing Conditions, which is an acceptable level of service, and the segment would not require additional peak hour link analysis. The 2020 ITAM ADT forecasts provided by the City did include a forecast volume for both segments of Michelson Drive (west of Dupont and east of Dupont Drive), and the higher volume (west of Dupont Drive) was used in all of the Opening Year 2022 scenarios. Response 8 The Project is fully consistent with the General Plan, and a buildout analysis would not be required. Response 9 The results of the analysis in the Draft EIR Traffic Impact Study indicate that the Project would not result in a significant impact, and would not require traffic -related mitigation at any of the locations referenced. Response 10 The Project does not propose any changes to the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street, and does not propose to move any of the existing driveways for the Koll Center Newport development. The Koll Center Newport driveway closest to the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street is Driveway 3, which aligns with Teller Avenue, approximately 775 feet west of Jamboree Boulevard. (There are other driveways on Birch Street closer to Jamboree Road, but they are for other, existing developments.) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-22 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The following analysis of the eastbound left -turn lane on Birch Street and the southbound right -turn lane on Jamboree Road provides an evaluation of the existing configuration conditions, which demonstrates that the conditions would not be altered by the Project. The eastbound left -turn configuration on Birch Street at Jamboree Road consists of one exclusive left -turn lane and a shared through/left lane. Since the east leg of the intersection is the entrance to a University of California, Irvine (UCI) fleet/service yard, the eastbound through volume is nominal, and the shared through/left lane serves primarily as a second left -turn lane at this intersection. The exclusive left -turn pocket is 250 feet long, measured from the limit line at Jamboree Road to the end of the left -turn pocket stripe. Behind (to the west of) that, is a 50 -foot opening to the left -turn pocket, followed by the two-way left -turn lane in the center of Birch Street that extends back to Teller Avenue. The shared through/left lane is also 250 feet long, based on the pavement striping. Beyond the striping is the #1 through lane. Vehicles intending to turn left at the intersection can approach the intersection by staying in the #1 through lane, which becomes the shared through/left lane, essentially extending the capacity to queue for the left turn in the #1 through lane beyond the left -turn striping designation. The eastbound left -turn storage at this intersection, therefore consists of 500 feet of striped storage with the ability to accommodate additional left -turn storage for both left -turn lanes, if needed, beyond the striped areas. The peak left -turn demand for the eastbound approach is forecasted to be approximately 365 vehicles in the evening peak hour for the Opening Year 2022 with Project condition. The Project's contribution to this volume would be ten PM peak hour vehicles. Based on the City of Irvine Transportation Design Procedures for Turn Lane Pocket Lengths (TDP -1) for existing signalized locations, the recommended storage length would be 400 to 475 feet for the Minimum (90% probability) condition. The striped left -turn storage in the two left -turn lanes satisfies this requirement. The southbound right -turn configuration on Jamboree Road at Birch Street consists of one dedicated free - right -turn lane, with a traffic island to separate the right -turn and through movements. Right -turning vehicles are unrestricted by the signal at the intersection; they only need to stop if there is a pedestrian in the short crosswalk between the sidewalk and the traffic island. The exclusive right -turn pocket is 220 feet long, measured from the start of the right -turn pocket stripe to the crosswalk. There is no taper at the start of the right -turn lane. Beyond the start of the turn lane (to the north), the curb lane continues, essentially as an auxiliary/weave lane, with 10 to 12 feet of unstriped pavement width outside the #3 southbound through lane on Jamboree Road. A distance of over 300 feet is available between the start of the southbound free -right -turn lane and the end of the free -right -turn lane for right -turning vehicles turning from eastbound Campus Drive onto southbound Jamboree Road. Vehicles intending to turn right from southbound Jamboree Road onto Birch Street can merge from the #3 through lane into the curb lane prior to reaching the official striped right -turn lane. The southbound right -turn storage at this intersection, therefore, consists of 220 feet of striped storage, with the ability to accommodate additional right -turn storage, if needed, in the 300 -foot curb auxiliary/weave lane beyond the striped area. Based on the City of Irvine Transportation Design Procedures for Free Right -Turn Lanes at Signalized Intersections (TDP -5) for existing locations, the recommended distance for the right -turn lane would be The Koll Center Residences Project 3-23 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 79 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments one foot per peak hour through vehicle per lane, to allow right -turning vehicles to not be impacted by the queued through movement. The peak hour southbound through movement is currently 1,774 vehicles in the evening peak hour, forecasted to increase to 2,125. The Project would not add any traffic to the southbound through movement. With three southbound through lanes, almost 600 feet of right -turn storage would be needed to satisfy TDP -5 for existing conditions, increasing to over 700 feet for forecasted conditions. The existing 220 -foot right -turn lane plus 300 feet of auxiliary/weave area does not satisfy the TDP -5 requirement. This is an existing deficiency, to which the Project would not contribute any traffic, and therefore would not worsen the deficient condition. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-24 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Letter A-2 Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Fiona M. Sanchez, Director of Water Resources October 19, 2017 aa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Irv,ne Ranch OCT a 510A w.r:o v,n+..vvr :I'rr OF Ocrober 19, 2017 2osatinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Availability - Kali Center Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Irvine Ranch Water Distrct (IRWD) has reviewed the Notice of Avadauiiity tNOA) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Kell Center Residences project in Newport Beach. TRWD offers these comments on the NOA. The NCA correctly indicates that the Proposed Prolect will be within 1RWD's service area and that IRWD would be responsible for providing potable water to the site. TRWD has checked its records. which mdicatod that the planned development for the Kali Center has not changed since the Notice of Preparation was issued on January 4, 2017. Therefore, IRWD reiterates its previous comments provided in our February 2. 2017, teuer regarding the Notice of Preparation for the Kali Center Residences Project. while the 2008 Irvine Business Complex Sub -Area Master Plan : SAMP) included the C:tv's 2,200 residential units in this general viourity, this specific development was not identified. ?ria to development plan submittal and approval, -he developer shall coordinate with IRWD to develop a technical memorandum or SAMP addendum, :dentifvmg potential impacts to the xtable, recycled. and sewer systems from this project. For questions about the technical memorandum or SAMP addendum, please contact Eric Akrvoshi, Principal Engineer in IR WD's Planning Division at (949)153-3552. IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review the NDA for the Kot Center Residences DEJR. if you have any questions or require additional information, ,Tease contact the undersigned or . -,o Ann Carey, Environmental Compliance Specialist at (949) A53-5326. Sincerely, Fiona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resources cc: Eric Akioyshi, :�tWD Jo Am Carey, IRWD Irvim aaoam Wata Mile • 15800 Snd Can n Am rvim, CA 32818 • NaIIIm AgBrem P,0. aw 87000. Irvem, CA 92819-7000 • 969.dE3y300 • www.ln xtl The Koll Center Residences Project 3-25 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 0 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As noted in IRWD's NOP comment letter, the Project is within IRWD's service area and IRWD would be responsible for providing potable water to the site. The project site has a General Plan land use category of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -1-12), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses. The MU -1-12 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and adjacent uses and permits a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units. The 2008 Irvine Business Complex Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) assumes the 2,200 residential units identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The 2,200 units are within the City of Newport Beach Airport Area. As a part of the Draft EIR, the SAMP Addendum was prepared. The report, dated May 9, 2017, is included as Appendix K to the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-26 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter A-3 Orange County Transportation Authority Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs November 1, 2017 MR OCTA 9 OFD`Recra86 November 1, 2017 M NB "` Cho. Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner faaaeanen Community Development Department vw aw. City of Newport Beach . u•r gws 100 Civic Center Drive a�a Newport Beach, CA 92660 aixa '"�•� Subject: Kell Center Residences Project (PA2015-024) Draft °i Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. `0"aY°r"k 2017011002) axor Dear Ms. Ung: Aa � Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with ae.en« p the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project o (Project). The following comments are provided for your consideration: aMwny aTC1ar • In Section 4.14 ('Traffic and Transportation'), subsection 4.14.3 ('Environmental Setting'),: o On page 4.14-12, under 'Existing Transportation System', Von Tan an.w Kerman Avenue is described as a Major Arterial north of Michelson an Drive. Please note that Von Karman Avenue is classified as a rT„5II mr Primary Arterial (4 -lane divided highway) north of Michelson Drive, per OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City MCM46Ml of Irvine's General Plan Circulation Element. OCTA recommends the City of Newport Beach coordinate with the City of Irvine to 1., determine if there is a need to update the traffic assumptions for amm, future conditions. Cv T Wnl.nMfcnI Omm, • On pages 4.14-13 to 4.14-14, under 'Existing Transit Services', please E refer to the most recent edition of the OCTA Bus Book (htto://www.octa.net/busbookn to reflect the correct time span for the routes described. CHIEFEXEwnvE OFFICE o Please revise the weekday and weekend headways based on Ov.ff.li;M . headways near the Project site. Additionally, present the weekday Cm &.11. 011. headways by Peak and Off -Peak. OwW County manspodanon Aahmly 550 South MainShaelIRO. So. 14184 /Orange 1Ca1irom,a 92860.15841(714)56000TA(6282) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-27 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation N Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Ms. Rosalmh Ung November 1, 2017 Page 2 Please revise the following: • Route 59: The nearest bus stop to the Project site is Campus -Teller • Route 76: Revise to reflect most recent route and schedule • Routes 212 and 213 are intracounty express routes • Route 472: The nearest bus stop to the Project site is Jamboree -Birch o Please add Information about the iShuttle as this service, provided by the City of Irvine, is within the vicinity. cor.rd 2 • Referring to Figure 4.14-3, please revise the map to include the iShuttle routes, the missing OCTA bus routes, and the most recent routing 3 (hftp://www.octa.nettPlans-and-Programs/GIS-Data/GIS-Data Download . • OCTA considers a project site to be served by OCTA bus routes if it is T within a'/z mile radius from the project site. On page 4.14-53 under'Public 1 4 Transit', please revise text to reflect the amount of routes served to the Project site based on the'/, mile service area. Throughout the development of this project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (714) 560-5907 or at dohu aOocta.net. Sincerely, /&_ Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs The Koll Center Residences Project 3-28 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Cha City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The description of the General Plan classification for Von Karman Avenue north of Michelson Drive is revised from Major (6 -lane) Highway to Primary (4 -lane) Arterial. The link analysis for Von Karman Avenue north of Michelson Drive assumed a daily capacity of a four -lane roadway, not a six -lane major roadway. Response 2 The bus route descriptions, including routing, schedules, and headways; were prepared based on the information available on the OCTA website at the timethe Draft EIR was under preparation. As requested, the current weekday—peak and off-peak—and weekend headways, based on the current OCTA bus book found at www.octa.net/busbook are as follows: - Route 59: weekday: peak -20 min; non -peak -70 min; weekend -50-60 min - Route 76: weekday: peak -55 min; non -peak -65 min; weekend -45-60 min - Route 178: weekday peak -35 min; non -peak -70 min - Route 212 (Express peak weekday service): 25 — 30 min - Route 213 (Express peak weekday service): 5 — 30 min - Route 472 (Metrolink peak weekday feeder): 10 — 35 min The following revisions to the descriptions of the routes and bus amenities are made: The nearest bus stop to the project site for Route 59 is the intersection of Campus Drive and Teller Avenue • Revised Figure 4.14-3 reflects the most recent Route 76 alignment Routes 212 and 213 are Intra -County Express Routes • The nearest bus stop to the project site for Route 472 is the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Drive The OCTA i -Shuttle provides morning and evening peak -hour service along two routes — Routes A and B — connecting the Tustin Metrolink Station with the Irvine Business Complex and John Wayne Airport. The routes currently operate weekdays from 6:09 AM to approximately 8:00 PM, with 7 to 15 -minute headways during the peak and 25 -to 35 -minute headways during the off-peak. Response 3 The i -Shuttle routing within the study area is shown on revised Figure 4.14-3. Response 4 The bus routes that provide service within a %2 -mile radius of the project site are Routes 59, 178, 212, and 472. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-29 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation M City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-30 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments M FIGURE 4.14-3: Existing Transit Routes The Koll Center Residences Project Section 3.0 to Comments © Not to scale Kimley»)Horn The Koll Center Residences Project 3-31 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 77 Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences project 3-32 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 22 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter A-4 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse November 14, 2017 STATE OF CALIFORNIAA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH r STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT e�"rosuws^ RDMNND G. BROWN JA KEa Ants GOVERNOR DIAaCNR November 14, 2017 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: The Kell Center Residences PA SCH#: 2017011002 DearRoaalinb Ung The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on November 13, 2017, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with Ore State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, ���%ate" Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O.Box3044 Sacrameoto,Cafifornia95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.cagov The Koll Center Residences Project 3-33 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation M City of Newport Beach Document Details Report. State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH/t 201701.1002 Project Title The Kell Center Residences PA Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type EIR. Draft EIR Description Note: Extended Review Per Lead Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The project would allow for a mixed use infill development with residential condos sf of ground floor retail uses, a 1.17 acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of existing surface parking areas. The 260 dwelling units would be in three, 13 -story buildings with a max building ht of 160 ft. The buildings would have two levels of above -grade and two to three levels of below -grade structured parking. The project would require the demolition of existing surface parking and landscaping within the project site. Office parking removed during construction and by the proposed development would be provided in a new free-standing parking structure, in one of the building parking structure, and surface parking areas. -Lead Agency Contact Name Rosalinh Ung Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949-644-3208 Fax email Address 100 Civic Center Drive City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92660 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat/Long 33°39'57"N/117°51'35.4"W Cross Streets Birch Street, Von Karman Ave. Parcel No. 445-131-04,29,30 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1405, SR -55, SR -73 Airports John Wayne Airport Railways Waterways Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area Schools UC Irvine Land Use Surface parking; Kell Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15); Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) Project issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Cumulative Effects; DrainagelAbsorption; Flood PlainlFlooding; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil ErosionlCompaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patri Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 0 911 3/2 01 7 StartofReview 09/13/2017 EndofReview 11/13/2017 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-34 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 90 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter has noted that the City of Newport Beach has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for environmental documents, consistent with CECW. Further, the commenter notes that the State Clearinghouse did not receive any comments from State agencies on the Draft EIR. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-35 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 9:L City of Newport Beach Letter A-5 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) James Chuang, Senior Environmental Specialist November 7, 2017 MSoCalGas A a�Sempra Energy many 11/7/2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Ceder Residences Projed Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments lamm mvmg 5 Wrraamnmmbi rysiant Sw5•m esim .Gm 0Gm5at5 sempm avgwians Gi1]Fl 555am 8lrtt 313.31.5511 N fax: 333518 tib Southern California Cress Cmryany (SoCalGas) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEQ2) for the Koll Center Residences Project SoCalGas understands that the proposed project is a mixed-use Mill development including 260 residential condominium units, 3,000 square feet of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a freestanding parking structure, lighting, landscaping and pedestrian improvements, utility improvements, and the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. We respectfully request that the following commons be incorporated in the Fin al EIR. • SoCalGas has two 3 -inch medium pressure distribution pipelines adjacent to the project site: one lies underneath the southbound lanes along Von Karan Avenue within the project site and the other lies underneath the southbound lanes along Birch Street east of the project site. SoCalGas also has numerous medium pressure service pipelines that branch to the east and west from the distribution pipeline underneath Van Karan Avenue, as well as several service pipelines branching west into the parcel site from the distribution line underneath Birch Street. • SoCalGas recommends that the project proponent call Underground Service Alert at 811 at least two business days prior to performing any excavation work for the proposed project. Underground Service Alert will coordinate with SoCalGas and other Utility owners in the area to mark the locations of buried m ility-owned lines. • Should it be determined that the proposed project will requaenew service or may require SoCalGas to abandon andlor relocate or otherwise modify any portion of its existing natural gas lines, SoCalGas respectfully requests that the project proponent coordinate with us by calling (877) 238-0092 for New Residential Services. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-36 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 92 City of Newport Beach P002Mf Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft EM Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact SoCalGas Environmental Review at Envreview&emorautilities. cont or (213) 244-5817. Sincerely, -- ;' dames Chuang /' Senior Environmental Specialist Southern California Gas Company COmudfer Pezda, SoCalGas The Koll Center Residences Project 3-37 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 9°3 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments This comment letter states that SoCalGas has gas distribution infrastructure in Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street, and requests the Applicant to coordinate with SoCalGas regarding the provision of service to the Project. The comment is noted and no further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-38 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 9-/+ City of Newport Beach Letter A-6 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer November 10, 2017 ORANGE COUNTY Section 3.0 Responses to Comments AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.2525170 fax: 949.252.6012 November 10, 2017 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Koll Center Residences NOA of DEIR Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Koll Center Residential Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). The proposed project consists of a mixed-use infill development that includes 260 residential condominiums, j,000 square feetof ground -floor retail uses, a 1 - acre public park, a parking structure, andthe rgconfiguration ofsome'ofthe surface parking. Theproject is located at 4400 Von Karman A.Oeriue�ia Newport Beachy ' California. The proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)Part77 Notification Area for JWA. The DEIR states that the proposed maximum height for the residential towers is 160 feet and also discusses that the ground elevation for the project site ranges from 46 feet to 52 feet. The DEIR should clarify whether any portionofthe proposed project would penetrate the horizontal surface for JWA which would be penetrated at 206 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The ALUC recommends that. proposed developments not exceed the horizontal surface since the airspace above 206 feet AMSL is reserved for air navigation. The Land Use Planning Section of the DEIR discusses the various FAA surfaces above JWA but does not discuss the project's location within the horizontal surface for JWA. We recommend that the DEIR specifically address the proposed project's elevation above or below the horizontal surface. Development penetrating the 206 feet AMSL is not recommended and should be considered an impact to airspace. As noted in the'DEIR, a:referral by the City to the AtiUC-inay, be required for this project p clue to the location of'the proposal within an AELUP PlanningArta and due tothenature of the.required City approvals (i.e. Zoning Code Amendment) under PUC Section The Koll Center Residences Project 3-39 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 9,5 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments ALUC C=.U- K011 Cmm DEIR 11/10117 Ngc 2 21676(6). In this regard, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected conrd Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third 2 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 again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum@ocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer The Koll Center Residences Project 3-40 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The project site is within the horizontal surface elevation 2006 feet "FAR Part 77, John Wayne Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Area". Project within the horizontal surface area for JWA. Development: 206 AMSL is not recommended and considered an impact to airspace. The FAA, in their analysis of the proposed buildings, stated "This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation..." Buildings would not exceed 206 feet above mean sea level. Response 2 The comment is noted and no further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-41 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 97 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-42 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach Comment Letters and Responses: Organizations (B) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-43 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-44 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 100 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter B-1 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. Patricia Martz September 30, 2017 C.C.R.P.A. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 9 26 19-413 2 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. September 30, 2017 RosalinhUng, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Kell Center Residences Project Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report. We concur with the determination. that the project area is culturally sensitive and with Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 with respect to the provisions for monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and Native American- However, mericanHowever, we take issue with the statement on page 4.4-11 where mifigation is. defined as data recovery, and with the mitigation measures because there are no provisions for avoidance or preservation of significant archaeological or tribal resources in place, if feasible. For example, should significant archaeological resources be discovered in the proposed park or landscaped areas. State and federal guidelines and regulations, including California Public Resources Code of Regulations 15126.4. provide that with respect to archaeological sites, preservation through avoidance is the preferred treatment. Archaeology as it is practiced today is a destructive process and it is important to preserve significant archaeological sites for a future, less destructive archaeology. Most important, prehistoric sites hold special significance for Native American descendants and these religious and cultural values cannot be mitigated through data recovery excavations. It is estimated that 90% of prehistoric archaeological sites in Orange County have been destroyed to make way for development. The mitigation measures should have a provision for consideration of the feasibility of preservation in place. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, PhD. President The Kell Center Residences Project 3-45 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 101 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Preservation is a form of mitigation. Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.4-1 has been expanded to reflect the directives of CEQ4 with respect to archaeological resources, and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.4-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4fb1131) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Priorto the issuance of a grading permit and/or action that would permit project site disturbance (whichever occurs first), the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that the Applicant has retained a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to observe grading activities and if preservation in place is not feasible, to salvage and catalogue historic and archaeological resources, as necessary. The selection of a qualified Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor shall be made by the archaeologist subject to the approval of the City.... The Koll Center Residences Project 3-46 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 102 City of Newport Beach Letter B -2a Line in the Sand Dennis Baker, President October 9, 2017 UI'.e :1. Xie Sway[ 1._ October 9, 2017 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Paid for by Line In the Sand PO Box 15725 • Newport Beach, CA 92659 _ 949.734.0681 • LinelnTheSandPACcom Facebook @LITSPAC • Twitter @LITSPACNB • YouTube RE: Koll Center Residences Draft EIR: Request for Extension of the Public Comment Period Dear Ms. Ung, Line in the Sand submits this request for additional time to review and comment on the Koll Residences Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our mission is to protect the residential character and qualities of Newport Beach. We do so by defending our beautiful town and residents' right to participate in local government processes. The California Environmental Quality Act also places a priority on public participation: "[p]ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process." CEQA Guidelines Section 15201. In this matter, public participation during the 45 -day comment period already underway is hindered because the DEIR's description of the proposed Koll Residences Project lacks information essential to the public's ability to adequately review and comment on the adequacy of the DEIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation and conclusions as to the significance of impacts. Moreover, the cancellation of the Planning Commission Study Session on October 19th eliminates an opportunity to asktimely questions about these missing elements of the Project Description during thecurrent comment period. Project as defined by CEQA, means the whole of an action, which hasthe potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). The DEIR's description of the Koll Residences Project fails to include the Draft Development Agreement as well as information concerning thetype of retail uses and pricing for residential units. Development agreements often contain new considerations or information that may create additional impacts or provide additional mitigation. This information is logically an important part of the Project description and must be available to the public as part of the DEIR during the review period. Information about thetype or likely range of retail uses and unit pricing is essential information tothe Project description. Z 3 Line in the Sand (LITS), a Newport Beach Political Action Committee ON 1369133), is a 501(ck4I organization which provides a unified voice for Newport Beach voters who want to preserve the residential character and Qualiq of our town. Contributions to political action committees, such as LITS, arenot taxdedudble, The Koll Center Residences Project 3-47 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation l03 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments WYw October 9, 2017 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Page Two Without this information it is not possible to evaluate the DEIR's conclusions concerning traffic impacts. For example, the Project's 'trip capture"onsite -because of the elimination of the need for a commute trip ortrip for services --relies on a good understanding of the retail and 3 housing proposals. Without additional information about the Project it is not possible for us to adequately review the DEIR's conclusions concerning trip capture and therefore traffic impacts generated by the Project. Fort hese reasons. we respectfully reauest that the Draft Development Agreement, information about unit orici no. type of retail services and lobs associated therewith. be provided for public review, and the comment Period extended accordingly to Provide a full 4S -days from the date 4 of release of this information. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project DEIR and hopeto be able to do so adequately. l,w "P, 9C ratodE 644M President cc Newport Beach City Council City Council Leilan i Brown, City of Newport Beach, City Clerk CNB Community Development Staff Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director Rosalinh Ung, Associate Plannerr CNB Planning Commission Peter Koetting, Chair Peter Zak, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Bill Dunlap Lauren Kleiman Kory Kramer Lee Lowrey CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov LBrown@newportbeachca.gov SJurjis@newportbeachca.gov RUng@newportbeachca.gov pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov pzak@newportbeachca.gov eweigand@newportbeachca.gov bduniap@newportbeachca.gov Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov Line in the Sand (LITS), a Newport Beady Pollti®l Action Committee pD% 1369133),a a SO(cy4) organization which promdesa unified voice roi Newport Reach voters who want to preserve the residential character and quality of our town. Contributions to political action committees, such as LITS, wren at aw deductible, The Koll Center Residences Project 3-48 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation IM City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The public review period for the Draft EIR was extended from September 13, 2017 to November 13, 2017. The CEQA Guidelines mandate a 45 -day public review period for EIRs. The City elected to extend the public review period an additional 17 days beyond what is mandated to provide the public a total of 62 days to review the EIR and related materials. With respect to the commenter's position that there are "missing elements of the Project Description", no response is possible because the commenter does not state what elements of the Project Description are missing. With respect to the Study Session, the Planning Commission Study Session has been rescheduled for January 18, 2018. Response 2 CECIA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. Response 3 The sales price for the condominiums has not been set by the Applicant, nor is such information relevant to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. The dwelling units are not proposed as affordable housing units; no further information is needed in the Project Description to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project proposes 3,000 square feet (sf) of retail uses, of which 1,768 sf are proposed on the ground floor of Building 1 and 1,232 sf on the shared ground floor podium for Buildings 2 and 3. The specific uses have not yet been determined. The traffic analysis applied a modest ten percent internal trip capture factor to the retail component of the Project to account for the potential for internal interactions that may occur between the future retail use and the existing offices and proposed residential uses. The ten percent factor was applied only to the small retail component, and represents a trip reduction of 13 trips over the course of any entire day, 0 trips in the morning peak hour, and 1 trip in the evening peak hour. This reduction in external trips is inconsequential to the Project traffic impacts on the surrounding street system. Although the potential is much greater for there to be a substantial internal trip capture between the proposed residential uses and the existing offices, for a conservative analysis, no internal trip reduction was assumed between the residential and office uses. Response 4 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-49 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1015 City of Newport Beach Letter Ill Line in the Sand Dennis Baker, President November 13, 2017 November g3, 2og7 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach goo Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Pal for by Line In the Sand PO Boz 2S7z5 • Newport Beach, CA 92659 _ 9497340684• LinelnTheSandPAC.com Pacebook @LI SPAC -Twitter @LITSPACNB • youl RE: Preliminary Comments on Koll Center Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report; SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung, Line in the Sand (LITS) submits this preliminary comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Koll Center Residences (Project). LITS believes this Project is premature given the City's commitment to updating its decade -old General Plan. A memo on the General Plan Update from the City identified two focused areas where re-evaluation of the City's vision is indicated in the Update: The Airport Area and Newport Center. htto://soon-newoortbeach.org/wo-contenUtmloads/2017/05/GPU- flver-CdMRA-2017-05-18.vdf. However, because the City has circulated the DEIR for this Project, LITS submits these preliminary comments. The DEIR's Project Description Is Incomplete A Project, as defined by CEQA, means the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CECIA Guidelines Section 15378. The DEIR's description of the Koll Residences Project fails to include complete description of the Project. Examples of Information omitted from the DEIR include, but are not limited to: • The Draft Development Agreement; • The specific type of retall uses in the retail component; • Price range for residential units (although the Applicant did comment on the luxury pricing of the units at the October 30Lh, 2017 briefing). • Information concerning architectural features such as building materials, lighting, exterior appurtenances (such as antennas, etc.), landscaping and other design elements that could either mitigate orexacerbate bird strikes. DEIR's must have a strong Informational foundation Including but not limited to, complete information about the whole project and project setting, necessaryto support adequate disclosure of Impacts, analysis Line in the Sand (LITS), a Newport Beach Political Action Committee (ID# 1369t33i, Is a 5ogc)(4) organ eation which provides a unified voice for Newport Beach voterswhowanttopreseraemi, residential character and Quality of our town. Contributions to political actl on committees, such as L ITS, are nottaa-deductible. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-50 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 100 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments U14 �44 'V C 1544• of direct and indirect Impacts as well as provide the factual basis for determining the disposition of impacts in terms of significance. Development agreements often contain new considerations or Information that may create additional Impacts or provide additional mitigation. This information Is logically an important part of the Project description and must be available to the public as part of the DEIR during the review period. Information about the type or likely range of retail uses and unit pricing is essential information to the Project description. Without this information it is not possible forthe DEIR to adequately evaluate the DEIR's conclusions concern! ng traffic impacts and the related impacts such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise. For example, the DEI R's assumptions concerning trips and "trip capture" on site —tied to lower commute trips or trip for services —must rely on a Project description of the types of retail services and housing pricing. The DEIR must be recirculated to include this informatlon. Specifically: • What will the range of housing unit pricing be? • Is that pricing affordable to employees residing in a 2 -mile blking/walking radius? • What services will be provided in the retail area? • Are the services that typically reducedaily trips and trip length to the top daily destinat! ons (e.r.., grocery, pharmacy, day-care/schools, laundry, medical, dining, gym) provided in a 2 -mile biking/walking radius? Without additional information about the Project it !s not possible for us to adequately review the DEIR's conclusions concerning trip capture and therefore traffic impacts generated by the Project. For these reasons, we believe the DEIR must be revised and recirculated with this information included and both project -related and cumulative impact analyses related to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, bird -related impacts, among others, revised accordingly. The DEIR's Environmental Setting Information Is Incomplete The DEIR's description of the existing environmental setting, like the Project Description, is an essential foundational element of an adequate DEIR. Without complete, up to date information about the Project and Cumulative setting the DEI R's analysis of impacts cannot be legally adequate. Here, among other setting information, the DEIR omits: 1. All cumulative projects (e.g., Newport Crossings, Banning Ranch, numerous projects in the Clty Irvine). 2 2016 ambient air quality information. 3. Flight patterns and flight frequency by private planes and training exercises. See e.g., comment letter submitted by So Cal Pilots Assn on the DEIR. 4. Migratory bird and bird use in the Project area (e.g., bird travel and use between ponds and Upper Newport Bay, other water bodies on migratory routes and foraging and nestingareas in Orange County, Pacific Flyway). Line in the Sand (LITS), a Nevpon Beach FoliticeI Action Committee (ID# c36y�33), is a Souq(q) erganzatim which provides a unified voice for Newport Beach voters who want to pre serve the resid ential character and Qual ity of our town. Contributionsto political action committees, such as LITS, are rot tax-deductible. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-51 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2L)7 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Paid for by A��j//Mor Line In the Sand PO Box z57z5 •Newport Beach, CA 92659 ..0011111�s,,, ; 949.734.0684 • LlnelnThe5andPAC.com Pacebook @LITSPAC -Twitter @LITSPACNB • youTube 5. Existing "voter approved" development by parcel in Newport Beach, inclusive ofTDR's.l For these reasons we believe the DEIR must be revised and recirculated with this information included and both project -related and cumulative impact analyses related to traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions; bird -related impacts, among others, revised accordingly. Questions Coneemingthe Proposed Transfer of Development Rights In addition tothe above comments, Line In the Sand believes that the Project's reliance on transferred rights must be reconciled with updated information about howthis and prior TDR's, as well as any foreseeable TDR's changethe numbers in the General Plan development tables. Doesthe City have this Information? If so, please provide it in response to this comment. Where are the available credits being transferred from? Please document they are still available and have not been used. General Plan tables need to be amended to reflectthe new, current numbers (and can't be left showing old, stale, out of date ones). In addition, please explain why the TDR in this instance, since it would change the numbers in the anomalytables, does not automatically trigger a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and therefore an analysis of the need for a vote of the people. If the TDR does not trigger change in numbers and GPA, please describe in detail the authorization in the Cites charter, codes, General Plan or other authority. Concluding Comments We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the DEIR. For the above stated reasons, we request the DEIR be revised and recirculated. Alternatively, the City should consider requestingthe applicant 5 withdrawthe Project and instead, participate as will we In the City's General Pian Update process underway. Very truly yours, Veoxrx4o 8"a&4 President ' Please also explain how this differs from the development assumptions in the City'strafftc model where they differ? Bthe City has not updated development numbers by parcel —please explain why not. Ll ne in the Sand (LITS), a Newport Peach Political Action Committee (DO e359133), Is a 5ogc)(4) organa ation which provides a unified vuce For Newport Beach VOter,.howant tO pleYNClhe re,,ds.,J(h ai and Quailty G(Our tOWn COn"bl tiMSt,,.Iiftal aCti On COTmittee5, 5ulhas LlT$, are nOttax-0eductlble. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-52 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation W Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments U14 �44 'VI C 15l efi Newport Beach Clty Council City Council CityCounci l@newportbeachca.gov Lei lani Brown, City of Newport Beach, City Clerk LBrown@newportbeachca.gov CNB Community Development Staff Seimone Jurps, Community Development Director Slurjis@newportbeachca.gov Rosallnh Ung Associate Planner RUng@newportbeachca.gov CNB Planning Commission Peter Koetting, Chair Peter Zak, Vice Chal r Erik Weigand, Secretary Bill Dunlap Lauren Kleiman Kory Kramer Lee Lowrey pkoettingOnewportbeachca.eov pza k@ newportbeachca. Rov ewei¢and@ newportbeachca.eov bdunlap@ newportbeachca.aov Ikleiman @ newportbeachca.Rov kkramer@ newoortbeachca.aov Ilowrey@ newportbeachca.aov Line in the Sand (LITS), a Newpon Beach Politlal Action Committee (ID# c36y�33), is a Souq(q) erganzation whlrh provides a unified voice for Newport Beach v.terswhpwanttppreserve the residential character and Quality of our town. Contributionsto political action committees, such as LITS, are not tax-deductible. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-53 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :Lo9 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The City has not initiated the process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to utilize the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. As a point of clarification, the memo referenced by the commenter notes that an update to the General Plan may include a "review the City's vision for the Airport area and Newport Center...... The statement should not be construed by the commenter as a commitment by the City to modify the development assumptions for the Airport Area. Response 2 With respect to the Development Agreement, CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project proposes 3,000 square feet (sf) of retail uses, of which 1,768 sf are proposed on the ground floor of Building 1 and 1,232 sf on the shared ground floor podium for Buildings 2 and 3. The specific uses have not yet been determined. The affordability of the proposed condominiums does not constitute an environmental issue and is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No further response is required. The Draft EIR provides the information requested by the commenter concerning architectural features; please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. With respect to bird strikes, the City of Newport Beach does not have adopted design guidelines related to potential bird collisions with buildings. As with all development, avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with the proposed buildings as well as the existing buildings within and outside of Koll Center Newport could occur. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images. In addition, internal building lighting can interfere with some night -migrating birds. The frequency of bird collisions in any particular area depends on many factors, including local and migratory avian populations; densities and species composition; migration characteristics; resting and feeding patterns; habitat preferences; time of year; prevailing winds; and weather conditions. Where existing and proposed buildings include wide expanses of glass, there is the potential for bird collisions and mortalities. It should be noted that the project site is within an existing developed area. The The Koll Center Residences Project 3-54 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 110 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City is not aware of known reports of avian injury or mortality associated with the existing buildings within or adjacent to Koll Center Newport. It is not expected that there will be any substantial adverse effect on sensitive species because of the lack of suitable on-site foraging habitat to attract such species to the project site. The proposed building design includes architectural details to break up the amount of glazing on the facades as is shown in Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-9 of the Draft EIR. As addressed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, reflective or shiny materials would not be used. The Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) and concrete structural materials have matte finishes and would therefore have minimal to no reflectance. Metals accents would be specified to have a matte finish with minimal reflectance. The Proposed Project does include the use of glass throughoutthe buildings for window walls, curtain walls, and railings. However, the glass and glazing would be specified as Solarban 60 Clear with minimal reflectance. There are glazing design features that are compatible with energy conservation and bird safe design such as low reflectivity and opaque surfaces. The Proposed Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on avian populations. Response 3 With respect to cumulative projects, please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. With respect to flight patterns and frequency, please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. It should be noted that the airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including private aircraft. With respect to issues related to migratory birds, a robust discussion of potential impacts can be found in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. While there is no suitable habitat for any special -status wildlife species on the project site, some of the existing trees could provide nesting habitat for native birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.3-1 requires a preconstruction survey for nesting birds with procedures should nesting birds be discovered. Implementation of MM 4.3-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. The analysis was initiated and completed prior to the release of the 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data (May 2017). Ambient air quality monitoring data does not vastly differ from 2015 to 2016. Therefore, the incorporation of the 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data would not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR and additional mitigation would not be required. With respect to "voter approved" development in the City, the City tracks this information as required by City Charter Section 423. The requested data is available on the City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/com munity-development-/planning- division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/charter-section-423-tracking-tables. The data is current and is updated where changes occur within a Statistical Area. There is only one transfer of development rights project in the Airport Area: MacArthur at Dolphin -Striker Way, which is identified on Table 4-14-14, City of Newport Beach Committed Projects, of Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-55 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 111 City of Newport Beach Response 4 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The anomaly locations for the Airport Area are shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area 1-4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. Response 5 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-56 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 112 Section 3.0 to Comments -IW.f NEMPORTBEAC GENERAL PIAN Rgure LU3 STATISTICALAREA MAP The Koll Center Residences Project 3-5] Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation UP 22.5 Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences project 3-58 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Letter B -3a Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) Michelle Black, Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP representing SPON October 9, 2017 Hermosa Beach Office ,BC Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fax (310)788-1402 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone; (619) 9404522 v .cbcearthlsw.com October 9, 2017 Via Email rang(2,newportheachca.gov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Michelle Bleck Email Address: mnb®cbmarthlaw.com Direct Phone: 310-798-2400 Ext.5 Re: Request for a 1Vlinimum 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project, SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: SPON respectfully requests an extension of the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) comment period for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 16, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. The City's current 45 -day comment period will close on October 27, 2017. An additional 20 days of public comment would ensure the City is able to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) goal of ensuring public participation in the environmental review process. CEQA Guidelines Section 15201 provides, "[p]ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process" Courts have held, "Environmental review derives its vitality from public participation." (Ocean View Estates HomeownersAss'n, Inc. v. Montecito WaterDist. (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4th 396, 400.) SPON has retained experts to review technical portions of the DEIR in order to provide the City with thorough and constructive comments. Unless extended, the short comment period on this highly complex Project makes is likely that substantial comments on the DEIR, from SPON and other community members and organizations, will not be submitted until after the DEIR public comment period has closed. While SPON recognizes that the public may submit comments after the close of the DEIR comment period, late -submitted comments may not receive the good faith written responses required of comments submitted prior to the close of the formal comment period SPON wishes to ensure that its comments to the City are complete and thorough and that it is afforded the opportunity to receive and review the City's written responses. If the comment period is not extended an additional 20 days, SPON and others will be deprived of the meaningful, two-way communication with the City otherwise required by the CEQA process. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-59 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1115 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach October 9, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, SPON's members have determined that the DEIR contains citations and links to documents that are not currently available to the public. SPON and other members of the public are currently reviewing the DEIR to compile a list of these documents so that the City may make them available. The Development Agreement for the Project is also unavailable and should be disclosed so that the public and decisionmakers may ascertain whether all aspects of the Project, its impacts, and its mitigation measures and implementation conditions have not been adequately disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR. A short, 20 -day extension of the comment period is necessary to provide the public the opportunity to review these supporting materials and to provide the City the opportunity to satisfy CEQA's public participation requirements. Thank you for your consideration of this request to extend the close of the comment period for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 16, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michelle N. Bla 1" behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport The Koll Center Residences Project 3-60 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation card 1 110 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The 45 -day public review period forth e Draft EIR was extended. Rather than ending on October 27, 2017, the review period was extended to November 13, 2017, which provided the public a total of 62 days for public review and comments. CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. With respect to the commenter's reference to unavailable citations and links, the City requests that the commenter contact City staff directly. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-61 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 227 City of Newport Beach Letter B -3b Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) Michelle Black, Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP representing SPON November 13, 2017 Hermosa Beach Office q, BC Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fez (310)798-2402 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (619) 940 522 wwwxbcearthlaw.com November 13, 2017 Via Email ridnggnewportheackcagov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Michelle Black Email Address: mnb®cbcearthlaw.rom Direr[ Phone: 310-798-2400 Eat. 5 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: SPON thanks the City for extending the comment period in response to our request SPON submits these comments on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) prepared for the Koll Center Residences Project (Project). Although it is presented as a mixed-use development, the Project would be almost 100 percent residential, with 260 luxury condominiums in three, 160 foot tall towers. The DEIR also claims the Project would provide affordable housing for City workers thereby increasing neighborhood walkability and reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT). However, the DEER contains no information about whether the Project's units would be accessible to local airport or University of California employees. Thus, these community benefits are illusory, at best Notably, the Project is located within the flight path of John Wayne Airport's Runway 20L, the runway used for flight training. The Project would require 127,730 cubic yards of grading, 118,500 cubic yards of which would be exported by heavy truck, generating noise, air quality, and traffic impacts along the haul route. (DEIR p. 3-16.) The DEER admits that the Project could have significant and adverse impacts related to land use if the Airport Land Use Commission does not vote to support the Project, but it does not adequately disclose the safety and health impacts related to airport noise, jet fuel exposure, or proximity to a busy runway. As this Project is inconsistent with surrounding land uses and presents a safety hazard to future residents, pilots, and airline passengers, SPON urges the City to reject the Koll Center Residences Project as proposed At the very least, SPON requests that the DEIR be revised to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project's many likely environmental impacts and be recirculated to the public and decision makers before any additional The Koll Center Residences Project 3-62 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 112 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 2 of 20 T action is taken on the Project. SPON will be supplementing its comments prior to the I coafd City's scheduled January Study Session on the Project. 1 t I. The Draft EIR Does Not Satisfy CEQA's Requirement to Fully Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project's Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves hvo basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environrnental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision makers and the public are informed of these consequences. before the project is approved to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn ofSan Francisco v.Regents ofthe University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The environmental impact report process is the "heart of CEQA" and is the chief mechanism to effectuate its statutory purposes. (In ReBay-DeltaProgrammaticEIR.CoordinatedProceedings(2008)43Cal. 40i 1143, 1162.) As detailed below, SPON is concerned that the draft environmental impact report fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate many of the. Project's significant adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the DEIR's Project Description and environmental setting lack information needed to accurately analyze the Project. The DEIR fails to analyze an alternative that is withinthe maximum square feet allowed for the anomaly area and conforms with all other applicable plans, policies and regulation or an off-site alternative that would avoid the Project's likely significant and unavoidable impacts related to aviation. The DEIR's greenhouse gas analysis compresses environmental analysis and mitigation to conclude that the Project would not contribute to global climate change, but the DEIR fails to incorporate any actual mitigation for the admitted greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIR also fails to account for the Project's proximity to John Wayne Airport operations, and the resulting air quality, noise, and safety impacts to residents, as well as the significant and adverse effects on pilot and passenger safety. Traffic impacts identified by traffic experts must be properly addressed and mitigated in a recirculated DEIR. Finally, some of the Project's significant impacts, suchas those related to the safety of placing 160 -foot -tall buildings in the flight path of John Wayne Airport's Runway 20L, cannot be overridden unless the City makes findings that the safety of pilots, passengers, and residents are less important than the Project's alleged benefits. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-63 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 3 of 20 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments A. The Project Description and Setting are Inadequate and Infect the Entire DEIR Analysis. CEQA requires a project description for an EIR to contain the precise location and boundaries of a project site, a statement of objectives sought by a project including the underlying purpose, a general description of a project's characteristics, and a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124.) The DEIR recognizes, "An adequate project description need not be exhaustive, but should supply the detail necessary for project evaluation." (DEIR, p. 3-1.) The DEIR fails to supply this necessary detail. CEQA prohibits use of an unstable project description. A "curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public support." (County oflnyo v. City ofLos Angeles (1981) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185,197-98.) The Project DEIR's inconsistent use of "residential condominiums" in some portions of the DEIR and "luxury residential condominiums" in others renders the Project Description unstable. For example, the DEIR describes the Project as "residential condominiums," in the Project Description and Land Use analyses in order to claim that the Project will be providingmuch-neededhousing affordable to local employees. However, the DEIR relies upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Luxury Condominiums/Townhouse (Land Use 233)" trip generation coefficients to analyze the Project's traffic impacts. (DEIR sections 4.14.5, 4.14,6.) Luxury condominiums generate fewer trips than residential condominiums. Thus, this inconsistency infects every part of the EIR's analysis and must be clarified in a revised DEIR that fully evaluates and mitigates the Project's impacts using a stable definition of the Project's price point. An EIR that contains statements that are "at best confusing and at worse self-contradictory" on key issues is inadequate. (San Joaquin Raptor Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656 fn. 4.) A project description also must describe all parts of the Project. The project description cannot fail to describe key elements of the Project. (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.AppAth 713, 730- 35.) The DEIR fails to describe the 3,000 square feet of retail proposed. At only 3,000 square feet, it is unlikely that the services provides by the retail/commercial component. could extend beyond a coffee bar or perhaps a mini -mart, but the DEIR provides no detail about what will be provided. Even so, the DEIR claims that the retail/commercial component of the Project makes it consistent with City land use policies aimed at increasing neighborhood services and creating a walkable community. Given that the Project site is a business park, far more than 3,000 square feet of retail will be needed to make the area into a functioning neighborhood. The retail component of the Project is also used to justify the Project's "mixed-use" labeling. The addition of a coffee bar to The Kell Center Residences Project 3-64 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 120 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 4 of 20 260 houses does not transform the Project into something that is truly mixed use. More cont'd detail about this crucial. component is needed. 3 Additionally, the DEIR fails to include any information about the Development Agreement that will be required by the Project. An EIR must discuss the "whole of the project" including all necessary project approvals. (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(h).) This 4 necessarily includes the Development Agreement. Without public review of the Development Agreement, the public and decision makers cannot know if all phases or components of the Project are adequately discussed in the DEIR and if all potential environmental impacts are mitigated. Similarly, the DEIR does not include the zone text amendment. If the amendment will lead to any foreseeable changes not discussed in the Project EIR, the DEIR is deficient. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d at 376, 396.) "While foreseeing the 5 unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." (CEQA Guidelines § 15144.) The zone text amendment is a necessary component of the Project and must be disclosed in the revised DEIR. CEQA provides, "Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region" (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) Although the DEIR does disclose the Project's proximity to John Wayne Airport, it does not contain sufficient information about airport operations over the Project Site to adequately inform e decision makers about the public safety impacts of the Project. For example, the DEIR does not disclose the flight paths of private planes or flight schools. This information is necessary to adequate discussion of the Project's noise, air quality, land use, and aviation safety impacts. The DEIR must be revised to include this important information. By failing to disclose all relevant information about the Project, the DEIR fails to adequately inform decision makers about what the Project's potentially significant 7 environmental impacts may be. These issues infect the entire analysis and require revision of the EIR and recirculation to the public. B. The Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate. _ The purpose of an alternatives analysis is to determine if feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures would substantially lessen a project's significant environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) For this reason, the alternatives analysis is the "core of the EIR." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors 8 (1990) 52 Cal 3d 553, 564.) "One of [an EIR's] major functions ... is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official." (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n. v. Regents of the University of California The Kell Center Residences Project 3-65 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 121 City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 5 of 20 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400.) Further, "Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that... the agency's approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134, emphasis added.) The DEIR accurately summarizes CEQA requirements for the alternatives analysis, stating, "In selecting alteratives ... the City... is to consider alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." (DEIR p. 6-1.) The DEIR defines the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts as: cont'd a.. Air quality impacts during construction that would conflict with the E adopted Air Quality Management Plan, especially with regard to emissions of oxides of nitrogen, b. Air quality impacts during construction related to emissions of oxides of nitrogen and exceedences of localized significance thresholds for 2.5 and 10 micron particulate matter; c. Cumulative air quality impacts caused by emissions of oxides of nitrogen during construction, d. A potential inconsistency determination by the Airport Land Use Commission; and e. Direct and cumulative noise impacts onsensitive receptors during Project construction. Accordingly, a compliant alternatives analysis should focus on alternatives that are located further from the airport and those that are designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen or to reduce the volume or duration of construction. The DEIR's alternatives analysis fails in this regard. All of the alternatives studied are located onsite, which fails to "avoid or substantially lessen" the ALUC impact. And all three of the build alternatives studied would require large amounts of grading, excavation, and hauling, which would result in significant construction air quality and noise impacts. The Alternatives analysis should have studied an offsite T alternative, and one consistent with the maximum square feet allowed for the anomaly Ill g area and that conforms to all other applicable plans, policies and regulation. The project objectives determine what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) The DEIR describes the objectives as: 10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-66 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 122 City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 6 of 20 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments (1) Implement the goals and policies that the Newport General Plan established for the Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Area. (2) Develop a mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhanced livability. (3) Develop up to 3,000 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve residences, businesses, and visitors within the business park. cont'd (4) Develop and attractive, viable project that yields a reasonable return on 10 investment. (5) Provide beneficial site improvements including implementing a. reclaimed water system for existing and proposed uses and a first flush (storm water) water quality treatment facility on the site. Pervious surface area would be. increased by approximately 0.83 acre (or 7% from. existing conditions as a. result of Project implementation.) (6) Develop and maintain a 1 -acre public park, adding additional park/open space for the City of Newport Beach. At first glance, the Project Objectives are impermissibly nanow. Use of tmduly narow project objectives violates CEQA (In Re Bay Delta Coordinated Environmental Impact ReportProceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166 ["a lead agency may not give a project's purpose an artificially narrow definition"].) The 3,000 square foot maximum for the commercial/retail component appears arbitrary, and actually prevents the Project from satisfying objectives (2) and (3) of providing a mixed-use project and amenities that serve. residents and the business park in a way that promotes livability and walkability. While any increase in pervious surface should be applauded, a requirement that the Project increase pervious surface area by exactly 7 percent (0.83 acres) is unduly specific. An increase of at least 7 percent, however, would comply with CEQA. The lead agency must exercise its independentjudgment on project objectives, and must not uncritically accept the applicant's objectives. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.1 (c)(1); Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Ca1.App.4th 587; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006)141 Ca1.AppAth 1336,1352; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County oflnyo (2007) 157 Ca1.App.4th1437, 1460.) Unduly narrow objectives aside, the Project's basic purposes could be satisfied with any mixed-use project that is attractive, that provides pervious surface increases 12 over the existing parking lots and a reclaimed water system, includes a public park, and The Kell Center Residences Project 3-67 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 123 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 7 of 20 provides for a return on investment. Such a project could be easily designed and could present an alternative consistent the maximum square feet allowed for the anomaly area and all other applicable plans, policies and regulation, which was not otherwise discussed cont'd in the DEIR. Alternatives are not required to meet all project objectives, and in reality it 12 "is virtually a given that the alternatives to a project will not attain all of the project's objectives." (Watsonville Pilots Assn v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 CalApp.4th 1059, 1087.) Although the Project's significant impacts regarding ALUC compatibility could be avoided only by moving the Project, the DEIR rejects offsite alternatives without providing any analysis. (DEIR p. 6-6 and 7.) Instead, the DEIR constrains an offsite alternative to one within. the Airport Area and claims that the applicant does not own sufficient land in the Airport Area for the Project to be moved. Offsite alternatives should be considered when "significant effects of the project would be avoided or lessened by putting the project in another location," as here. (Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)(A).) The Guidelines take a narrow view of what constraints would render an alternative site infeasible (for example, the lack of extractable resources on a site for a 13 resource extraction project). (Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(B).) Furthermore, California Courts have endorsed the use of rigorous off site alternatives analyses. (See, for example, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553 [upholding EIR in part because of adequate analysis of an offsite alternative] and Save Round Valley Alliance v. County ofinyo (2007) 157 Cal App.4th 1437 [EIR found inadequate for failure to assess an offsite alternative that would have reduced impacts].) A developer's ownership or lack of ownership of an alternative parcel is not sufficient reason to dismiss offsite alternatives. The DEIR must be revised to include an analysis of offsite alternatives for the Project in areas of the City with demonstrated capacity for additional residences — including outside of the Airport Area. Portions of the City that have built all permissible residential mots allowed by their governing land use plans should not be considered. C. The Greenhouse Gas Analysis is Inadequate. CEQA directs agencies to "make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual date, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." (Guidelines § 15064.4(a).) Recently, the California Supreme Court challenged agencies to "ensure that CEQA analysis stays in 14 step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 519.) Full mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is important for more than just I The Koll Center Residences Project 3-68 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 124 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 8 of 20 preventing further increases in temperature and sea level rise. It also affects public health In a recent report on climate change published in the Lancet, a commission found that human -caused global warming "threatens to undermine the past 50 years of gains in public health." The report also said that a comprehensive approach to slow the planet's warning could be "the great health opportunity of the 21st century." (httns://www. nvtimes. com/2017/10/30/opLuon/climate-chaime-health-heathtml?ribbon- ad- idx=5&ref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=chck<< contentCollection=Opinion&petvpe=article& r-0; full study available at http://www.thelancet.com/doumals/lancet/at-ticle/PIISOI 40-6736(17 )32464- 9/f illtext?elscal --t .) The minimization of greenhouse gases in constructing and operating the Project is critical. All greenhouse gas emissions above zero contribute to global climate change and must be treated as causing direct and cumulatively significant environmental impacts. The Project would emit at least 1,938 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions annually, but the DEIR claims the Project will not have significant impacts with regard to climate change because the Project is consistent with existing greenhouse gas policies, including the City's Energy Action Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On its face, this claim makes no sense. Further, outside of the Project's location allegedly near transit and near job centers, the DEIR does not analyze the Project's features and their potential for reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. Nor does the DEIR discuss how the Project will reduce the amount of new materials needed, minimize the energy needed for construction, or be constructed to be energy efficient Substantial evidence does not exist for these determinations. In reliance on this unsupportable claim and on the Project's project design features (PDFs), the DEIR finds that no mitigation is required. (DEIR p. 4.6-12.) CEQA requires the disclosure of significant impacts, even if they are fully mitigated. (Lotus v. Departinent of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655-658.) The DEIR bas improperly compressed environmental analysis and mitigation. This is "not merely a harmless procedural failing... [it] subverts the purposes of CEQA by omitting material necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation." (Lotus, supra, at 658.) Reliance on the PDFs is unlawful. An EIR cannot incorporate "the proposed mitigation measures into its description of the project and then conclude [] that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant." (Id at 655-657.) Moreover, as discussed below, the DEIR's claim that PDFs built into the Project will prevent environmental impacts is unsupported because the PDFs lack the detail or enforceability to ensure implementation or efficacy. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-69 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 14 125 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 9 of 20 Despite emitting at least 1,938 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, the DEIR claims that the Project will not have significant greenhouse gas impacts because the South Coast Air Quality Management District provides an interim screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons, which the Project would not exceed. (DEIR p. 4.6-12.) However, it is well understood that all greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global 16 climate change. "One of the most important enviromnental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Harford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 720.) If the Project's emissions will not be offset or reduced to zero, a significant impact must be found and mitigation incorporated. The DEIR also finds that the Project's alleged consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS prevents significant greenhouse gas impacts. (DEIR p. 4.6-13.) Consistency with the RTP itself does not result in any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the Project. Moreover, the Project is not actually consistent with the RTP. On the contrary, the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, required 17 by SB 375, anticipates lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 18 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Reaching this target requires reducing existing emission and preventing new ones. All emissions from demolition, construction, and operations of the Project interfere with SCAG reaching its target SCAG anticipates land use strategies needed to meet this target include planning for new growth around livable corridors and encouraging people to live nearer to jobs and amenities to reduce vehicle miles travelled (DEIR p. 4.6-6.) As the Project area actually has somewhat limited transit, the focus should be on walkability and providing homes for people who work in the surrounding business district. The DEIR acknowledges, "Increasing residential land use near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT." (DEIR p. 4.6-13.) However, it is unclear whether Project condominiums will be affordable to people working nearby, including at the airport and the University of California, Irvine. The DEIR contains no information about the affordability of the Project's units to local employees. News coverage of Project planning meetings reference a cost of $1.5-2 million for the mid-sized units. (See, e.g., storv.html.) The DEIR relies upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Luxury Condominiums/Townhouse (Land Use 233)" trip generation coefficients to analyze the Project's traffic impacts. (DEIR sections 4.14.5, 4.14.6.) A luxury condominium will not be within the reach of most local employees. Additionally, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) describes the Project as "260 luxury residential condominiums... ranging from 1,240 to 3,160 sf." The Project's units will be both upscale and quite large. Thus, it seems more likely than not that the closest workers to the Project, those of John Wayne The Koll Center Residences Project 3-70 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 18 120 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 10 of 20 Airport and the University of California, Irvine, will not be able to afford the Project's housing. The DEIR's conclusions that the Project will promote walkability and reduce vehicle miles travelled, as promoted by the RTP, are unsupported. Hiformation about the Project's affordability to nearby employees must be disclosed in order to determine the Project's consistency with the governing RTP/SCS. Inconsistency with the RTP would be a significant land use impact as well as a significant greenhouse gas impact that would require disclosure, analysis; and the incorporation of all feasible mitigation or alternatives to the Project The DEIR touts a proximity to transit on Jamboree Road, buthow many feet will residents have to walk to get to the closest bus stop? The DEIR claims a distance of 650 feet (DEIR p. 4.6-14), but the Project will also be providing shuttle buses for office workers to access their vehicles in the Project parking garages. If the closest point in the Project is 650 feet away from a. bus stop, how far is the furthest? Additionally, the shortest routes to the Jamboree bus stop will be blocked by existing and new Koll Center buildings. The Project will likely do little to promote transit use and reduce VMT as needed to. reduce SCAG's greenhouse gas emissions and meet the reductions target of the 2016 RTP. The DEIR also fails to analyze the Project's consistency with SB 32. The DEIR claims that the Cleveland National Forest Foundation decision can be interpreted such that, "AB 32 is the only legally mandated requirement for the reduction of greenhouse gases," but this is incorrect. (DEIR p. 4.6-10.) As the DEIR explains at page 4.6-4, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law in September 2016, codifying the interim emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 that had previously been contained in Executive Order B-30-15. (DEIR p. 4.6-4.) The Cleveland National Forest Foundation Court acknowledged as such: Furthermore, after briefing was submitted in this case, the Legislature in 2016 enacted Senate Bill No. 32 (SB 32) (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), adding Health and Safety Code section 38566, which adopts a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. This 40 percent reduction is widely acknowledged as a necessary interim target to ensure that California meets its longer -range goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. (See Governor's Executive Order No. B-30-15 (Apr. 29, 2015) [explaining the significance of the 40 percent reduction].) SB 32 thus reaffirms California's commitment to being on the forefront of the dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to stabilize the global climate. The legislation directs CARB to craft regulations to implement its goal. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38566.) These regulations may further clarify the way forward for public agencies to meet the state's 2050 climate goals. This The Koll Center Residences Project 3-71 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 18 227 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 11 of 20 regulatory clarification, together with improved methods of analysis, may well change the manner in which CEQA.analysis of long-term greenhouse gas emission coant'd impacts is conducted. (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 518-19, emphasis added.) The DEIR must analyze the Project's consistency with SB 32, as well as with AB 32 and all greenhouse gas emissions 19 reduction targets promulgated by the California Air Resources Board. By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the Project will interfere with reaching these statewide goals, a significant impact on greenhouse gases under CEQA. The DEIR states, without analysis, that the Project is consistent with the Newport Beach Energy Action Plan. (DEIR p. 4.6-12.) The DEIR then concludes, "[t]herefore, the Project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide... Potential impacts are less than significant." (DEIR p. 4.6-13.) The Newport Beach Energy Action Plan's goals include meeting and exceeding AB 32 goals, promoting. energy efficiency and sustainability, exploring green technologies,. and exploring renewable energy sources. By introducing 1,938 metric tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions, the Project would interfere with meeting AB 32 reductions. The DEIR also contains no Project requirements or design features detailing energy efficiency aid sustainability, green technologies, or renewable resources. The DEIR fails to explain the analytical route taken to its conclusion of no significance. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. Cownty of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) On the contrary, based on the information contained in the DEIR, the Project appears to be inconsistent with the Newport Beach Energy Action Plan, a significant impact on both land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Further information about the Project's consistency with the Newport Beach Energy Action Plan is required in the revised DEIR. In lieu of actual mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions, the DEIR relies on PDF 1, which states: 9 Building Design: The Applicant will pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification for the Project. Project features may include the following. Bicycle storage and maintenance facility, electric vehicle charging stations, indoor water use reduction, optimized energy 21 performance, low emitting materials, day lighting, enhanced indoor air quality features, and earth day functions for residents. This language does not commit the developer to implement or achieve any specific measures, or even to achieve LEED Silver. Additionally, any project claiming not to have greenhouse gas impacts would necessarily be required to include all of these The Koll Center Residences Project 3-72 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 122 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 12 of 20 features, but PDF 1 states only that "features may include" them. Mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).) PDF 1 contains no such commitment. None of these features are concrete or described with enough sufficient detail to determine whether they have been implemented and what their likely efficacy would be in reducing Project emissions as compared to business -as -usual. "The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded." (Federation of Hillside & Carryon v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1252, 1261; Kalzeff v. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2010)181 Ca1.App.4th 601, 612; Lincoln Place Tenants Assn v. City of Los Angeles (2005)130 Cal.App.4th 1491.) The DEIR does not state how many electric vehicle charging stations would be included, and whether they would be available to both office workers and residents. Also absent is how much indoor water use reduction would be expected, and how would it be implemented The DEIR fails to quantify what emissions would be reduced by using "low emitting materials;" or to describe the materials that would be replaced Importantly, "reduction," `.optimized," and "low" are never defined. Mitigation measures that "are not guaranteed to occur at any particular time or m any particular manner" are inadequate. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.AppAth 260, 281; Gray v. County of Madera (2008)167 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1119.) PDF 1 is useful as a mission statement, but not as a PDF relied upon to avoid the need for disclosing, analyzing, or mitigating the Project's significant environmental impacts. As mitigation for these undisclosed impacts, it is neither concrete nor enforceable. Inclusion of PDF 1 into the Project's conditions of approval does not guarantee any greenhouse gas emission reductions. The DEIR's failure to include enforceable greenhouse gas reductions measures is particularly galling, given that residential buildings with net zero energy use are feasible. According to the DER the "2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in Title 24 "will not achieve zero net energy." (DEIR p. 4.6-5.) Residential buildings in California will be required to achieve zero net energy by 2030 and are feasible now, particularly in Southern California climate zones. (See, ity report final.udf, herein incorporated) When other similar projects implement particular mitigation measures, it is evidence that those measures are feasible. (Western States Petroleum Association v. Southern California Air Quality ManagementDistrict (2006)136 Cal.AppAth 1012,1020 [no evidence showed refineries could not make the same air pollution control changes one refinery made or that the cost of such changes would be prohibitive].) "[I]f the project can be economically successful with mitigation, then CEQA requires that mitigation... " (Uphold our Heritage v. Town of Woodside The Koll Center Residences Project 3-73 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 21 R 23 :L29 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 13 of 20 (2007)147 Cal.App.4th at 600.) Zero net energy should be implemented in the Project. As the DEIR acknowledges, climate change is a global problem. All greenhouse gases contribute to this global problem, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. Unless the Project is net zero for greenhouse gas emissions, the Project will have significant impacts coma related to DEIR Threshold 4.6-1, "Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.- The nvironment" The DEIR must be revised to compare the Project's emissions to the emissions reductions targets of SB 32, and to acknowledge that all greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global climate change and require mitigation Mitigation measures formulated in the revised DEIR must be concrete and sufficiently detailed for the public to determine their efficacy. They must also be enforceable. Finally, the DEIR will need to be recirculated, as is required under CEQA and environmental review document is supplemented with significant new information. D. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Impacts to Residents, Pilots, and Passengers of Locating the Project within the Flight Path of John Wayne Airport. The Project would constrict three, 13 -story towers, 160 feet tall, under the flight path of John Wayne Airport's Runway 20L. SPON has heard that pilots are very concerned about the safety of the Project. FAA Regulation 91.119(b) requires planes to fly at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle in occupied areas. Planes landing on Runway 20L fly over the site at an altitude on only 700 feet, far less than the 1160 feet that would be required to comply with FAA Regulations. The Project is therefore an impermissible obstruction to aviation and an inherent safety risk to Project residents, pilots, and their passengers. Related to this concern, the DEIR does not disclose the flight paths of private planes and flight schools, especially those that use Runway 20L. Santa Monica Airport has experienced several crashes in the past decade, several of which destroyed nearby homes. (https://patch.com/cahfomia/santamonica/20-years-smta-morica-airport-plme- crashes herein incorporated.) Several crashes have impacted a public park, such as that proposed by the Project (Ibid lAt://smdi).conv/rlaiie-crashes-eolf-smo,/146091.herein incorporated.) John Wayne Airport has also had emergencies arise where planes landed outside the airport complex. This summer, four vehicles were damaged when a small plane crashed on Interstate 405 shortly after takeoff and exploded in flames. (hiq w latimes.com/local/laiiow/la-me-ht-405-plalie-crash-video-20170728- hm - - n l herein incorporated.) The missing information about private plane and flight school use of the airport must be disclosed in the revised DEIR. The DEIR's noise, air quality, land use, and aviation safety analyses must be updated accordingly. CEQA The Koll Center Residences Project 3-74 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 24 I30 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 14 of 20 does not tolerate attempts to sweep important public safety issues "under the rug" (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v 32"d Dist. Ag. Assn. (1986) 42 Cal, 3d 929, 935.) Also not thoroughly discussed in the DE1R are the health impacts on the 260 new families that would be living in homes located next to a runway. The DE1R fails to analyze the significant noise and air quality impacts associated with the flight paths of John Wayne Airport. According to the U.S. Environmemal Protection Agency, exposure to high noise levels presents a "health risk in that noise may contribute to the development and aggravation of stress related conditions such as high blood pressure, coronary disease, ulcers, colitis, and migraine headaches... Growing evidence suggests a link between noise and cardiovascular problems. There is also evidence suggesting that noise may be related to birth defects and low birth -weight babies. There are also some indications that noise exposure can increase susceptibility to viral infection and toxic substances."t Potentially deadly cardiovascular impacts can be triggered by long-term average exposure to noise levels as low as 55 decibels.' Exposure to even moderately high levels of noise during a single 8 hour period triggers the body's stress response. hi turn, the body increases cortisol production, which stimulates vasoconstriction of blood vessels that results in a five to ten point increase in blood pressure. Overtime, this noise -induced stress can result in hypertension and coronary artery disease, both of which increase the risk of heart attack death.' Studies on the use of tranquilizers, sleeping pills, psychotropic drugs, and mental hospital admission rates suggest that high noise levels cause adverse impacts on mental health.4 'EPA Noise Effects Handbook, http://www.nonoise.orgAibrary/handbook/handbwk.him, incorporated by reference; see also EPA Noise: AHealth Problem httu://www.nmoise.ore/liMarv/el)ahltltepaldth.htm#heart%20disewe, incorporatedby reference. 3 World Health Organization Media Centre, htto://www.euro.whaint/eprise,'maiWWHO/MediaCen[re/PR/2009/20091008 1?laneuaee [elevatedblood pressure and heart attacks], incorporated by reference; huw//wholibdoc.who.int/ho/l 999/a686, 2. [finding demonstrated cardiovascular impacts, including ischemic heart disease and hypertension after long-term exposure to 24 hour average noise values of 65-70 dBA], incorporated by reference. 3 Attachment 1, Excerpts of World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, p. x and pp. 47-48. The report is available in its entirety online at httir://wholibdoc.who.inOm/1999/a68672.odf, see also, Maschke C (2003). "Stress Hormone Changes in Persons exposed to Simulated Night Noise". Noise Health 5 (17):35-45. PMH) 12537833, httix//www.noiseandhealth.ore/article.aso?issn= r 1463- 1741:vea2002:voltrme=5:issue=l7:spaee=35:eoage--15: aulast=Mascbke, incorporated by reference; Attachment 2, Franasen EA, van Wiechen CM, Nagelkerke NJ, Lebret E (2004). "Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use". Occup Environ Med 61 i5): 405-13. doi: 10. 1 136/mm.2002.005488. PMH) 15090660. d Attachment 1, p. x. and pp. 48149. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-75 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cmfd 24 25 26 131 City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments High noise levels also have dramatic developmental impacts on small children, many of whom might one day reside at the Project Children who are exposed to higher average noise levels have heightened sympathetic arousal, expressed by increased stress conrd hormone levels, and elevated resting blood pressure. As proposed, the Project would 26 expose community members to levels of noise that are unsafe for cardiovascular health, mental health, societal well being, and child development CEQA requires environmental review of a Project's potentially adverse impacts on human beings. (Guidelines § 15065 subd (a)(2).) In the last decade, countless peer- reviewed studies have been published documenting the dangers of living near freeways due to their emissions of ultra fine diesel particulate matter and other air pollutants. Research on the impacts of airport emissions is ongoing'; however, jet fuel is chemically very similar to diesel in that it emits very fine particulate matter when burned .6 Ultra fine particulate matter causes cardiovascular and neuron damage.7 More than 90 percent of the particles in diesel exhaust are ultra fine particles, which are easily inhaled into the lungs Diesel particulate matter also contains gases such as acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, formaldehyde and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, increasing the hazards to human health.9 Consequently, diesel particulate matter was declared a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board in 1998.'0 According to the Air Resources Board, "Diesel particulate matter may cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems."" These other health problems include asthma, bronchitis, and heart disease. 12 These pollutants have been correlated with asthma, congestive heart failure, autism, and other ailments, with the greatest impact on sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. Pollution -related ailments have also been correlated with the 'See, lit://webmit.edu/mroastrdnartner/wpmts/roroi 15/proi 15Snalreuort.ndf. herein incorporated by reference. 6 See, htto://Iw.mit.edu/air-ouafity/, herein incorporated by reference. 7See htto://www.arb.ca.eov/researchdhealthJhealthun/imO3.ndt; see also htto://eho03.niehs.ruh.eov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURl=info° o3Adoi%2F 10.1^-894-o2Feho. 10029 73 both incorporated by reference. s Matsuoka, Hricko, at al. Global Trade Impacts: Addressing the Health, Social, and Envircranental Consequences of Moving International Freight Through Our Communities, March 2011, p. 17, available at'l"1),//depWments.oxy.edu/uem-/ herein incorporated. 'Seehtto://www.eoa.gov/NE/eco/ainox/dieselJdmI herein incorporated by reference. 'See htto://www.arb.ca.eov/enf'hdvin/ccdet/seei 1 JIum. u Ibid; see also, htto://www.arb.ca.aov/cldconmmruties/ra/westoaklmd/dmc ems/factsheet0308.p(I " Miller at al., Long Tem Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women, New England Journal of Medicine, 356:5 (2007)447-458, available at httvhburninois.-ues.oro cu- www/pdfs/miller-womenty-NEJM4-2007.ndf, herein incorporated; see also htto://www.elub.orWy=.iso?uaae key=90#mn health. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-76 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 132 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 16 of 20 distance a home sits from the freeway or a runway. 13 A 2009 study found that one-third cont'd of the 160 estimated animall deaths caused by aviation particulate matter occur inn 22 Southern Califomia.14 E. The DEIR Does Not Contain a Health Risk Assessment. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted a new version of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Pro am Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual).1 As discussed in Section 8.2.10 of the Guidance Manual, "[t]he local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program in permitting decisions for short-term projects such as construction or waste site remediation" 28 The DEIR admits that construction -related air quality impacts will be significant. but does not provide an HRA that incorporates the new OEHHA Guidance. Agency guidance indicates that new OEHHA methodology will substantially increase the estimated significance of toxic air contaminants. Because the new OEHHA methodology includes a number of conservative assumptions about potential impacts to infants and children, short term construction emissions could lead to significant HRA results. For example, SCAQMD staff estimate that a six-month construction project for a typical one - acre office project could cause a significant HRA impact.16 This Project is larger than one acre and would require 127,730 cubic yards of grading. The construction that this will entail will result in significant construction and operational air quality impacts, which must be carefully calculated, analyzed, and mitigated in a revised and recirculated DEIR. F. The Traffic Analysis is Inadequate. Although the DEIR describes the Project as `residential condominiums," the DEIR relies upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Luxury Condominiums/Townhouse (Land Use 233)" trip generation coefficients to analyze the 2�j Project's traffic impacts. (DEIR sections 4.14.5, 4.14.6].) Either the Project Description or the traffic analysis is misleading. ITE has determined that a "luxury condominium" generates fewer trips than a "residential condominium." If the Project is not actually intended to be luxury condominiums, or if the Project's target market changes, then the 'See, lUtlt://www.cuietsldescoalitim.ore/Jet Fuel.htmlherein incorporated by reference. See, lutn://web.mitedu/aeroastro/pattnerirewrt5/moi 15/proi t 5fuialreport.pdf. herein incorporated. is See hup://www.mhhaxa.eov/airAwt snas/hotsaots2ols load. :6 See SCAQMD Staff presentation, Potential Impacts of New OEHHA Risk Guidelines on SCAQMD Programs, Agenda Item 8b, htto://www.aamdeov/docs/default-source/Aeendm/Gover um Board/^_O 14'may-s pecsess-8b.nd f. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-77 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 133 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 17 of 20 traffic analysis vastly understates the Project's likely traffic impacts. This would result mT cont'd a failure to fully mitigate those traffic impacts. A recirculated EIR is required to clarify 111 29 the true nature of the Project and its likely traffic impacts. H. Mitigation Measures Are Not Concrete and Enforceable. CEQA requires every FIR to contain a complete discussion of potential mitigation measures available to avoid or reduce adverse environmental effects (Pub. Resources Code. section 21000(b)(3); Guidelines Section 15126(c)) because one of the basic purposes of an EIR is to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. (Pub. Resources Code section 21002.1(a).) Mitigation measures must be concrete and enforceable through a mitigation monitoring plan and permit conditions. (Pub. Resources Code Section 21081.6(b); Lincoln Place TenantsAss'n v. City of Los Angeles (2007)155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445.) Due to the DEIR's many deficiencies, far fewer mitigation measures are provided than should be for a project of this size. Unfortunately, the few mitigation measures that are provided fall short of CEQA's requirements. The DEIR mitigates the potential impacts of adding 260 new families to Newport Beach by requiring plans to be submitted to the police department for their review prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Mitigation Measures 4.12-3 and 4.12-4.) This is deferred mitigation. (Endangered Habitats League v. Connor of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 793-94; Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) "Impermissible deferral of mitigation occurs when an EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described in the EIR." (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011)197 Ca1.App.4th 200, 236.) As these plans will not be drafted until after project approval and the completion of the public review process, there is no assurance as to their efficacy. Furthermore, there is no reason the police department cannot review these plans now to determine if project features and design components provide the needed defensible space concepts to reduce demand on police services. Any changes to Project design could impact public open space, amenities, or other aspects of the project design that have environmental impacts or impacts related to findings that must be made for project entitlements and approvals. (e.g., the provision of an on-site public park, used to support a finding of no significant impact for Threshold 4.13-1/4.13-2 related to the use of parks and recreational facilities (DEIR p. 1-31.) Project noise is estimated to range from 65.7 to 95.9 dBA during construction activities with the highest noise levels occurring near office buildings. (DEIR pp. 4.10- 15 though 4.10-19.) Noise levels of 75 c1BA are considered to be `normally The Koll Center Residences Project 3-78 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 30 31 134 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 18 of 20 incompatible" and noise levels over 80 dBA are considered to be "clearly incompatible" with office buildings. (Table 4,10-1.) The provided mitigation measures would not cont'd minimize these noise impacts or provide compatibility with office buildings. Either 31 additional mitigation measures are required, or an offsite alternative must be discussed in the revised and recirculated DEIR. The DEIR claims it cannot feasibly require Tier 4 construction equipment to reduce significant impacts caused by emissions of oxides of nitrogen. (DEIR pp. 4.2-14 and 24.) However, as lead agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District recently required the use of Tier 4 equipment in the Tesoro refinery consolidation project 32 (LARIC). Another project's use of a mitigation measure means it is feasible here. Further, the findings required for approving a project with significant and unavoidable impacts cannot be made here because all feasible mitigation (i.e., Tier 4 construction equipment) was not incorporated into the Project. The DEIR's reliance on PDFs as opposed to enforceable mitigation measures violates CEQA. An EIR cannot incorporate "the proposed mitigation measures into its description of the project and then conclude [] that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant." (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655-657.) The DEIR claims that, with the exception of PDF 2, the PDFs are not mitigation measures and are not proposed to reduce or prevent environmental impacts. (DEIR, p. 3-15.) However, on 33 the same page, the DEIR states the PDFs are part of the NEVIRP to ensure implementation. (DEIR p. 3-15.) SPON agrees these measures need to be implemented in an enforceable manner, but they are clearly intended to eliminate, reduce, or avoid significant impacts recognized by CEQA. The DEIR cannot have it both ways. In any case, even if the PDFs were considered mitigation measures, they fail to meet CEQA's requirements. As discussed above, PDF 1, requiring the applicant to "pursue" but not achieve LEED silver certification, is clearly an attempt at a mitigation measure. It relates directly to trip generation and traffic, water supply, energy use, greenhouse gas production, and air quality. (DEIR, p. 3-15.) As written, it is unenforceable and cannot be relied upon for 34 EIR analysis. PDF 3, regarding the use of reclaimed water and efficient irrigation systems, targets important environmental impacts, but contains insufficient specificity. The formulation of mitigation measures may only be deferred if they are subjected to quantifiable performance standards that are absence here. III. Additional Issues Must Be Addressed in a Revised and Recirculated EIR. CEQA requires recirculation of an EIR when "significant new information" is 35 added to the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) Significant new information can The Koll Center Residences Project 3-79 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2315 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 19 of 20 include changes to the project or environmental setting or additional data and requires recirculation whenever a new significant impacthas been discovered, a substantial. increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result, a feasible project cont'd alternative or mitigation measure has been discovered, or when the draft EIR is "so 35 fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded" (Ibid.) Based on SPON's comments, the DEIR will need to be recirculated upon its revision. In addition to the issues identified above and in the comments of other members of the public, the revised and recirculated DEIR must include! An adequate cumulative impacts analysis that considers all reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects. The DEIR's analysis ends at 2022, even though the Project 36 will likely not even be completed by that time. Whether the tree: parking space ratio required by Ordinance 1449 is maintained by the Project; and The Project's potential impacts on birds, given that the towers would be located within flyways needed to access the San Joaquin Marsh and the Upper Newport Back Bay, both of which are used by several sensitive bird species. IV. The Project's Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Cannot Be Overridden. CEQA prohibits approval of projects with significant adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate those impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Guidelines § 15021(a)(2).) When an agency seeks to approve a project despite its significant unmitigated impacts on the environment, the agency must adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.) A statement of overriding considerations must include two specific findings, supported by substantial evidence. The first finding that must be made is that "There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect..." of the project. (Guidelines §§ 15043,15093(b).) The second finding is that the project's benefits outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts. (Guidelines § 15093(a).) These findings must both be supported by substantial evidence. (Guidelines § 15093(a) -(b).) The DEIR notes that the Project may receive an inconsistency determination from the. Airport Land Use Commission. However, absent a finding from the Airport Land Use Commission that the Project is consistent, the City lacks substantial evidence for any conclusion that the Koll Center Residences' location at the end of a John Wayne Airport would not have significant, adverse safety impacts. These impacts carmot be mitigated by traditional mitigation measures, and the DEIR has not analyzed off-site alternatives. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-80 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation RYA IS Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 20 of 20 CEQA provides for significant, adverse impacts to be overridden only if substantial evidence supports a determination that the benefits of the Project outweigh the costs. The City has a duty to ensure the safety and welfare of its residents. Does the City really envision supporting a determination that providing additional housing is more important than the safety of the residents who would live there? Conclusion Thank you for your consideration of these comments. SPON respectfully requests that the City revise the DEIR to remedy the discrepancies and deficiencies noted by SPON and other members of the public. The revised DEIR should then be circulated to the public for a minimum of 60 days. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, l Michelle N. BIa lc The Koll Center Residences Project 3-81 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation wnt'd 37 i37 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter is incorrect. The Draft EIR does not identify that affordable housing units are proposed. Further, affordable housing is not a prerequisite for neighborhood walkability. The Proposed Project would provide residences, retail uses, and a public park proximate to other existing, under construction, and planned offices, residences, financial institutions, retail uses and restaurants, and hotels. With respect to transit, there is an existing OCTA bus stop on the east side of Jamboree Road (southeast of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street); on Von Karman Avenue (between Birch Street and Campus Drive); and, along Campus Drive. OCTA also operates the i -Shuttle. Route A connects the Tustin Metrolink Station to the John Wayne Airport area via Von Karman Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Von Kaman Avenue at Dupont Drive, one block north of the project site. Future owners of the condominium units are unknown and it would be speculative to identify who would purchase the units. The commenter only cites John Wayne Airport and the University of California, Irvine (UCI) as potential employers for future Project residents. The project site is located within Koll Center Newport and proximate to other major employment centers, which includes various other employers such as Hyundai Motor Company, Wells Fargo, Bank of the West, Google, Allergan, Ingram Micro, etc. The commenter provides no evidence that the proposed dwelling units would not be affordable in the City of Newport Beach, which has a median income of $113,071 and median home prices of over $1,00,000.5 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580.) The comment does not identify an environmental issue and is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No further response is required. Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. It should be noted that the Airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including private aircraft. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) and Health Risk impacts were addressed on page 4.2-21 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, health risk impacts for the project area were analyzed in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2014 John Wayne Airport EIR), which addressed risk impacts from the airport to surrounding receptor areas. As noted in the Draft EIR, the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR identifies the project site as being outside of the airport risk area. Table 4.1-23 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR shows that the worst-case cancer risk of a resident receptor ranges from 2.4 to 5.9, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 (risk in one million). As the risk level for the worst-case airport scenario is 5.9, the cancer risk to all receptors would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Exhibit 4.1-1 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR, the nearest modeled residential receptorto the airport boundary line is closer than the project site. Additionally, the wind rose for the meteorological station indicates that the predominant wind patterns do not blow toward the site. Therefore, pollutant concentrations would continue to disperse going toward the project site and the s U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Newport Beach, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newportbeachcitycalifornia,US/INC110215#viewtop, accessed November 11, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-82 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 138 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments cancer risk of future residents at the site would be at or below the risk levels identified in the John Wayne Airport EIR. Response 2 The subsequent responses to this comment letter, below, address the specific issues raised by this commenter. Response 3 The commenter alleges the EIR analyses must be redone because the residential component of the Project is inconsistently defined. The commenter is incorrect. As noted in the response to Comment 1 of this response, neither Section 3.0, Project Description, nor Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, state that the Project includes affordable housing units. With respect to trip generation rates, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), the Luxury Condominium (Land Use 233) generates more trips per unit in both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour than either Residential Condominium (Land Use 230) or High -Rise Condominium (Land Use 232). See chart below. Land Use ITE Code Trips Per Dwelling Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Residential Condominium 230 0.44 0.52 High -Rise Condominium 232 0.34 0.38 Luxury Condominium 233 0.56 0.55 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition By choosing to use the higher Luxury Condominium trip rates, the trip estimates forthe Project were more conservative. The Project could develop as either standard Residential Condominium or Luxury Condominium; the analysis results would cover either product type. With respect to the mix of uses, the Draft EIR identifies that the General Plan land use category for the project site is "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12)". The MU -H2 designation specifically applies to some properties located in the Airport Area. It is intended to provide for the development of areas in a horizontally distributed mix of uses which may regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Non- residential uses are permitted according to the limits included in General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations. The project site is within Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4; Anomaly Location 2 has a development limit of 1,052,880 sf. As proposed, the Project is consistent with MU -H2 designation. The commenter's opinion on the definition of a neighborhood, mixed-use development, and walkability are noted but do not raise an environmental issue. No further response is required. Because the commenter's understanding of the Project is incorrect, the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-83 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation X39 City of Newport Beach Response 4 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. Response 5 The proposed new sections of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards that pertain to the Proposed Project are provided following the responses to Comment Letter A-1. The Draft EIR evaluates the Proposed Project consistent with these zoning assumptions. Response 6 Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. It should be noted that the airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including general aviation aircraft. Airborne operations for both commercial and general aviation/private aircraft are governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As addressed in the Draft EIR, the FAA has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. The Proposed Project is consistent with the building height limitations set forth under the current civilian airport standards in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and would not adversely affect John Wayne Airport's aeronautical operations or navigational -aid siting criteria, including interference with navigational aids or published flight paths and procedures. Response 7 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. Response 8 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 9 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 10 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15124(b), the Draft EIR includes a list of the objectives sought by the City, as lead agency for the Project. In San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App4th 1, 14, the court ruled that a lead agency has broad discretion to formulate project objectives. CEQA does not restrict an agency's discretion to identify and pursue a particular project designed to meet a particular set The Koll Center Residences Project 3-84 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 140 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments of objectives. CEQA also does not require a lead agency to provide empirical evidence to justify the list of objectives, which are based on the fundamental purpose of the project. The project objectives are relevant to the lead agency's consideration and review of a proposed project because they assist with development of a reasonable range of alternatives and will aid decision makers in preparing a statement of overriding consideration, if necessary, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b). This is how the project objectives were used in the Draft EIR—to develop a reasonable range of alternatives. Moreover, CEQA does not impose any prohibition on the inclusion of project objectives that have any level of subjectivity. Response 11 The referenced objective does quantify the increase in pervious surface area that would be associated with the Proposed Project. However, this does not preclude an increase; rather, it demonstrates with the Project there would be less impervious areas. The range of alternatives addressed in the Draft EIR is not restricted to alternatives that would have the same amount of pervious surface. Response 12 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 13 As a point of clarification, the Project has not yet been heard by the ALUC, and the ALUC did not provide comments on the Draft EIR. Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 14 The commenter suggests that all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above zero must be treated as causing direct and cumulatively significant environmental impacts. This approach would involve quantifying GHG emissions and using a zero net carbon dioxide equivalent increase as the threshold. Use of a zero net GHG emissions increase threshold is not a recommended threshold bythe South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or any other applicable jurisdiction. Additionally, CEQA explicitly gives lead agencies the authority to choose thresholds of significance and defers to lead agency discretion when choosing thresholds. For this Project, the City of Newport Beach has selected the bright -line threshold developed by the SCAQMD and GHG CECtA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group and is based on substantial evidence. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the State's ability to meet GHG reduction targets. Please also refer to Topical Response, Senate Bill 32 and Topical Response, Energy Action Plan regarding GHG emissions thresholds and the Project's consistency with the City's Energy Action Plan and RTP/SCS. Response 15 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A) specifically permits the incorporation of project design features into a project. The comment has misunderstood the EIR's discussion of Project Design Features (PDFs). Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, states that "PDFs are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that have been incorporated into the Project. Where noted in this EIR, PDFs are proposed to prevent the occurrence of, or reduce the significance of, potential environmental effects. Because PDFs The Koll Center Residences Project 3-85 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation -1 1 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments have been incorporated into the Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. However, PDFs are identified in the Mitigation Program, and are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be developed for, and would be implemented as a part of, the Proposed Project." Whether a PDF is proposed to preclude an environmental impact or is proposed as a part of the Project, all PDFs identified in the EIR would be required as a part of Project approval. The Project Design Features are incorporated into the Project design and included in the Draft EIR as such. Failure to maintain the Project Design Features into project design would represent a change to the Project Description. Furthermore, the analysis does not rely on Project Design Features to reduce impacts. The GHG emissions analysis conservatively does not take credit for emissions reductions resulting from implementation of PDF 1 (LEED Certification). Project -related improvements in energy consumption associated with PDF 1 would reduce emissions beyond what is identified in the Draft EIR. Response 16 The commenter inappropriately attempts to apply a statement from Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720 to the Proposed Project. However, CEQA has responded to the problem of incremental environmental degradation by requiring analysis of cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, Topical Response: Senate Bill 32, and the response to Comment 14, the Project would not result in cumulative GHG impacts as it would not conflict with State GHG reduction goals. Response 17 The overall goal of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a vision for regional transportation investments, integrated with land use strategies. The RTP/SCS provides strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction and air quality conformity requirements. is to create conditions and infrastructure that motivate increased mobility and accessibility, expanded transportation options, broader economic growth, equitably distributed benefits, and sustainability. The RTP/SCS strategies intend to reach the GHG emissions reduction targets through land use and transportation strategies. They focus on improving mobility, improving the transportation system, and encouraging land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non -motorized transportation. The RTP/SCS does not limit growth or GHG emissions from growth. The commenter is incorrect that reaching the RTP/SCS emissions reduction goals requires preventing new emissions. Project consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS is analyzed in the Draft EIR; please see Table 4.6-5 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As indicated in the analysis, the Project would not conflict with implementation of the RTP/SCS. The Proposed Project is within a major employment center and is proximate to several major employers within Orange County (e.g., University of California, Irvine, Allergan, Pacific Life, Ingram Micro). Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich. A major transit stop along Jamboree Avenue connects the project site to major employment within the Irvine Business Complex with the OCTA i -Shuttle. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-86 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation WIN City of Newport Beach Response 18 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The comment incorrectly states that the project area has limited transit. However, as discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project is walkable to a major transit stop on Jamboree Avenue at Birch Street which connects the project site to major employment areas. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), transit stops approximately one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) away from a project can reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by up to 24.6 percent. Additionally, increasing density in urban areas can reduce VMT by up to 30 percent; locating projects in business districts can reduce VMT by up to 65 percent; and increasing land use diversity can reduce VMT by 30 percent. As described in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would not only have access to transit, but it is an infill project that would also increase density and land use diversity since it involves locating multi -family units adjacent to existing business and commercial uses. Please refer to the response to Comment 1 with respect to future ownership of the condominium units. As a point of clarification, the Project is not providing shuttle buses to parking garages. PDF 5 identifies that valet parking, will be provided during Phase A and Phase 3 of construction; shuttle service will be provided during all phases of construction. Valet parking and shuttle service is proposed as a convenience for guests and tenants only during Project construction. There is not a correlation between PDF 5 and the ability of residents to walk to work or use public transit. The relevance of the furthest bus stop from the project site is unclear. What is pertinent is that there are existing OCTA bus stops within one block of the project site. Access to the bus stops on Jamboree Road, Von Karman Avenue, and Campus Drive would continue to be available along public sidewalks. Persons would not be precluded from walking through surface parking areas both on site and off site. It should also be noted that the OCTA operates the i -Shuttle to allows residents and employees to have an alternative way to commute. Route A connects the Tustin Metrolink Station to the John Wayne Airport area via Von Karman Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Von Kaman Avenue at Dupont Drive, one block north of the project site. Therefore, the Project would accommodate walking and transit use to a greater extent than would be the case for similar development in outlying areas without transit availability. Please refer to Topical Response: Senate Bill 32 regarding the Project's consistency with post -2020 GHG reduction targets. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with the State's GHG reduction goals. Additionally, regarding the Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments case, the Supreme Court's July 2017 opinion reinforces the general rule that lead agencies have substantial discretion in determining how to evaluate and discuss environmental impacts and significance thresholds. The Supreme Court determined that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) did not improperly conceal the impacts of their Regional Transportation Plan. Response 19 Please refer to Topical Response, Senate Bill 32 and the response to Comment 18, above. The Project's consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in Table 4.6-5 of the Draft EIR to address post -2020 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-87 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 144 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments GHG emissions reduction goals. Additionally, as discussed in the topical response, project -related GHG emissions would not conflict with the State's post -2020 GHG reduction goals. Response 20 Please refer to Topical Response, Energy Action Plan Consistency. Project consistency with the City's EAP was reviewed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Project energy consumption was assessed in Draft EIR Section 4.15.5, Energy Consumption. The Project would not conflict with the City's Energy Action Plan. Response 21 The comment has misunderstood the EIR's discussion of Project Design Features (PDFs). Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, states that "PDFs are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that have been incorporated into the Project. Where noted in this EIR, PDFs are proposed to prevent the occurrence of, or reduce the significance of, potential environmental effects. Because PDFs have been incorporated into the Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CECW. However, PDFs are identified in the Mitigation Program, and are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be developed for, and would be implemented as a part of, the Proposed Project." Whether a PDF is proposed to preclude an environmental impact or is as a part of the Project, all PDFs identified in the EIR would be required as a part of Project approval. Please refer to the response to Comment 17 regarding PDFs. As indicated in the response, due to limited detail associated with PDF 1 at the time of the analysis, emissions reductions or other Project benefits associated with PDF 1 were conservatively not incorporated into the analysis. Implementation of PDF 1 is not necessary to reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. Project -related improvements in energy consumption associated with PDF 1 would reduce emissions beyond what is identified in the Draft EIR. Response 22 Please refer to the responses to Comments 17 and 21, above. The number of electric vehicle charging stations has not been identified. However, as noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would include charging stations in the free-standing parking structure, as well as the parking structures for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 which provide parking for both residents and office workers. With respect to PDF 1, please refer to the response to Comment 1. As previously addressed, PDF 1 is not necessary to reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. Project -related improvements in energy consumption associated with PDF 1 would reduce emissions beyond what is identified in the Draft EIR. Response 23 Please refer to Topical Response, Senate Bill 32. It should be noted that the Project's GHG emissions were calculated with CaIEEMod version 2016.3.1, which was released in October 2016. CalEEMod version 2016.3.1 calculates energy consumption and associated emissions based on consumption rates in the 2013 version of Title 24 (Part 6). However, the energy consumption based on the current version of Title 24 (2016) is 28 percent more efficient than the previous 2013 version. As such, an adjustment was applied in the CalEEMod mitigation module to account The Koll Center Residences Project 3-88 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments forth is State mandated improvement. Although the adjustment was made in the mitigation module, it is a conservative assumption, as Title 24 is updated on an approximately three-year cycle and the 2019 Standards will continue to improve upon the 2016 Standards. As the Project would be constructed through 2022, it is likely that it would be subject to more stringent energy efficiency standards. The analysis also conservatively does not take credit for the implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standards.' Furthermore, PDF 1 identifies that the Applicant will pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification for the Project. Additional Project efficiency features include the use of landscape irrigation systems with weather sensors, timers, and low -flow irrigation devices to further reduce the overall water use (and associated water energy use) in the community. Non -potable water would also be used for all site irrigation (reducing energy associated with water treatment). The GHG emissions analysis provided in the Draft EIR is conservative because it does not take credit for 2019 Title 24 improvements or LEED certification. As analyzed in the Draft EIR Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would not exceed applicable GHG thresholds and mitigation would not be required. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the State's ability to meet GHG reduction targets. The commenter requests that the Project achieve zero net energy since this technology is feasible now. However, the commenter acknowledges that this is not currently required. Please refer to the response to Comment 18. As impacts would not exceed GHG thresholds, mitigation measures requiring zero net energy buildings would not be required. Response 24 Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise, and the response to Comment 6. As discussed in the topical response, the project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNEL contour. As described in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to ensure on-site noise levels are less than significant. General aviation aircraft are permitted to operate at John Wayne Airport 24 hours per day as long as they meet the applicable noise limits and other regulations of the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG). Aircraft which exceed the noise limits are issued notices of violation. General Aviation aircraft must meet the noise limits at each airport Noise Monitoring Station on a single -event basis. If a general aviation aircraft exceeds the limits three times within three years, it can be denied use of John Wayne Airport for three years. (source: http://www.ocair.com/aboutjwa/faq-noise). Response 25 Toxic air contaminants (TACs) and Health Risk impacts were addressed on page 4.2-21 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, health risk impacts for the project area were analyzed in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2014 John Wayne Airport EIR), which addressed risk impacts from the airport to surrounding receptor areas. As noted in the Draft EIR, the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR identifies the project site as being outside of the airport risk area. Table 4.1-23 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR shows that the worst-case cancer risk of a resident receptor s Senate Bill X1-2 was signed in April 2011 and set the RPS target at 33 percent by 2020. Senate Bill 350 (signed in October 2015) requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-89 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments ranges from 2.4 to 5.9, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 (risk in one million). As the risk level for the worst-case airport scenario is 5.9, the cancer risk to all receptors would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Exhibit 4.1-1 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR, the nearest modeled residential receptorto the airport boundary line is closer than the project site. Additionally, the wind rose for the meteorological station indicates that the predominant wind patterns do not blow toward the site. Therefore, pollutant concentrations would continue to disperse going toward the project site and the cancer risk of future residents at the site would be at or below the risk levels identified in the John Wayne Airport EIR. Please also refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. The project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNELcontour. As described in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with MMs 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to ensure on-site noise levels are less than significant. Response 26 Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. The commenter provides background on the health risks associated with exposure to high noise levels. As discussed in the Draft EIR and the topical response, the project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with MMs 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to ensure on-site noise levels do not exceed City standards. Response 27 Please refer to the response to Comment 25. As discussed in the Draft EIR, health risk impacts for the project area were analyzed in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2014 John Wayne Airport EIR) and show that risk levels would be below SCAQMD thresholds in the project area. The Project would not include operational sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) as it is proposed as a mixed-use infill residential and retail development. As addressed on page 4.2-18 of the Draft EIR, operational emissions, including diesel particulate matter (i.e., PMlo and PM2.5), from the Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in exhaust (NOx) emissions slightly above the SCAQMD threshold. Mitigation Measure (MM) M 4.2-1 identified in the Draft EIR would require the use of newer construction equipment with better emissions controls and would reduce construction -related NOx emissions. Potential impacts of NOx construction emissions on sensitive receptors was analyzed using localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR Table 4.2-8 identifies that NOx construction emissions would remain below LSTs. Therefore, it is not necessary to further analyze health risk impacts in relation to the operation and construction of the Proposed Project. Particulate matter exceedances of the LSTs occur primarily due to fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, the LSTs for particulate matter were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust is comprised of inert silicates and does not include TACs or other toxins. As such, the exceedance of particulate matter LSTs (see Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR) does not indicate health risk would occur. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable construction emissions. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-90 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 140 City of Newport Beach Response 28 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Please refer to the responses to Comment 25 and Comment 27. Impacts associated with construction - related diesel particulate matter were also analyzed on Draft EIR (see page 4.2-21). The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel -exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with chronic exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Response 29 Please refer to the response to Comment 3. Response 30 The proposed site plans for the Project were previously circulated for interdepartmental City review and comment, including but not limited to the Police Department. City departments, including the Police Department, did not identify any concerns that would require changes to the site plans. Response 31 The Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts despite the implementation of Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures. Standard Condition (SC) 4.10-1 would require that loud noise -generating construction would occur only during hours permitted by the City Noise Ordinance. In addition, MMs 4.10-1 through 4.10-4 would reduce construction noise impacts or minimize the severity of the impacts through a variety of noise abatement methods including the use of noise barriers. In accordance with CECA requirements, the mitigation measures include performance standards and provide the timing and verification mechanisms for implementation. Although temporary noise barriers would not be affective at the upper floors at the surrounding office receptors and future residences, additional feasible mitigation is not available. Therefore, the Draft EIR determines that these measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. It should be noted that construction noise would occur on an intermittent basis depending on the specific construction activity and proximity of equipment to receptors. As the Project would be developed in phases, construction activities would not occur adjacent to any receptor for the duration of Project development. As construction noise would cease once the project is completed, an offsite alternative is not necessary. Additionally, the potential for development of the Project at an alternative location was addressed in Draft EIR Section 6.4.1. As discussed in the Draft EIR, should the Proposed Project be located at another site in the Airport Area, it is anticipated that the mixed-use project would have similar environmental impacts that would require the City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Significant unavoidable impacts associated with development of an alternative site could include construction -related air quality The Koll Center Residences Project 3-91 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation -147 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments and noise impacts; and the need to override of the ALUC's finding of inconsistency with the AELUP. Therefore, the Draft EIR did not evaluate an alternative site because no other site in the Airport Area is known that would definitively "avoid or substantially less any of the significant effects associated with a proposed project." Response 32 The commenter is incorrect that all construction equipment at Tier 4 standards is readily available. The commenter states that since Tier 4 construction equipment was required in the SCAQMD's Tesoro Refinery Project EIR, that it should be feasible for the Proposed Project. However, the Tesoro Final EIR acknowledges that the pool of available Tier 4 equipment is limited and it is not certain that all construction equipment will be available that meets Tier 4 standards! It should be noted that the emissions associated with the Tesoro project would still exceed thresholds despite the implementation of Tier 4 equipment. The Draft EIR for the Proposed Project conservatively requires all equipment greater than 50 horsepowerto meet Tier 3 standards. Because Tier 3 equipment is readily available, the mitigation for the Proposed Project is reasonable and feasible. Response 33 Please refer to the response to Comments 15 and 21. Response 34 Please refer to the response to Comments 15 and 21. Response 35 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. Response 36 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. The commenter's assertion regarding the completion of Project construction is noted. However, the commenter provides no evidence to support this opinion. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.41h 556, 580.) No further response is required. Ordinance 1449 (PC -15 Koll Center) requires one tree per five surface parking stalls. This requirement does not apply to parking within structures. Where parking area trees are removed as a part of the reconfiguration of surface parking, as noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, landscaping would be provided within the surface parking areas consistent with City requirements governing the Project. The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with landscape requirements. 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery—Integration and Compliance Project Final EIR, page 4-42, May 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-92 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation -148 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments An analysis of the Project's potential impacts to foraging, nesting, and sensitive birds is included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR. Response 37 As noted in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the ALUC's consistency determination for the Project must occur prior to Newport Beach City Council action on this Project. The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. A significant unavoidable adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City Council at the time action on the Project is taken. The commenter's opinion regarding the appropriateness of the City Council to override an ALUC determination is noted. California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) and John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Section 4. 11 require the City to refer the Koll Center Residences Project to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency determination with the AELUP due to the proposed zoning amendments (Planned Community Development Amendment and adoption). Should the ALUC find the Proposed Project to be inconsistent with the AELUP, as a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC's decision by following the procedure established in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 2176. 5. This two-step procedure requires the City Council to conduct two separate noticed public meetings. The initial step is to notify ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to override the ALUC's determination by adopting a resolution of intent at least 45 days in advance of the overruling; and the second meeting is to make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. Should the Council adopt the notification resolution, this action does not constitute the Project's approval nor does it predispose the City's future action on the Project. When the ALUC makes a determination that a project is not consistent with the AELUP, approval of a project by the City Council requires a two-thirds vote to override this determination. Response 38 The opinions of the commenter are noted. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-93 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation -1 49 City of Newport Beach Letter B -4a SoCal Pilots Joe Finnell October 11, 2017 SOCAL PILOTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION October 11, 2017 Via Email run-Cdnewoortbeschca.00v Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Re: Request for a Minimum 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: SoCal Pilots Association requests an extension of the draft environmental Impact report (DEIR) comment period for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 16, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. The City's current 45 -day comment period will close on October 27, 2017. An additional 20 days of public comment would ensure the City can satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) goal of ensuring public participation in the environmental review process. Unless extended, the short comment period on this project is likely to dissuade substantive comments on the DEIR, from SoCal Pilots Association and other organizations until after the current comment period. Moreover, late -submitted comments may not receive the good faith written responses required of comments submitted prior to the close of the formal comment period. SoCal Pilots Association wishes to ensure that its comments to the City are accurate and that It has sufficient opportunity to communicate with the City regarding its concerns about the project and Its portrayal In the DEIR. If the comment period Is not extended an additional 20 days, SoCal Pilots and others will be deprived of the meaningful, two-way communication with the City needed for a successful CEQA process. SoCal Pilots members have reasons to belleve that there are substantial safety and noise Issues that have not been addressed in the DEIR. Furthermore, the Development Agreement for the Project has not been publicly disclosed. It is important that all aspects of the Project, its impacts, and its mitigation measures and Implementation conditions are disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR. A short, a 20 -day extension of the comment period is necessary to provide the public the opportunity to review these supporting materials and to provide the City the opportunity to satisfy CEQA's public participation requirements. Thank you for your consideration of this request to extend the close of the comment period for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 16, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, JJII on behalf of SoCal Pilots Association ioefi n I(a), socal.m. com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-94 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 150 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The public review period for the Draft EIR was extended to November 13, 2017, which provided the public a total of 62 days to comment on the EIR. Additionally, both safety and noise impacts were fully analyzed in the EIR. Please refer to Sections 4.7, Hazards, and 4.10, Noise, respectively. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-95 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 151 City of Newport Beach Letter 3-4b SoCal Pilots Joe Finnell November 13, 2017 SOCAL PILOTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION November 13, 2017 Via Email runa®newportbeachca, aov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Kell Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung, The Southern California Pilots Association (SoCal Pilots) represents over 1400 pilots,of which 300 frequently use the John Wayne Airport. Many are tie -down or permanent hangar residents. Locating a residential development close to an airport goes against all urban planning guidelines. The proposed Kell Center development is in the flight path of Runway 20L which handles high intensity flight training and small aircraft. Established helicopter flight comdors are also within the planned development with helicopter traffic approaching to land at roof top level. Current business owners in KCN operate during normal business hours. Business owners and their employees work indoors but typically walk or drive to lunch or hold walking meetings. Everyone accepts the airport noise as it is a business park. Commercial use is compatible with the airport corridor However, intermixing residential use within closeproximity to a busy airport will result in economic loss for existing airport businesses and the pilot community. This is because Koll Center Residence owner/occupants will be unsatisfied with the noise and pollution and will historically use their influence to restrict aircraft and flight training. Residences should never be placed this close to an airport. Investors in luxury residential condos may find cause to sue the City of Newport Beach and other parties for approving residential use that is incompatible with existing known noise and pollution impacts. The inherent exhaust and oily particles from low flying aircraft will create daily residential tenant dissatisfaction of living in an environment so close to an airport. The planned pools and park will greatly suffer and become less 1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-96 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1152 City of Newport Beach SilDil i PILOTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Section 3.0 Responses to Comments attractive simply by existing in a constant business commercial environment. Further, propeller and engine noise is going to be a huge issue for any future residential uses this close to the airport. Aircraft flying in the pattern of runway 20L fly just over 700 feet in this pattern leg. However, there are numerous examples where aircraft are under this height when the ground below is a parking lot and not a thirteen -story residential tower. FAA regulations require 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle over occupied territory (Federal Aviation Regulation 91.119 (b) Minimum safe altitude over congested areas.) The Airport Land Use Planning Commission will be addressing the incompatibility of this project being this close to a busy airport. The Kell Residences DEIR fails to address multiple and significant impacts associated with the flight path directly over the Project site by private planes, helicopters and flight school operations. Project applicants emphasized the outdoor living opportunity provided by the Project at the October 1, 2017 briefing. Unlike the business uses in Kcll Center, residential use will place families 24/7 on site. These families will be exposed to relentless noise from both small aircraft climbing at full power and large jetsdeparting at maximum climb rate. Both of these significant impacts were not disclosed nor adequately analyzed in the DEIR. For the reasons described in detail below, we request that the DEIR be revised to include this information and analysis and recirculated for at least a 60 -day comment period. The DEIR's Project Setting Fails to Describe the Flight Path of Private Planes and/or Pilots in Training. The DEIR's setting information is incomplete with respect to the Flight Path of Private Planes and Pilot Training Schools, information material to an adequate disclosure and analysis of the Project's impacts related to noise, safety, living environment and liability. A revised DEIR must include this setting information and revise impact analyses accordingly. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Analyze the Significant Noise and Pollution Impacts Associated with existing Flight Paths To illustrate the intensity of aircraft flying over the proposed high rise residential towers, , SoCal Pilots requested that Access and Noise at John Wayne Airport provide flight statistics over the proposed development. For purposes of simplicity, the sample data 2 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-97 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1.53 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments SOCAIL +� PILOTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION was graphed over a one week period and drawn from runway 20L activity only. Three scenarios were utilized. Fitt overflights were monitored during a work week, Monday to Friday from 9'.00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The attached graph shows the traffic pattern flights over the proposed project. For this one week, there were 417 flights that flew within the proposed project area around 4400 Von Korman at an average altitude of 776 feet. Note that Access and Noise data disclosed that the lowest altitude was Helicopter that was 110 feet above the proposed site during this week's sampling. The second scenario graphs the air traffic pattern over the proposed project during non -business hours (evening/night to early morning), Monday to Friday during the same sample week. Refer to the attached graph. This second scenario tracked 160 aircraft that flew over the project area around 4400 Von Karmen at an average altitude of 747 feet. What this shows is that air traffic starts early in the morning and goes late at night. Small aircraft do not have the curfew that the larger commercial airlines have. In fact, a propeller aircraft was tracked at 242 feet during the sample week between the hours of 5.00 p.m. and 9:00a m. the next morning, The third scenario graphs the air traffic pattern over the proposed project during the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, During the sample weekend, there were 148 aircraft that flew over the proposed development around 4400 Von Karman at an average altitude of 799 feet. The lowest altitude tracked was a propeller aircraft at 216 ft. This illustrates that weekend air traffic is just as intense as weekday air traffic The existing traffic pattern from 20L is not compatible with residential outdoor living spaces such as balconies, pools, lounge areas or the proposed park. Moreover, because the DElR doesn't adequately address sound and pollution impacts with enough detail it needs to be redrafted. There is no way that the residential development as proposed creates a cohesive development for residents and businesses The three data samples show that air traffic doesn't discriminate between commercial and residential land use, it just follows the standard traffic pattern of typical airports, Moreover, residents inhabit their space more than 8 hours a day. This Intensity needs to be studied and compared to existing flight patterns. Because of the location in the departure flight path, the proposed height of the residential towers creates a safety risk for pilots departing to the East or in the pattern at John Wayne Airport. The proposed exterior spaces and especially the balconies will not translate Into practical and usable outdoor living space for residents. Residents would end up complaining to the City about noise and it would create an antagonistic relationship between prior users of the airport corridor and the new residents who expect to be able to use their balconies and outdoor living space on the weekend and in the evenings. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-98 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 4 7LS9 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments SoCAL, PuLa-rs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Furthermore, aircraft in the 20L pattern use full power when departing the airport and then turn while climbing in a counter clockwise direction, This flight pattern is standard across typical airports and is not unique to John Wayne Airport. Moreover, the departing aircraft are emitting their highest decibels right over the proposed location. High rise residential buildings are not compatible this close to the landing and departure of aircraft from runway 20L Finally, the charts are isolating air traffic only from 20L, There is a second runway, 20R that carries larger passenger and freight transportation aircraft. Although the take off and landing pattern of the larger aircraft extends over the Back Bay, there is still significant air pollution and noise associated with that air traffic within KCN. Commercial users primarily function in interior spaces and willfully accept the benefit of proximity to transportation corridors over the negative impact of sound and air pollution. Residential users have a completely different expectation when it comes to outdoor living... quiet enjoyment, perceived safety and pollution issues. The DEIR Pails to Disclose and Analyze the Significant Liability for the City to Approve a Residential Project on this Site It may be legal for the City to override an inconsistency with ALUC. However, doing so places the liability lawsuits related to noise complaints directly on the City, For this reason alone, the City should not approve a residential use on this site. The General Plan Uodate Should Be Comoleted Prior to Consideration of Maier Proiects in the Airport Area The City has initiated a General Plan Update process. During the public outreach to scope the Update, the Airport Area is one of two areas in Newport Beach the public specifically said is in need of revisioning. This Project should be denied and the General Plan Update completed, For all the above stated reasons, the City must - at a minimum - revise and recirculate the DEIR. We will be supplementing these comments in January when additional technical information requested by our experts will be forthcoming, Sincerely, Joe Finnell, President SoCal Pilots Association (714) 293-3601 (C) (714) 839-7377 (H) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-99 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 4 1155 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments SOCAL� PILOTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Attachments; Overflights of Project Site Proposed Project Area with Yellow Dot Weekday Overflights of Propel Site Monday, September 11, 2017 -Friday. September 15, 2017 9.00 AM to 5 00 PM Average Altitude Over Project /Site- 776 Ft Total Flights over Project Site- 417 . The Koll Center Residences Project 3-100 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1,56 City of Newport Beach S40CAIL PiLo-rs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PILOTS ASSOCIATION Weekday 0v Right of Project Site Monday, September 11, 2017 -Friday. September 15.20175 W PM to 9 W AM Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Average AlMde Over Proiecl tslfe - 747 FI Total FkgMs Over Project Site- 1 BO Weekend Overflights of Project Site Saturday September 18, 2017 to Sunday September 17, 2017 Average Altitude Over Projecl Site - 799 Ft Total Hights Over Projoct Sim -148 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-101 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :LJ7 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. As discussed in the Draft EIR and the topical response, the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour. It should be noted that the Airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including private aircraft. The Draft EIR also includes mitigation requiring a future noise study to determine if upgraded building materials and sound insulation would be required. The commenter's opinion regarding the potential for future litigation against the City of Newport Beach is speculative and beyond the scope of this EIR. Response 2 Please refer to the response to Comment 1 and Topical Response, Airport Noise. The project site is outside of the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour and the Draft EIR also includes mitigation to ensure future residents would not be exposed to excessive noise levels. MM 4.10-5 requires interior noise levels to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and MM 4.10-6 requires a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). The Airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including private aircraft. Response 3 Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. As noted, the Airport noise contours include all aircraft operations including private aircraft. With respectto disclosure related to the location of the property to John Wayne Airport, PC -15 Koll Center as amended, would include the following provision: A written disclosure statement shall be prepared prior to sale, lease, or rental of every residential unit within a mixed-use project. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment in proximity to John Wane Airport and that noise, odor, air quality, outdoor activity levels, etc. may be different or higher than typical suburban residential areas. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the vicinity. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The project applicant shall covenant to include within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unitwithin a mixed-use project (1) the disclosure and notification requirement as stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and thatthe noise, odor, air quality, outdoor activity levels, etc. may be different or higherthan typical suburban residential areas; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-102 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 152 City of Newport Beach Response 4 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter introduces flight statistics for the John Wayne Airport and attempts to draw conclusions based on that data. It should be noted that noise impacts to the project site from the airport were evaluated based on recent data and noise contours for the John Wayne Airport. As discussed in the Draft EIR and Topical Response: Airport Noise, the project site is outside of the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour. These contours take into account aircraft type and flight paths associated with the airport. Furthermore, as described in the topical response, analysis from the Metroplex EA indicates that future noise levels in the project area may be lower. Additionally, the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) has been adopted by the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation operations. John Wayne Airport maintains ten permanent noise monitoring stations. The GANO specifies noise limits at each noise monitoring stations that vary by time of day. The GANO also identifies private aircraft that may not meet the noise standards and specifically limits their operations unless the aircraft owner/operator can furnish evidence that the aircraft can operate within acceptable noise levels. Additionally, as noted in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the ALUC's consistency determination for the Project must occur prior to Newport Beach City Council action on this Project. The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact to less than significant. A significant unavoidable adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City Council at the time action on the Project is taken. Response 5 The City has not initiated a process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to utilize the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-103 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :L59 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter B-5 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Adam Williams, Manager, Airport Policy November 13, 2017 p� 50 FSt. NW, So to 750 Comment Letter B-5 Washington, D C. 20001 AOPA F 202-273-79501 your freedom to fly w aopa org November 13, 2017 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Community Development Department, Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Koll Center Residences Project Draft EIR Dear Ms. Ung, The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is the world's largest general aviation association with nearly 350,000 members including 32,000 members in California. On behalf of our members, I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Koll Center Residences Project (PA2015-024). The project aims to bring 260 new dwelling units to the project site. Residential development this location, 0.5 miles from the airport and directly beneath the traffic pattem, is incompatible with the airport. AOPA urges the Newport Beach Planning Commission to deny this residential development project. The DEIR discusses several significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. One such impact relates to land use compatibility with SNA The compatibility will be reviewed by the county's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The DEIR indicates the ALUC may find the project to be incompatible with the current land use plan for the airport. Wide this reality should have been recognized before the zoning was changed to mixed use, the City of Newport Beach still has an opportunity to prevent future conflicts between SNA and adjacent residents. The real impact of aircraft noise on potential Koll Center residents has not been presented in the DEIR. The city's General Plan indicates noise contours around John Wayne Airport. It is commonly held that an average noise level of 65 decibels is the maximum average noise level that is compatible with residential land use. Since the project site is located slightly beyond the 65 -decibel contour, proponents of the Koll Center Residences Project will argue that aircraft noise is not a factor for the City's consideration There are several problems with the assertion that aircraft noise will not be a factor for the residents. Noise data has not been recently collected at the project site, so the precise noise levels to be experienced by future residents is not known. Furthermore, the 65 -decibel standard has been shown to be an insufficient measure of compatibility. Naples Municipal Airport, which has one third of the number of annual flight operations of SNA, has been forced to adopt a 60 DNL standard after decades of costly legal battles over noise. The City of Naples, Florida, has spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in federal The Kell Center Residences Project 3-104 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 100 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments proceedings and litigation to address noise impacts of the airport on the surrounding community. This led to a ban on certain general aviationaircraft which remains in effect today. Similarly, Hanscom Airport in Massachusetts has strict noise abatement procedures and restrictions on evening and night operations. Atone point, lawsuits were filed to halt flight training operations. Numerous other cities have suffered a similar fate while believing that residential encroachment of thea airport would be harmless. When incompatible projects are allowed to develop the taxpayers have to pay the legal costs. Several airportshave beenrequired to mitigate aircraft noise outside of the 65 DNL after finding the noise to substantially impact the residents in those areas. We strongly urge the City to develop Newport Beach in harmony with the airport and learn from the mistakes made by other locations around the country. Since an update to the General Plan has already begun, the City has an opportunity to collect public input and amend the General Plan to reflect the most appropriate uses of land surrounding the airport. Once the update is complete, this DEIR should be reviewed against the new General Plan, revised as needed, and recirculated for public comment. Aircraft noise from operations at John Wayne Airport has already impacted surrounding communities enough to cause Orange County to create the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANO). The ordinance sets limits on aircraft noise and establishespenalties for violations. Three instances of noise violations result in the violator being banned from use of the airport. If a banned operator proceeds to me the airport, the operator will be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by civil penalty or imprisonment. The threat of jail time as a. punishment for normal. .flight operations at a publicly -funded airport is highly unusual in the United States and indicates an environment. that is abnormally sensitive to aircraft noise. Due to the lessons learned from other municipalities, and the historic noise issues in areas adjacent to John Wayne Airport, the Koll Center Residences Project must not be permitted by the City of Newport Beach. Whilethe project site is not directly aligned with a runway end, a high volume of air traffic flies directly over the project site during normal operations. An FAA finding of "no hazard" after a FAR Part 77 obstruction analysis does not suggest there is no hazard in every respect. It only states that the planned development will not exceed the obstruction standards of Part 77. That means the air traffic procedures will not need to be altered due to the height of the structures. The FAA makes no statement about hazards presented during an emergency or the noise impacts during normal operations. Future residents are depending on the City to plan responsibly, not the Federal government. A map has been provided along with these comments which shows the concentration of air traffic over the project site. Aircraft departures, the loudest phase of aircraft flight, will be a daily occurrence over the site. The full effect of this cannot be appreciated until after the residents have settled in; long after the real estate developer has moved on to the next venture. Noise mitigations suchas layout changes or insulating materials intended to meet the City's noise standards may reduceaverage noise levels but. will not sufficiently reduce peak noise levels to satisfy future residents. The distinct psychological impact of aircraft noise cannot be understood by observing the weighted average noise levels measured by noise monitors. The crescendo of aircraft overhead, the vibration effects, and the awareness of aircraft accidents all factor into the AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION The Kell Center Residences Project 3-105 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 2 101 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments negative human experience of living at a site such as this. The housing market will reflect this ccnt'd diminished quality of life in the future prices of these proposed condominiums. 1 3 The residents of Newport Beach, current and future, are depending on the City to make responsible planning decisions. Consider the variety of uses such as commercial, industrial. parks, and open space which will allow the City to meet its development objectives without subjecting new residents to known noise impacts. John Wayne Airport is an economic engine in your community. Develop the City in harmony with the airport and it will continue to serve as an economic asset for generations to come. We urge the City to deny this project and to consider amendments to the General Plan to clearly discourage residential development in proximity to the airport. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Adam Williams Manager, Airport Policy AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION The Kell Center Residences Project 3-106 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 102 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments John Wayne Airport Ames and Noise Office Monday, September 11, 2017 — Friday, September 15, 2017 3900— 1700L Total Ops - 417 Average Altitude at 4400 Von Karmen Ave. — 776 FL The Koll Center Residences Project 3-107 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Jos City of Newport Beach Response 1 The comment is noted. Response 2 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. The commenter focuses on the 65 CNEL contour in the City's General Plan and opines that the 65 CNEL contour is too high of a standard. However, as discussed in the Draft EIR and the topical response, the project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.10-6 requires a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features (upgraded building materials/insulation, barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). As noted in the comment, the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) has been adopted by the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation operations. Compliance with the GANO is mandated. It should be noted that the Project does not propose modifications to the GANO. Response 3 The commenter raises the issue of impacts to the Project from FAA procedures. As noted in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the ALUC's consistency determination for the Project must occur prior to the Newport Beach City Council taking action on this Project. The possibility of an ALUC determination of inconsistency with the AELUP is considered potentially significant. No mitigation measures are available that would reduce this impact (inconsistency determination) to less than significant. A significant unavoidable adverse impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to be made by the City Council at the time action on the Project is taken. Please also refer to the response to Comment 2 and Topical Response: Airport Noise regarding the noise levels from aircraft operation and associated Project mitigation. Response 4 This comment provides concluding remarks and does not raise a specific issue regarding the Draft EIR or any other CEQA issue. The commenter's general opposition to the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-108 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 0=1 City of Newport Beach Letter B-6 Orange County Flight Center Gary Sequeira, President November 13, 2017 From: Gary Sequeira fmailto:eary9Docfc.coml Sent Monday, November 13, 2017 4:18 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUn¢rmnewoortbeachca.eov> Cc:Adriana Fourcher<afourcheri@bitcentral.mm> Subject: FW: URGENT REMINDER: Koll Center Residences DEIR comments due today From: Gary Sequeira Sent Monday, November 13, 2017 3:01 PM To:'Adriana Fourcher' <afourcher6Dbttcentral.com> Subject: RE: URGENT REMINDER: Koll Center Residences DEIR comments due today Section 3.0 Responses to Comments To Whom it may concern, RE: "Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report forthe Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017011002" This letter is tovoice our growingconcern regardingthe planned community development known as the Koll Center Residents Project (PA2015-024) . As an operator of Orange County Flight Center here at KSNA since 1991, we have endured our fair share of noise complaints from the surrounding communities. To knowingly construct another community within a mile or so of John Wayne is unconscionable. We have been fighting with one of the local neighbors for over 2 years now. An additional residential community this close to all of the aviation traffic would only pave the way for more complaints, red tape, and ill feelings. We are totally on board with the thoughts and comments of AOPA, and support all they are doing to make sure this issue is completely examined prior to any ground breaking. Yours Truly, Gary Sequeira/Pres. OCFC Response 1 The commenter's opposition to the Project is noted. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-109 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 105 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-110 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 100 City of Newport Beach Comment Letters and Responses: Individuals and Businesses (C) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-111 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 2 O7 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-112 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments MW City of Newport Beach Letter C -1a Bruce Bartram September 28, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:cpglx8v0@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 201710:22 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: nanalston@gmail.com; Dennis.Baker@Diand Den.net; abeek@flash.net; Don Harvey<harveydonw@juno.com>; jocarol@ix.netcom.com; dorothyjkraus@gmail.com; dkrotee@krotee.com; andylingle@gmaiLcom; elinhoff@sbcglobal.net; bobbylove112000@yahoo.com; jenmcdl0@aol.com; marko@uci.edu; pricejcb@gmail.com; nbseely@aol.com; jskinnermd@aol.com; jwatt4@aol.com; portiaweiss@gmaiLcom; terrywelsh@hotmail.com; Karen_Tringali@msn.com; dho@obermanassociates.com; jimmosher@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment I Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Center Residences draft environmental impact report (DEIR) Comment I Dear Ms. Ung: According to Koll Center Residences DEIR Executive Summary the project location and description are described as follows in pertinent part: "The Koll Center Residences project site (project site) is approximately 13.16 acres within the Koll Center Newport, a 154 - acre mixed-use development area. The project site is an irregularly-shaped property generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south.... The Proposed Project is a mixed-use infill residential and retail development with up to 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 square feet (sf) of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. The residences would be in three. 13 -story residential buildings. The buildings would be up to 160 feet in heiaht with two levels of above-arade and two to three levels of below - grade structured parking.... The project site is zoned Xoll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)". Specifically, the project site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC -15 Koll Center (Site B). PC -15 zoning permits professional and business offices, hotels and motels, retail, restaurants and entertainment, a courthouse, private clubs, and auto detailing and service stations. Currently, Site B allows professional and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses..." (Emphasis added) In Section 3.4.2. of the Project Description portion of the Koll Center Residences DEIR the Zoning Designation of the project site is discussed in pertinent part as follows: "The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 20.56 allows a "Planned Community District" to address land use designation and regulations in the form of Planned Communities. A Planned Community (PC) District, as stated in Municipal Code Section 20.56.010, is intended to: A. Provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning. B. Allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this Zoning Code. C. Include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated development standards. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-113 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation log City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As depicted in Figure 3-5, Existing Zoning Designation, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)". Specifically, the site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC -15 Koll Center (Site B).... Zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times...:' The Koll Center Newport Planned Community is a community plan. Under Califomia state law, a community plan is part of the general plan, focusing on a particular neighborhood or community within the larger jurisdiction. Community plans allow a city or county to concentrate on the most salient issues and develop planning strategies and actions best suited for particular communities without going through the time and expense involved in revising or updating the general plan as a whole. A community plan must be consistent with the general plan of which it is a part. Government Code §65301(b); Public Resources Code § 21063.3; Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Association v. City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 9. The City of Newport Beach provides a webpage listing the City's Planned Communities including the Koll Center Newport Planned Community and their respective development standards at: Attached are the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 linked by the City on their above webpage. As you can see, on pages 16-17 of the Development Standards it is stated as follows: "Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed twelve (12) stories above around level, and shall in noway exceed the height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport." (Emphasis added) The twelve (12) story building height limit contained in Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards conflicts with the Koll Center Residences project's intended "three 13 -story residential buildings. The buildings would be up to 160 feet in height with two levels of above- rade and two to throe levels of below -grade structured arkin .. " as stated in the DEIR's Executive Summary cited above. Yet this conflict is nowhere discussed the DIER. Instead, as is listed in Section 1.6 of the Executive Summary Table 1.1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program on Page 1-24 the following is stated in pertinent part:: "Thresholds Applied Environmental Impacts/ Level of Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Program: Project Design Features, Standard Conditions, and Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.9-2 Conflict with my applicable land use plan, policy,or re ulation of an agency with'urisdiction over the pro'ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted far the purpose of avdding or mitigating an environmental effect. Environmental Impacts/ Level of Significance Before Mitigation Implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan goals and policies. The Protect includes an amendment to PC -15 Kell Centerto include Provisions allowing for residential development. Becausethe amendment would be consistent with the General Plan and Airport Business Area ICDP, the amendment to PC -15 Kell Center would not result in a change in policy that would result in significant impacts." (Emphasis added) As noted above, the DEIR only mentions the need to amend Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards to include residential uses. A review of the attached does indeed reveal that no residential uses are listed as permitted uses. However, no mention is made of the Development Standards'twelve (12) story building height limitation and its conflict with the project's intended three. 13 -story residential buildings. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-114 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1-70 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments As noted in the Section 2 Introduction of the DEIR the following is stated: "2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and implementation of the proposed Koll Center Residences Project (Proposed Project or Project). The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 3, §§ 15000 et sec.). The EIR has also been prepared in accordance with Newport Beach City Council Policy K- 3, "Implementation Procedures forthe California Environmental Quality Act". The City of Newport Beach (City) is the "public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project" and, as such, is the "Lead Agency" for this Project under CEQA (14 CCR §15367). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in an EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to provide information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider this EIR in its decision to approve, revise, or deny the Project." CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans. (Emphasis added) Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2001) 200 Cal.App Ath 1552. Under the Government Code, every county and city is required to adopt a comprehensive, long -tern general plan for the physical development of the county or city (Gov. Code, § 65300). A general plan provides a charter for future development and sets forth a city or county's fundamental policy decisions about such development. These policies typically reflect a range of competing interests. Nevertheless, a city's land use decisions must be consistent with the policies expressed in the general plan. (Emphasis added) Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App Ath 807, 815. As noted above, under state law a community plan is part of the general plan. Govt.Code §65301(b); Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3. The Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards are part of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan. Consistent with state law, NBMC § 20.10.030 states as follows: "20.10.030 Authority—Relationship to General Plan. A. Authority. The regulations within this Zoning Code are enacted based on the authority vested in the City of Newport Beach by the State of California and Section 200 of the City Charter. B. Consistency with General Plan. This Zoning Codeis the primary tool used by the City to carry out the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. It is intended that all provisions of this Zoning Code be consistent with the General Plan and that any development, land use, or subdivision approved in compliance with these regulations will also be consistent with the General Plan." (Emphasis added). In conclusion, the Koll Center Residences DEIR in its present form is inadequate under CEQA due to its failure to discuss the inconsistencies between the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards'twelve (12) story building height limitation and the project's intended three. 13 -story residential buildings. Further, City approval of the Koll Center Residences project is currently barred due to the project's conflict with the City's General Plan. Id. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-115 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 171 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. As noted by the commenter and addressed in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would require an amendment to the zoning text; please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. PC -15 Koll Center is separate from, and not a part of, the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The 12 -story building height requirement applies to professional and business office developments within PC -15 Koll Center. The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, the latter which identifies building height rather than the number of stories associated with site-specific development. With respect to building height, it states: Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by an approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project with 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet above the ground level are evaluated in the Draft EIR. Response 2 As a point of clarification to the commenter, the Project does not include the preparation of a community plan. The Planned Community Development standards establishes the zoning regulations for the project site. While the Municipal Code requires consistency between the General Plan and provisions of the Zoning Code, PC -15 Koll Center is not a community plan/General Plan. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-116 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 172 City of Newport Beach Letter C -1b Bruce Bartram October 6, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:cpglx8v0@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:22 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: nanalston@gmaiLcom; Den nis.Baker@Diand Den.net; tomlubaker@hotmaii.com; abeek@flash.net; Don Harvey <haweydonw@juno.com>; jocarol@ix.netcom.com; dorothyjkmus@gmaiLcom; dkrotee@krotee.com; andylingle@gmaiLcom; elinhoff@sbcglobal.net; bobbylove112000@yahoo.com; jenmcdl0@aol.com; marko@uci.edu; pricejcb@gmaiLcom; nbseely@aol.com; jskinnermd@aol.com; jwatt4@aol.com; portiaweiss@gmail,com; portiaweiss@gmaiLcom Subject: Re: Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment II Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Center Residences draft environmental impact report (DEIR) Comment II Dear Ms. Ung: This email is in follow up to my Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment I dated September 28, 2017. A copy of that comment is attached and is incorporated by reference herein. In that comment, I pointed out that the Koll Center Center Residences DEIR in its present form was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21000 et seq.). This because of the DEIR's failure to discuss the inconsistencies between the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards'twelve (12) story building height limitation and the project's intended construction of three,13-story residential buildings. A copy of the Development Standards is attached to the same September 28, 2017 email above. The Koll Center Residences DEIR's failure to address the project's height inconsistences affects multiple areas of the DEIR's analysis mandated under CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and implementation ofthe proposed Koll Center Residences Project. To citejust one example, Koll Center Residences DEIR Section 5.3 addresses the project's potential to generate "Growth -Inducing Impacts." Section 5.3 states in pertinent part as follows: "5.3 Growth -Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) requires the evaluation of the growth -inducing impacts of a project. This section is required to determine the manner in which a project could encourage substantial economic or population growth or construction of additional housing in the surrounding area, either directly or indirectly. Growth inducement can be defined as the relationship between a project and growth within the surrounding area. To address this issue, potential growth -inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this Proiect remove obstacles to growth, e.q., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through chances in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this Project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this Project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval ofthis Project involve some precedent-settina action that could encouraoe and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?"(Emphasis added) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-117 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 27S Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments In answer to the first question above regarding removal of obstacles to growth through changes in existing land development regulations Section 5.3 states in pertinent part as follows: ..., approval of the Project would not remove any existing regulatory obstacle to growth. The Project is consistent with the General Plan category for the site. As part of the Proposed Project, PC -15 Koll Center Site B would include new overlay zones: Park and Residential, allowing for residential development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project is not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth or through the provision of infrastructure." In fact, approval of the Project would require an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards' twelve (12) story building height limitation. This to accommodate construction ofthe intended 13 -story height of the Project's three residential buildings. In addition, further amendment of Development Standards would be necessary to establish Building Height Land Coverage and Landscape Open Space Land Coverage standards for a thirteen (13) story development like that proposed underthe Koll Center Residences Project. As you can see, the current Development Standards address Building Height Land Coverage and Landscape Open Space Land Coverage only up to a twelve story development. This, of course, is to be expected with the current Development Standards' twelve (12) story building height limitation for the Project site. As noted on Page 18 on the Development Standards: "The preceding figures indicate that within a fixed maximum density as the height of the building increases the resulting open landscaped area also increases." In answer to the question regarding whether the Project's approval would involve some precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment Section 5.3 states in pertinent part as follows: "A project can encourage growth that has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan process. This planned growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with the underlying assumption that adequate supporting infrastructure ultimately would be constructed. The project site is in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. The Airport Area is approximately 360 acres bordered by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive, and Bristol Street. Within the Airport Area, properties proximate to John Wayne Airport are designated Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO). Properties near Bristol Street at Jamboree Road, and two additional properties internal to the Airport Area are designated General Commercial. The California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center parcel is designated Public Facilities. The remainder of the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site, is designated Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. • A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill. • Non-residential uses are permitted according to the limits included in General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations. The project site is located within Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. Anomaly Location 2 has a development limit of 1,052,880 sf. Of the 2,200 units, 1,650 units must replace existing development so there is no net gain in vehicular trips. The remaining 550 units are "additive" units that can only be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard in the Airport Area. The approved Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) covers that portion of the Airport Area generally bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street, inclusive of the project site. The Airport Business Area ICDP allows for up to 1,504 new residential units: 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development uses would be removed. The remainder of the units are associated with the Uptown Newport Project. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-118 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 2 174 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Because the Project is consistent with the allowable development assumptions of the Airport Business Area ICDP, both the residential and retail components of the Project were anticipated land uses in this location. Approval of the Proiect Most of the areasurrounding the project site is either developed or planned for development. In summary, the Project would not remove obstacles to growth and is therefore not considered growth inducing." (Emphasis added) Once again, contrary to the DEIR's conclusion above, approval of the Project would require an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards' twelve (12) story building height limitation to accommodate the planned construction of the three,13-story residential buildings. This certainly qualifies as a "precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment" according to state law standards for determining growth -inducing environmental impacts. According to the DEIR's Executive Summary, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Kell Center)". Specifically, the project site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC -15 Kell Center (Site B). From the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards the twelve (12) story building height limit applies to the following sites within the Planned Community: Sites A, B, C, D and E. The needed amendment to allow the Project's construction of the three,13-story residential buildings.constitutes a precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. That being the encouragement of developers on other potential residential projects in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to seek height amendments in excess of the present twelve (12) story building height limit. In short, approval of the Project's planned construction of three 13 -story residential buildings in the face of the Development Standard's twelve (12) story building height limitation requires additional analysis of the potential for growth - inducing environmental impacts beyond that provided in the DEIR. It should be noted that such additional analysis would likely constitute significant new information requiring public review. CEQA Guideline 15088.5 states that a "lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added... after public notice is given... for public remew...but before certification. As used in this section, the term 'information' can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information" The information could show that a "new significant environmental impact would result" and/or that a "substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result" and/or that the "draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." The above "significant new information" and the provisions of CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5 fully justify and require review and recirculation of DEIR. Notice in Section 15088.5(e) that a "decision not to recirculate an DEIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record". This indicates that CEQA favors recirculation of a DEIR in making the determination under Section 15088.5. This is consistent with both statutory and case law stating "the California Environmental Quality Act.(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 21000 et seq.)is to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language" Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1214. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-119 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 27,5 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. As noted by the commenter and addressed in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would require an amendment to the zoning text; please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. PC -15 Koll Center is separate from, and not a part of, the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The 12 -story building height requirement applies to professional and business office developments within PC -15 Koll Center. The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, the latter which identifies building height rather than the number of stories associated with site-specific development. With respect to building height, it states: Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by an approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project with 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet above the ground level are evaluated in the Draft EIR. Response 2 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. Regarding the commenter's opinion that development of the Project with 13 -story buildings would be growth -inducing, the degree to which other properties are redeveloped at an increase building height is speculative. The commenter has not presented evidence to support this opinion. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-120 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 170 City of Newport Beach Response 3 Please refer to the response to Comment 1. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-121 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 177 City of Newport Beach Letter C -lc Bruce Bartram October 30, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:cpglx8v0@verizon.netj Sent: Monday, October 30,2017 10:38 AM To: Ung Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Dennis.Baker@DiandDen.net; Tom Baker <tomlubaker@hotmail.cvm>; abeek@flash.net; Don Harvey <harveydonw@juno.com>; Jo Carol Hunter <jocarol@ix.netcom.com>; Dorothy Kraus <dorothyjkraus@gmaikcom>; dkrotee@krotee.com; andylingle@gmail.com; elinhoff@sbcglobal.net; bobbylove112000@yahoo.com; marko@uci.edu; pricejcb@gmail.com; nbseely@aol.com; jskinnermd@aol.com; jwatt4@aol.com; portiaweiss@gmail.com; nanalston@gmail.com; jenmcdl0@aol.com Subject: Re: Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment III Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Center Residences draft environmental impact report (DEIR) Comment III Dear Ms. Ung: This email is in follow up to my Koll Center Residences DEIR Comments I and II dated September 28, 2017 and October 6, 2017 respectively. A copy of those comments is attached and is incorporated by reference herein. In Section 3.1 of the Project Description of the Koll Center Residences DEIR the Purpose of the Project Description is stated as follows in pertinent part: "The purpose of the Project Description is to describe The Koll Center Residences Project (Proposed Project or Project) to allow for meaningful review by reviewing agencies, decision makers, and interested parties. Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations§ 15124) requires that a project description for an environmental impact report (EIR) contain (1) the precise location and boundaries of a project site; (2) a statement of objectives sought by a project including the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of a project's characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR ....... An adequate proiect description need not be exhaustive, but should supply the detail necessary for project evaluation." (Emphasis added) Section 3.5 of the DEIR states the Project Objectives as follows in pertinent part: "Section 15124(b) ofthe State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of objectives would help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project". The following objectives have been identified for the Project: The Koll Center Residences Project 3-122 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 172 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments • Implement the goals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan established forth Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Plan. • Develop a mixed-use community that provides lobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability." (Emphasis added) In turn, in Section 3.6 the DEIR the Project Characteristics are listed as follows in pertinent part: "As proposed, the Project would allow for the development of a mixed-use infill residential and retail development with 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas..." Throughout Project Description Section 3 of the Koll Center Residences DEIR the residential component of the proposed mixed-use development is described only as "260 residential condominiums." By contrast, attached is the "Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting The Koll Center Residences Environmental Impact Report" dated January 4, 2017 prepared by the City of Newport Beach directed to'Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties." Once a lead agency, here, the City of Newport Beach, determines an EIR is required for a project, the lead agency must send the state Office of Planning and Research and other affected agencies a "notice of preparation" of an EIR. CEQA Guideline 15082 (a). The "notice of preparation" (NOP) must, at minimum, include information regarding the description of the project. its location and its probable environmental effects, to permit responsible agencies to make a meaningful response. CEQA Guideline 15082 (a)(1). (Emphasis added) On Page 4 of the NOP the "Description of the Proposed Project" is stated as follows in pertinent part: "The applicant proposes the demolition of existing surface parking lots and landscape improvements to accommodate the development of 260 luxury residential condominiums in three 13 -story residential buildings with structured parking; 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail; a 1 -acre public park; and a freestanding parking structure. Residential units are proposed as one-, two- and three-bedroom units, The units would be configured as flats ranging in size from approximately 1,240 sf to 3,160 sf with private patios/balconies. Each residence would have a semiprivate access through a private lobby in each building or from a secured residents -only area of the parking garage" (Emphasis added) The NOP description of the Koll Center project residential component as "luxury condominiums" as opposed to the above Section 3.6 the DEIR the Project Characteristics description as mere "residential condominiums" is significant. A review of the entire Koll Center Residences DEIR reveals only one section where the Project's residential component was analyzed under their true character as "luxury condominiums", that being Section 4.14 "Traffic and Transportation." Specifically, in Section 4.14.5 the "Project Assumptions" are stated as follows in pertinent part: "4.14.5 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) publication. The Project components and trip generation estimates for the Koll Center Residences are as follows: • Luxury Condominium sriownhouse (Land Use 233)" (Emphasis added) In turn, in Section 4.14.6 "Environmental Impacts" in Table 4.14-10. Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Estimates are based upon the Land Use "Luxury Condominiumsriownhouse" with a "Quantity' of "260" "DU" dwelling units. Though not discussed in the DEIR, it must be noted that the ITE Trip Generation Manual has a. number of land use categories that describe residential trip generation for projects like this. Thus according to the Manual "Residential Condominium" is considered as Category 230 with, for example, a PM Peak generation rate of 0.52 per unit. By contrast, "Luxury Condominium" is a distinct category - Category 233 - which has a rate of 0.65 PM trips per unit. This, of course, is a higher trip generation rate than that for "residential condominium" and demonstrates a greater environmental impact that will be generated by the Koll Center project residential component being "Luxury Condominiums." The Koll Center Residences Project 3-123 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments This raises the question(s) regarding how the remainder of the DEIR's analysis of Koll Center project is impacted by this differing "residential condominium" versus "luxury condominium"treatment. Most prominently, that differing treatment affects the evaluation regarding how and to what extent the Koll Center project achieves the stated "Project Objective" listed above. Namely, to "IDIeveloo a mixed-use community that provides lobs, residential, and supporting services in dose proximity." The above Project Objective is obviously derived from the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15. LU 6.15 is specially directed at the Airport Area and states as follows: "Goal LU 6.15—A mixed-use community that providesjobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability." Table 4.31 "General Plan Consistency Analysis" contained in DEIR discusses numerous applicable General Plan Goals and Policies and how the Project is allegedly consistent with those goals and policies. Thus, on Page 4.916 Goal LU 6.15 is listed along with a number of supporting General Plan policies. One such policy is LU 6.5.15 which states as follows in pertinent part: "LU 6.15.5 Residential and Support Uses. Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 mufti -family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands." (Emphasis added) According to Table 4.9.1 the Project is consistent with the LU 6.16.5 policy as follows in pertinent part: "Consistent: Consistent with this policy and the Airport Business Area ICDP, the Proposed Project would allow for the reuse of the project site as a mixed-use residential project adjacent and proximate to existing office and commercial land uses that provide jobs and supporting services within the Airport Area. More specifically, the Project would consist of mixed uses with 260 residential units, 3,000 sf of neighborhood -serving retail space, and a 1.17 -acre public park." Left unanswered in Table 4.9.1 nor addressed anywhere in the DEIR is to what extent, if any, will the proposed 260 (luxury) residential units serve as "work force housing" for the Airport Area. This to allow Airport Area employees to live in the Koll Center Residences Project, work in the area and achieve the Project Objective of a "mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity." The major employer in the Airport Area is, of course, John Wayne Airport. Paysa.com is a website designed to provide employees with salary information by company, title and location "to make educated and informed job & career decisions." According to Paysa.com the average salary for John Wayne Airport employees is $90,000. The weblink to this information is: httos://www.oaysa.cpm/salarieshohn-wavne-aimort. According to an Orange County Register article dated May 15, 2017 the income needed to afford a median -priced Orange County house now stands at $154,120 a year. From the article: "Unless you have a huge bank account, you need to earn $154,120 a yearto afford the median -priced Orange County house worth $750,000, the Califomia Association of Realtors reported Monday, May 15. Just 21 percent of Orange County households met that benchmark during the first quarter of 2017, the period covered in CAR's latest affordability report." The weblink to this article is: http://www.ocreaister.com/2017/O5/15fincom e-needed-to-afford-arroranae-countv-house- n ow-at-154120-a-vear/. In researching the Koll Center Residences Project I was unable to locate any information regarding the pricing of the proposed 260 luxury condominiums. However, the attached Daily Pilot article dated November 29, 2016 can serve as a price guide. As you can see the article discusses the City of Newport Beach's approval of the Museum House Project, "a 25 -story luxury condominium development in Newport Center." From the article: The Koll Center Residences Project 3-124 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :M City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments "Museum House is planned to contain 54 two-bedroom units and 46 three-bedroom units. The condos, ranging from 1,800 to 6,000 square feet, are proposed to sell for $2 million to $4 million." (Emphasis added) Assuming the Koll Center Residences Project luxury condominium units are priced at half that of the Museum House units coned they will remain likely unaffordable to the vast majority of John Wayne Airport employees. How then and to what extent 2 does the Koll Center Residences Project achieve the mixed-use development goal of work force housing for the Airport Area where residents can live and work both within "close proximity",i.e.,walking distance of the other? This where the proposed luxury condominium units likely far exceed the median price of an Orange County home. In DEIR Table 4.9.1. LU Policy 2.3 and its consistency analysis is stated as follows: "LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element." (Emphasis added) "Consistent: The Proposed Project would develop 260 residential unit offering a range of floor plans and amenities (!) at a density of approximately 31 units per net acre." (Emphasis added) The apparently deliberate failure of the DEIR to analyze whether Koll Center Residences Project achieves the Project Objective to "[DJevelop a mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity" using "residential condominiums" instead the actual "luxury condominiums" proposed renders the analysis incomplete and The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. 'The EIR has been aptly described as the heart of CEQA. Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. The ultimate decision of whether to approve a proiect. be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide the decision -makers, and the public, with the information about the proiect that is required by CEQA.. (Emphasis added) Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342. In summary, the Koll Center Residences DEIR's shifting use of "residential condominiums" for some purposes of analysis versus "luxury residential condominiums" for others renders the Project Description uncertain and unstable. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. However, a curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185.Only through an accurate view of the proiect may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed pro ect's benefits against Its environmental costs, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives. (Emphasis added) City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d. 1438. Please acknowledge the receipt of this email. Thank you for your expected cooperation in this manner. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-125 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 121 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments �¢p Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting FThe Koll Center Residences Environmental Impact Report V n e DATE:January4, 2017 TO: Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties FROM: City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROJECT TITLE/SUBJECF: The Koll Center Residences— Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Public Scoping Meeting NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD: January 4, 2017 to February 2, 2017 SCOPING MEETING: Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Newport Beach Central Library, Friends Room, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21165 and the Ca l'rforn is Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15050, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing potential impacts associated with the proposed The Koll Center Residences Project. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE SCOPE OF THE EIR The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR and the environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15082). This NOP also provides notice for the public scoping meeting. The City, as Lead Agency, respectfully requests that any Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice reply in a manner consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). Comments and suggestions should identify the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be explored in the EIR, in add Rion to whether the responding agency will be a responsible or trustee agency for the proposed project. The attached summary of the proposed project's probable environmental effects and alternatives is not an analysis of the project or its impacts. The project summary information is intended to provide said agencies, interested parties, and organizations with sufficient information describing the proposed project and the environmental issues that will be addressed in the EIR so that meaningful responses and comments can be provided. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the Koll Center Planned Community, at 4400 Von Karman Avenue (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 445-131-04, -29, -30). The site is approximately 12.56 acres and is currently developed with surface parking lots and common landscape areas. The irregularly-shaped site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and garages to the east and south. The project site is located northwest of the Uptown Newport mixed-use development which is currently under construction. I a Lie1f4911*'141t1B i1e101 The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) and a zoning designation of Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center). The proposed mixed-use infill development includes 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 square feet (sf) of ground -floor retail uses, a 1 -acre public park, a parking structure, and the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. The existing office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site 14440 Von Karman, 4490 Von Karman, 4900 Birch, 4910 Birch), or immediately contiguous to the project site (5000 Birch, 4340 Von Karman, The Koll Center Residences Project 3-126 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 122 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Notice of P eparsfion The Koll Center ResNerrces Pm;ecl 4350 Von Karman) are not a part of the proposed development. The proposed residential units would be in three, 13 -story podium buildings. The three buildings would be approximately 150 feet in height with 2 levels of above -grade parking and 2 to 3 levels of below -grade parking. The proposed one -acre public park would be located adjacent to the entrances to the project site from Birch Street. All projectparking would be provided in parking garages underneath the buildings, with additional on-site surface parking for the proposed one -acre public park and retail uses. Parking displaced by project construction activities and by the proposed development would be provided in a new parking structure to be located southeast of the 5000 Birchoffice tower's parking structure. A more detailed Project Description is provided in the attached Project Summary, which is intended to provide agencies, and interested parties and organizations with sufficient information meaningful comments can be provided to the City. RESPONDING TO THIS NOTICE The City requests your careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites input and comments from responsible and trustee agencies, and interested persons and organizations regarding the preparation of the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.4, agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The City will accept comments from other parties regarding this notice through the close of business on February 2, 2017. If comments are submitted by e-mail with attachments, it is recommended that the attachments be delivered in writing. Virus protection measures and variety of formats for attachments can limit the ability for the attachments to be delivered. E-mail responses to this notice may be sent to RUng@newportbeachca.gov. All comments or other responsesto this notice should be submitted in writingto: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 C ivic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 The NOP is also available at the City of Newport Beach at the address and department noted above, and can also be accessed online at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City of Newport Beach public libraries: Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar Branch 420 Marigold Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 All parties that have submitted their names and mailing addresses will be notified of the availability of the Draft EIR. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, have any questions, or need additional information, please contact the person identified above at (949) 644-3208. KKK IRelrLTilq:111@LH The City will hold a Public Scoping Meeting to solicit comments on the scope of the EIR at 6:00 PM on January 18, 2017, in the Friends Room of Newport Beach .Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue. Questions regardingthe Scoping Meeting should be directed to Rosalinh Ung. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-127 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 12S City of Newport Beach } b� 16 Costa Mesa-� rr The Koll Center Residences Project 3-128 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 3, Un^Moly 0' I A -12 4 L410M, 4# hof NIVs -- 40 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Witure 3: Conceptual Site Plan The Koll Center Residences Project 3-130 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Kimley o Horn -1 MM City of Newport Beach TH E KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Notice of The Kell Center Resldei The Koll Center Residences Project (proposed project) includes 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 square feet (sf) of ground -floor retail uses, a 1 -acre public park, a parking structure, and the reconfiguration of existing surface parking areas. To allow for the construction of the proposed project, existing surface parking areas and common landscape areas would be demolished. The existing office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site (4440 Von Karman, 4490 Von Karman, 4900 Birch, 4910 Birch), or immediately contiguous to the site (5000 Birch, 4340 Von Karman, 4350 Von Karman) are not a part of the proposed development. The proposed residential units would be in three, 13 -story buildings. The three buildings would be approximately 150 feet in height with 2 levels of above - grade parking and 2 to 3 levels of below -grade parking. The proposed one -acre public park would be located adjacent to the entrances to the project site from Birch Street. All project parking would be provided in parking garages underneath the buildings, with additional on- site surface parking for the proposed one -acre public park and retail uses. Parking displaced by project construction activities and by the proposed development would be provided in a new parking structure to be located southeast of the 5000 Birch office tower's parking structure. Existing Setting The project site is in the KoII Center Office Park, at 4400 Von Karman Avenue (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 445-131-04, -29, -30). The site is approximately 12.56 acres and is currently developed with surface parking lots and common landscape areas. The site is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea level (msl). The irregularly-shaped site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existingoffice uses and associated surface parking lots and garages to the east and south. Vehicular access to the project site is provided from driveways along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Surrounding Land Uses Koll Center is comprised of clusters of low-, mid-, and high-rise office buildings (from 1 to 15 stories in height) typically set back from roadways by large surface parking lots and ornamental landscaping. Three office buildings are located directly north of the proposed development and three office buildings are located directly south. The Extended Stay America Hotel and the Fairmont Newport Beach Hotel are located on the northwest and southwest corners, respectively, of Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, and 0.3 mile northwest of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Uptown Newportproject site is located southeast of the project site within the City's Airport Area. Under Phase 1 construction, Uptown Newport will include up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500.sf of neighborhood -serving retail space,. and 2 acres of park space when completed'. Allowed building heights for Uptown Newport are up to 150 feet. General Plan Land Use The project site is designated as Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) in the General Plan. The MU -H designation is intended to provide for the development of areas in a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi -family residential, visitor -serving and marine -related uses, and/or buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses. The proposed land uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation on the property. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-131 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2g Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Notice of Preps atpn The Kell Center Residences Project The MU -H2 designation specifically applies to properties located in the Airport Area. It provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. • A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill. • Non-residential uses are permitted according to the limits included in General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations. The project site is located within Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. Anomaly Location 2 has development limit of 1,052,880 square feet. Existing Zoning The project site is zoned Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center). Specifically, the project site is located in Professional and Business Offices Site B of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.35.010 states that a Planned Community (PC) District is intended to "provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large -sale community planning... Include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set forth .land use relationships and development standards." The boundary of the existing Planned Community District (PC -15 Koll Center) includes all parcels bordered by Campus Drive to the northeast, Jamboree Road to the southeast, and MacArthur Boulevard to the southwest. PC -15 zoning permits professional and business offices, hotels and motels, retail, restaurants and entertainment, a courthouse, private clubs, and auto detailing and service stations. Site B allows professional and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses. Proposed Zoning The proposed project includes a request for an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center) text to allow for residential mixed-use development in Professional and Business Offices Site B. Description of Proposed Project The applicant proposes the demolition of existing surface parking lots and landscape improvements to accommodate the development of 260 luxury residential condominiums in three 13 -story residential buildings with structured parking; 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail; a 1 -acre public park; and a free- standing parking structure. Residential units are proposed as one-, two- and three-bedroom units. The units wouldbe configured as flats ranging in size from approximately 1;240 sf to 3,160 sf with private patios/balconies. Each residence would have a semi -private access through a private lobby in each building or from a secured residents -only area of the parking garage. Implementation of the proposed project would be phased overa four-year period with demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the first quarter of 2018 and construction completed in the third quarter of 2022. A free-standing parking structure would be constructed prior to the first residential building (Building 1) to accommodate surface parking temporarily and permanently displaced. Completion of the parking structure would be followed by Building 1, and then Buildings 2 and 3. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the removal of the approximately 107,000 cubic yards of soil in total. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-132 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 122 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Notice of The Kell Center Reslaei Implementation of the project would displace approximately 819 parking spaces associated with the existing office buildings. While a portion of the spaces will be replaced as surface parking around the proposed residential buildings, other spaces will be permanently displaced for the three buildings, a .one -acre public park, and free-standing parking structure. Phase A includes the demolition of approximately 137 surface parking spaces to allow for the construction of a 490 -stall parking structure. The approximately 50 -foot -high parking structure would include three levels of below -ground parking and five levels of above -ground parking and roof deck parking. Valet parking is proposed for the use of office employees and visitors duringthe construction of the parking structure. Phase A would begin in advance of breaking ground on the remainder of the residential buildings. Grading associated with the parking structure would be approximately 24,726 cubic yards (CY) of cut with approximately 24,139 CY of export from the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 10 -month timeframe. Phase 1 includes the demolition of approximately 307 surface parking spaces to allow for the construction of the first residential building. Accessible parking spaces for the 4440 Von Karman office building and the trash enclosure would be relocated from the south to north side of the building, and surface parking improvements adjacent to the building would be provided. Building 1 would be located adjacent to Birch Street and adjacent to the office building located at 4910 Birch Street within the boundaries of the project site. Building 1 includes 87 residential units with 5 levels of parking (2 levels above -grade and 3 levels of below -grade parking), and approximately 1,768 sf of retail uses on the ground level of Building 1. The parking garages within the buildings would be gated. The displaced parking is replaced in the new free-standing parking structure and at Building 1. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe. Phase 2 includes the demolition of approximately 243 office parking spaces to allow forthe construction of Building and Building 3. Building 2 would be located adjacent to and south of Building 1. Building would be located southwest of Building 2. Buildings 2 and 3 include 86 and 87 residential units, respectively, 4 levels of parking (2 levels above -grade and 2 levels of below -grade parking), and approximately 1,232 sf of retail on the ground level of Building 2. The displaced parking is replaced in the new free-standing parking structure and Phase 1 parking garage in Building 1. Buildings 1 and 2 would require approximately 103,005 CY of cut with approximately 97,926 CY of export from the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe. Phase 3 includes the demolition of approximately 132 parking spaces to allow for the construction of the public park and the reconfiguration of on-site surface parking and access. The displaced parking is The Kell Center Residences Project 3-133 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2 g9 BuildingI Build! ng2 Build ing3 Total One -Bed room Un its 17 16 17 so Two -Bedroom Units 60 60 60 180 Three -Bedroom Units 10 10 10 30 Total Units 87 86 87 260 Gross B wild ing Area(sf) 238,890 447,237 686,127 Retail Space (51) 1,768 1,232 3,000 Par king Garage within each Building 202,112 181,411 383,523 Gross Floor Area isf) 441,002 628,648 1,072,650 Implementation of the project would displace approximately 819 parking spaces associated with the existing office buildings. While a portion of the spaces will be replaced as surface parking around the proposed residential buildings, other spaces will be permanently displaced for the three buildings, a .one -acre public park, and free-standing parking structure. Phase A includes the demolition of approximately 137 surface parking spaces to allow for the construction of a 490 -stall parking structure. The approximately 50 -foot -high parking structure would include three levels of below -ground parking and five levels of above -ground parking and roof deck parking. Valet parking is proposed for the use of office employees and visitors duringthe construction of the parking structure. Phase A would begin in advance of breaking ground on the remainder of the residential buildings. Grading associated with the parking structure would be approximately 24,726 cubic yards (CY) of cut with approximately 24,139 CY of export from the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 10 -month timeframe. Phase 1 includes the demolition of approximately 307 surface parking spaces to allow for the construction of the first residential building. Accessible parking spaces for the 4440 Von Karman office building and the trash enclosure would be relocated from the south to north side of the building, and surface parking improvements adjacent to the building would be provided. Building 1 would be located adjacent to Birch Street and adjacent to the office building located at 4910 Birch Street within the boundaries of the project site. Building 1 includes 87 residential units with 5 levels of parking (2 levels above -grade and 3 levels of below -grade parking), and approximately 1,768 sf of retail uses on the ground level of Building 1. The parking garages within the buildings would be gated. The displaced parking is replaced in the new free-standing parking structure and at Building 1. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe. Phase 2 includes the demolition of approximately 243 office parking spaces to allow forthe construction of Building and Building 3. Building 2 would be located adjacent to and south of Building 1. Building would be located southwest of Building 2. Buildings 2 and 3 include 86 and 87 residential units, respectively, 4 levels of parking (2 levels above -grade and 2 levels of below -grade parking), and approximately 1,232 sf of retail on the ground level of Building 2. The displaced parking is replaced in the new free-standing parking structure and Phase 1 parking garage in Building 1. Buildings 1 and 2 would require approximately 103,005 CY of cut with approximately 97,926 CY of export from the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 22 -month timeframe. Phase 3 includes the demolition of approximately 132 parking spaces to allow for the construction of the public park and the reconfiguration of on-site surface parking and access. The displaced parking is The Kell Center Residences Project 3-133 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2 g9 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Notice of Prepa atdn The Kell Center Residences Project replaced in the new free-sta nding. parking structure. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 6 -to 9 -month timeframe. Parking, Circulation, and Access Parkingwould be provided in the new free-standing parking structure, a parking garage within Building 1, and a shared parking garage within Buildings 2 and 3. Additional parking would be provided in surface lots and along private streets. Ingress and egress into the project site, as well as the existing office buildings, would be provided from three locations on Birch Street and two locations on Von Karman Avenue. Open Space and Landscaping The project would include construction of a one -acre public park with dedicated parking in the location of the existing surface parking area adjacent to Birch Street. Recreational uses within the park may include a pickleball court; lawn; park plaza with picnic area; recreation area with seating; and botanical gardens. In addition to the public park, a plaza lounge with seating and a water feature would front the retail space along the main private street through the site. An elevated "Marsh Walk' would connect existing office buildings to the northeast with the proposed residential buildings. Parking lots and sidewalks would be landscaped. Atop the podium of each building, private open space could include a club room, pool, spa, pool deck with shower and restroom, lawn, amenity courtyard, fitness area, and bocce ball courts. Private patios/balconies would also be provided foreach residential unit. Utilities The proposed project would connect to existing utility systems. The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District. The City of Newport Beach collection system serves the project site and conveys wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District. Storm water drainage is managed by the City and the Orange County Flood Control Division of the Orange County Public Works Department. Dry utilities—Southern California Edison for electricity, Southern California Gas Company for natural gas, AT&T for telephone service, and Cox Communications for cable television and data transmission—would be extended to the new buildings. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CECA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that, "an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectivesof the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The anticipated range of alternatives to be addressed for the project will include alternatives that are specifically required (i.e., No Project; No Action/No Development) by CEQA. Additional land use alternatives to be addressed could include a reduced development/reduced density alternative and design alternative. Anticipated Discretionary Project Approvals City of Newport Beach discretionary actions that could be approved based on the certification of the Final EIR would include the following: Planned Community Development Standards Tent Amendment: An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center) to allow for residential mixed uses in Professional and Business Offices Site B. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-134 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Notice of Prepa atdn The Kell Center Residences Project Development Agreement: A development agreement between the applicant and the City describing development rights and public benefits for the residential development pursuant to Newport Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.a (development of 50 or more residential units). Traffic Study: A traffic study pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). • Site Development Review: Site development must be in accordance with applicable Planned Community and Municipal Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Municipal Code Section 20.52.80 (Site Development Reviews). • Tentative Tract Map: For condominium purposes including five numbered lots for development and seven lettered lots forthe public park, parking, and private streets. Tentative Parcel Map: Forfinance and conveyance purposes. • Transfer of Development Rights: Transfer of 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Site A to Site B. In addition to the approvals identified above, the proposed project would be subject to other discretionary and ministerial actions by the City as part of project implementation. Additional City approvals include but are not limited to site development permits, grading permits, a Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, use permits, sign permits, and building permits. The proposed project would. require permits and/or approvals from the following agencies Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): Due to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (amendment to the PC -15 Koll Center regulations to permit residential development), the City of Newport Beach will referthe project to the ALUC for determination of project consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Based on the location of the project site and the anticipated height of the buildings, the project applicant will file Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. The FAA will use information provided in Form 7460-1 and other data to conduct an aeronautical review forthe proposed Project. Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project The proposed Project has the potential to have significant impacts on several environmental factors. Using the City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist as a guide, at least one impact area has been identified as having a 'Potential Significant Impact" in the following areas, and will be addressed in the EIR: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Biological Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Recreation Utility and Service Systems Air Quality Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Public Services Transportation and Circulation The Koll Center Residences Project 3-135 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 292 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Notice of The Xo# Center Resde, The topics identified on the City's Environmental Checklist that are not required for assessment in the EIR are Agricultural and Forestry Resources, and Mineral Resources. The project site is fully developed and does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. The project site is not zoned for agriculture or forestry use, and it is not designated as forest land. The project site does not contain regionally or locally -important mineral resources, and there are no locally -important mineral resource recoverysites in the project site vicinity. The proposed Project would have no impact to these resources. Anticipated Schedule The Project schedule, as currently envisioned, anticipates a Draft EIR to be available for public review in Spring 2017. A 45 -day public review period will be provided, after which responses to environmental comments received will be prepared. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council are expected to start in Summer 2017. a The Koll Center Residences Project 3-136 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 192 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Museum House condo tower gets Newport council approval - Daily ... htip://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-piloNnms/m-dpt-me-museum-h... Museum House condo tower gets Newport council approval The planned Museum House condominium tower, which the Newport Beach City Council approved Tuesday night, is shown in the rear center of this rendering depicting the building in the existing Newport Center skyline. Fashion Island is in the foreground. (Courtesy Related California) By Bradley Ant NOVEMBER 29. 2018. 11:35 PM Before a standing -room -only crowd at City Hall on Tuesday night, the Newport Beach City Council approved a 25 -story luxury condominium development in Newport Center intended to replace the Orange County Museum of Art. After a roughly three-hour hearing with dozens of public comments for and against the too -unit Museum House, the council approved the development on a 6-1 vote, with Councilman Tony Pettus dissenting. Proponents of the project, wearing stickers reading "Museum House supporter,' called it a "world class" jewel and a picturesque addition to a thriving area of the city. Representatives of the developer, Related California LLC, distributed the stickers outside the council The Koll Center Residences Project 3-137 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Museum House condo tower gets Newport council approval - Daily ... http9/www.latimes.coMsocal/daily-pilot/nmV tn-dpi-me-museum-h... to generate $21.7 million to the city and schools through various fees paid by Related California. Critics, who gathered more than 1,500 signatures against the development, expressed worry and fear about the project's possible traffic effects. They argued that the dense development would transform Newport into something akin to Los Angeles and set a precedent for more high-rise residences. Museum House is planned to contain 54 two-bedroom units and 46 three-bedroom units. The condos, ranging from 1,80o to 6,000 square feet, are proposed to sell for $2 million to $4 million. The project also would contain a terrace, pool, pet spa, wine cellar and fitness area, among other amenities. Bill Witte, chairman and chief executive of Related California, said Museum House wouldn't block ocean views or present any "significant impacts" to existing traffic patterns. Ruth Kobayashi of Harbor Cove said she supported the project and complimented Related California's effort to work with the community. "They are people of high standards and integrity" who will create a "good -neighbor environment,' she said. Kacey Taormina, a real estate agent with Surterre Properties, said Museum House would provide high-rise luxury housing that's greatly needed in Newport Beach. "This product provides a solution for a lot of our clients who live in larger homes ... and they're looking to downsize;" she said. Beacon Bay resident Drew Lawler argued that Museum House takes Newport "away from our roots." "No to 10 stories, no to five stories," he said. "This project does not belong in Newport Beach." Big Canyon resident Lynn Swain said "to say that there's no traffic problem is absurd." "I didn't move to Newport Beach to have it be Century City," she added. "We're a beach community, and we want to stay the way we are." The Orange County Museum of Art, which has been on the 2 -acre site at 85o San Clemente Drive since 1978, plans to move to a new building in Costa Mesa, near the Segelstrom Center for the Arts. Tuesday's meeting was preceded by behind -the -scenes tension between area activists and Related California. OCMA Urban Housing LLC, an Irvine -based division of Related California that is dedicated to the Museum House project, published a full-page ad in Sunday's Daily Pilot that professed widespread support for Museum House, including from the Newport Beach Planning Commission — The Koll Center Residences Project 3-138 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation -f P4 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Museum House condo tower gets Newport council approval - Daily ... http://www.latimes.com/soca)/daily-pilot/news/m-dpt-me-museum-h... which unanimously approved it in October — firefighters, police officers and nearly 3clo residents. Placed prominently among the residents' names was activist Susan Skinner, whom the ad quoted as calling Museum House "a beautiful project ...:. In an interview Monday, Skinner said the ad used her words out of context and without her knowledge. During a Speak Up Newport forum in August, Skinner did call the project "beautiful" but also said that adding it to Newport Center would make the city more urbanized with high-rises, like Los Angeles. Skinner is associated with two activist groups — Still Protecting Our Newport and Line in the Sand — that have opposed Museum House. "It's pretty desperate to take one of the high-profile opponents of this project and stick them in the middle of an ad," Skinner said. "It is unethical. It is unfair. It impugns my reputation and it confuses people by this whole project." The Daily Pilot's editorial staff does not review or approve ads before their publication. Related California did not respond to a request for comment about the ad. The developer did, however, point to a cease-and-desist letter it sent Monday to Citizens Against High Rise Urban Towers, a Santa Ana -based group that has been distributing mailers, online petitions and television ads opposing Museum House. The letter alleges the group has "engaged in a pattern of publicizing inaccurate and deceptive information" about Museum House. The group claims that Museum House would violate Federal Aviation Administration and Newport Beach height restrictions. According to the developer's letter, the FAA in October issued determinations that Museum House poses no hazards. The letter added that Newport Beach has a height limit of 300 feet and that Museum House would be 295 feet. bradley.zint@latimes.com Twitter: @BradleyZint Copyright ® 2017. Daily Pilot Updates This article was originally posted at 10 p.m. Tuesday. It was updated at 11:35 p.m. with the council vote. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-139 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29,5 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter correctly states that the PM peak hour trip rate for Residential Condominium (Land Use 230) is 0.52 trips per unit but incorrectly states that the trip rate for Luxury Condominium (Land Use 233) is 0.65 PM trips per unit. The correct PM trip rate is 0.55 trips per unit. See trip rate comparison chart below. Land Use ITE Code Trips Per Dwelling Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Residential Condominium 230 0.44 0.52 Luxury Condominium 233 0.56 0.55 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9'h Edition The difference in trips between the two categories would be 31 trips in the morning peak hour and 8 trips in the evening peak hour. By choosing to use the higher Luxury Condominium trip rates, the trip estimates for the Project were more conservative, and did not result in a significant impact at a study location. The Project could develop as either standard Residential Condominium or Luxury Condominium; the analysis results would cover either product type. Response 2 Future owners of the condominium units are unknown and it would be speculative to identify who would purchase the units. The commenter provides no evidence that the proposed dwelling units would not be affordable to a portion of the population in the City of Newport Beach, which has a median income of $113,071 and median home prices of over $1,00,000, a or to persons working in the area including Koll Center Newport. Response 3 Please refer to the responses to Comments 1 and 2. a U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Newport Beach, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newportbeachcitycalifornia,US/INC110215#viewtop, accessed November 11, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-140 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29 O Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C-2 Bryan Perraud October 3, 2017 October 3, 2017 Ms. Rosainh Ung Associate Planner Planning DWlsion City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL -260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: I am a resident of Newport Beach. I have lived here with my family for years and love our great city I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. I understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, and that the public hearings are In the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support It. 11 Rega Bryan Perraud 1006 Somerset Lane . Newport Beach, CA 92660 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-141 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1q7 City of Newport Beach Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-142 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach Letter C-3 Don Krotee October 8, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee@krotee.com] Sent: Sunday, October O8, 2017 10:24 AM To: Bruce Bartram <cpglx8vO@verizon.net>; Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: nanalston@gmail.com; Dennis.Baker@Diand Den.net; tomlubaker@hotmail.com; abeek@flash.net; Don Harvey <haweydonw@juno.com>; jocarol@ix.netcom.com; dorothyjkmus@gmail.com; andylingle@gmail.com; elinhoff@sbcglobal.net; bobbylove112000@yahoo.com; jenmcdlO@aol.com; marko@uci.edu; pricejcb@gmail.com; nbseely@aol.com; jskinnermd@aol.com; jwatt4@aol.com; portiaweiss@gmail.com; portiaweiss@gmail.com Subject: RE: Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment II Thanks Bruce - Your height limit comments might be something where the staff (could be madeto feel) mightfeel asthough the project is rather a non- starter, in that it is out of step with an approved max ht. limit in the Gen Plan. This could cause a re- submission and cause a re -circulation of a revision in the EIR. I'd like to suggest that I write a letter strictly on this subject, not referto these comments and see if such a strategy might be useful to us. Please let me know what you think of the recirculation necessity or likelihood in the face of pointing out (13 story) such a breach of GP (present GP allows, according to your observations, a maximum of 12), is brought forward. And, remind me if we are well into the comment period forthe DEIR. Very best, Don From: Bruce Bertram [mailto:mglx8v00yerizon.netl Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 9:22 AM To: RUng@newportbeachca.clov Cc: nanalston@omail.com: Dennis.Baker@DiandDen.net: tomlubaker@hotrrail.com: abeek@flash.net: Don Harvey; iocarol@ix.netcom.com dorothvikraus@amail.com: Don Krotee; andylingle@gmail.com: elinhoff@sbcabbal.net• bobbvbvell2000@vahoo.com: ienmcd10@aol.com; marko@uci.edu: oriceicb@nmail.com; nbseely@aol.co iskinnermd@aol.com: iwatt4talaol.gom: portiaweiss@gmail.com: portiaweiss@gmail.com Subject: Re: Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment II Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Citic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Center Residences draft environmental impact report (DEIR) Comment II Dear Ms. Ung: This email is in follow up to my Koll Center Residences DEIR Comment I dated September 28, 2017. A copy of that comment is attached and is incorporated by reference herein. In that comment, I pointed out that the Koll Center Center Residences DEIR in its present form was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (LECA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21000 et seq.). This because of the DEIR's failure to discuss the inconsistencies between the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards' twelve (12) story building height limitation and the project's intended construction of three,13-story residential buildings. A copy of the Development Standards is attached to the same September 28, 2017 email above. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-143 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The KolI Center Residences DEI R's failure to address the project's height inconsistences affects multiple areas of the DEIR's analysis mandated under CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and implementation of the proposed Koll Center Residences Project. To citejust one example, Koll Center Residences DER Section 5.3 addresses the project's potential to generate "Growth -Inducing Impacts." Section 5.3 states in pertinent part as follows: "5.3 Growth -Inducing Impacts ofthe Proposed Action Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) requires the evaluation of the growth -inducing impacts of a project. This section is required to determine the manner in which a project could encourage substantial economic or population growth or construction of additional housing in the surrounding area, either directly or indirectly. Growth inducement can be defined as the relationship between a project and growth within the surrounding area. To address this issue, potential growth -inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this Proiect remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this Project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this Project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval of this Pro'ect involve someprecedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? "(Emphasis added) In answer to the first question above regarding removal of obstacles to growth through changes in existing land development regulations Section 5.3 states in pertinent part as follows: ..., approval of the Project would not remove any existing regulatory obstacle to growth. The Project is consistent with the General Plan category forthe site. As part of the Proposed Project, PC -15 Koll Center Site Bwould include new overlay zones: Park and Residential, allowing for residential development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project is not considered growth inducing with respect to removal of obstacles to growth or through the provision of infrastructure." In fact, approval of the Project would require an amendment to the Kell Center Planned Community Development Standards' twelve (12) story building height limitation. This to accommodate construction of the intended 13 -story height of the Project's three residential buildings. In addition, further amendment of Development Standards would be necessary to establish Building Height Land Coverage and Landscape Open Space Land Coverage standards for a thirteen (13) story development like that proposed under the Koll Center Residences Project. As you can see, the current Development Standards address Building Height Land Coverage and Landscape Open Space Land Coverage only up to a twelve story development. This, of course, is to be expected with the current Development Standards'twelve (12) story building height limitation for the Project site. As noted on Page 18 on the Development Standards: "The preceding figures indicate that within a fixed maximum density as the height of the building increases the resulting open landscaped area also increases." The Kell Center Residences Project 3-144 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 200 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments In answerto the question regarding whetherthe Project's approval would involve some precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment Section 5.3 states in. pertinent part as follows: "A project can encourage growth that has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan process. This planned growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with the underlying assumption that adequate supporting infrastructure ultimately would be constructed. The project site is in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. The Airport Area is approximately 360 acres bordered by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive, and Bristol Street. Within the Airport Area, properties proximate to John Wayne Airport are designated Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO). Properties near Bristol Street at Jamboree Road, and two additional properties internal to the Airport Area are designated General Commercial. The California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center parcel is designated Public Facilities. The remainder of the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site, is designated Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi- family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. • A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill. • Non-residential uses are permitted according to the limits included in General Plan Table LU2: Anomaly Locations. The project site is located within Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. Anomaly Location 2 has a development limit of 1,052,880 sf. Of the 2,200 units, 1,650 units must replace existing development so there is no net gain in vehicular trips. The remaining 550 units are "additive" units that can only be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard in the Airport Area. The approved Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) covers. that portion of the Airport Area generally bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street, inclusive of theproject site. The Airport Business Area ICDP allows for up to 1,504 new residential units: 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existingdevelopment uses would be removed. The remainder of the units are associated with the Uptown Newport Project. Because the Project is consistent with the allowable development assumptions of the Airport Business Area ICDP, both the residential and retail components of the Project were anticipated land uses in this location. Approval of the Proiect Most of the area surrounding the project site is either developed or planned for development. In summary, the Project would not remove obstacles to growth and is therefore not considered growth inducing." (Emphasis added) Once again, contrary to the DEIR's conclusion above, approval of the Project would require an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards'twelve (12) story building height limitation to accommodate the planned construction of the three,113-story residential buildings. This certainly qualifies as a "precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment" according to state law standards for determining growth -inducing environmental impacts. According to the DEIR's Executive Summary, the project site is zoned "Kell Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)". Specifically, the project site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC -15 Koll Center (Site B). From the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards the twelve (12) story building height limit applies to the following sites within the Planned Community: Sites. A, B, C, D and E. The needed amendment to allow the Project's construction of the three,13-story residential build in gs. constitutes a precedent -setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. That being the encouragement of developers on other potential residential Projects in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community to seek height amendments in excess of the present twelve (12) story building height limit. 3 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-145 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 201 City of Newport Beach In short, Section 3.0 Responses to Comments It should be noted that such additional analysis would likely constitute significant newinformation requiring public review. CEQA Guideline 15088.5 states that a "lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added... after public notice is given... for public review... but before certification. As used in this section, the term 'information' can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information." The information could show that a "new significant environmental impact would result" and/or that a "substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result" and/or that the "draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." The above "significant new information' and the provisions of CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5 fully justify and require review and recirculation of DEIR. Notice in Section 15088.5(e) that a "decision not to recirculate an DEIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record". This indicates that CEQA favors recirculation of a DEIR in making the determination under Section 15088.5. This is consistent with both statutory and case law stating 'the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 21000 et seq.) is to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1214. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-146 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 202 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. As noted by the commenter and addressed in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would require an amendment to the zoning text; please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. PC -15 Koll Center is separate from, and not a part of, the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The 12 -story building height requirement applies to professional and business office developments within PC -15 Koll Center. The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, the latter which identifies building height rather than the number of stories associated with site-specific development. With respect to building height, it states: Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by an approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project with 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet above the ground level are evaluated in the Draft EIR. The commenter has not raised an issue that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-147 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 203 City of Newport Beach Letter CA Don Harvey October 9, 2017 From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, October 09, 201712:59 PM To:'Don Harvey' <harveydonw@juno.com> Subject: RE: Comment re Koll Center Residences DEIR Mr. Harvey, Thank you for your comments. Rosalinh -----Original Message ----- From: Don Harvey [maiho:hameydonw@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 201712:19 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: pattyham@outlook.com Subject: Comment re Koll Center Residences DEIR Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Hi Ms Ung --I believe the city needs to cunsiderthe Project's environmental impacts, as its proposed heightfar exceeds the Planned Community Development Standards. Won'ta new DEIR be needed? --Don Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge Place, 949/759-9220 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-148 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation N021f City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. As noted by the commenter and addressed in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would require an amendment to the zoning text; please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. PC -15 Koll Center is separate from, and not a part of, the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The 12 -story building height requirement applies to professional and business office developments within PC -15 Koll Center. The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, the latter which identifies building height rather than the number of stories associated with site-specific development. With respect to building height, it states: Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by an approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project with 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet above the ground level are evaluated in the Draft EIR. The commenter has not raised an issue that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-149 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2015 City of Newport Beach Letter C -5a COMAC American Corporation Douglas Evertz, Murphy & Evertz LLP October 9, 2017 MURPHY&EVERTZ A t t 0 r t, a y s a t L a w 660 Town Center Drive. Suite 50 Cosa Meet. CA 92626 714277 1700 714.277.977 (ax www.murphyeve0z.cam October 9, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments a0DWa3J. Evlxrz. Pncra27 FmAu, .Pmis:Mnex. 719277.tN2 QMgll. AOp0.Gi$:OF.W0.TZ(�mNF6YCVCR]..egnl Ooa Fnx No. 40136.00001 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner rung@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Request jor 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period on Koll Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Ung: We represent COMAC America Corporation ("CAC"), owner of real property located at 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California ("Property's. The Property is located within the Kell Center Newport ("Center"), a planned business/office development in the City of Newport Beach ("City"). CAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, which functions as the main vehicle in implementing large passenger aircraft programs in China. The Proposed Koll Center Residences Project ("Project") consists of three 13 -story residential buildings and a parking structure immediately adjacent to the Property. CAC has significant concerns about this Project, as it is entirely inconsistent with surrounding integrated business and office uses. The Project will negatively impact both CAC's substantial investment in its Property and its business operations. The Kell Center Residences Draft EIR was circulated for public review on September 13, 2017, initiating a 45 -day public review period scheduled to end on October 27,2012 The Draft EIR contains significant amounts of data and information - - which in tum will take significant time to evaluate and comment upon. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") places high value onpublic participation noting in CEQA Guidelines section 15201, "[p]ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process." CEQA provides that the public comment period for adraft ETR shall not be less than 30 days nor should it be longer than 60 days except under unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines § 15205.) The Project is a complex one, and relevant planning documents pertaining to the Center span the course of many years. Before taking action on the EIR and Project, it is imperative that the City fully evaluate and consider meaningful comments from those most negatively impacted by the 100116763.11 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-150 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Lei Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments MURPHYwEVERTZ A t: a rn a Ya at 131 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division October 9, 2017 Page 2 Project. To its end, CAC requires and requests additional time in which to review the DEIR, I°nfd relevant Project documents, and submit substantive comments. To allow time for both CAC and the public to review the DEIR and provide meaningful comments during the formal DEIR period, we request an extension of an additional 20 days. extending the public comment period to 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2017. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Besl rds, Dougl . Evertz of �Y&EVERTZur DJE/mm Enclosure cc: City of Newport Beach Mayor and City Council, c/o City Clerk's Office The Kell Center Residences Project 3-151 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 20 j City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The public review period for the Draft EIR was extended, allowing for a total of 62 days of public review, as opposed to the CEQA mandated 45 -day public review period. Rather than ending on October 27, 2017, the review period was extended to November 13, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-152 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Letter C -5b COMAC American Corporation Douglas Evertz, Murphy & Evertz LLP October 9, 2017 MURPHY& EVERTz A I 1 0 1 n e y a a: t a W 6� T."n Center Onm Suite 6i0 Gosh Mesa. CA 02626 711277.1700 71-277 1777 for wW..m�ronra�e�M.om November 10, 2017 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND E-MAIL Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner rung@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Datta 51. EVERT7,PMT`If:0. TREEcrnvJ.NuMar,R, 714277.1102 E Aonness: mxmn(r .,Phyr, er ..m OUR FILE No. 40136.00001 Re: Comments in response to Koll Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002;PA 2015-024) Dear Ms. Ung: We represent COMAC America Corporation ("CAC's, owner of real property located at 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California ("Property"). The Property is located within the Kol I Center Newport ("Center"), a planned business/office development in the City of Newport Beach (`City"). CAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, which functions as the main vehicle in implementing large passenger aircraft programs in China. CAC submits the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (`DEIR") for the Proposed Koll Center Residences Project ("Project") The Project consists of three 13 -story residential buildings and a parking structure immediately adjacent to the Property. CAC has significant concerns about this Project, as it is entirely inconsistent with surrounding integrated business and office uses—uses carefully considered and previously approved by the City. As detailed below and in the attached report of Environmental Audit Inc., the DEIR contains numerous deficiencies and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code. §21000 et seq;"CEQA".) These deficiencies must be remedied and the DEIR recirculated for further and meaningful public input. Moreover, and beyond pure environmental concerns, development and uses of property within the Center are governed by a comprehensive `Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" dated July 1 g, 1973, as amended ("CCR's"). The carefully crafted CC&Rs, which were reliedupon by purchasers of property within the Center, were intended to provide for aplanned and integrated development consisting of professional and business office uses -- -- not high-rise and densely populated residential uses. The Proposed Project, consisting of high-rise residential (001172.51.11 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-153 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2o9 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Mup.PHY&EVERrz At f o r ire y s 1 te,j Rosalmh Ung City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division November 10, 2017 Page 2 buildings and a parking structure, violates the CC&Rs in multiple respects, is entirely inconsistent T cont'd with the surrounding business and office uses, and deprives existing owners of their investmentIl 2 backed expectations. Because the Project materially conflicts with the surrounding character of established professional/office enterprises and ownerships, the DEIR must, but fails to, discuss and evaluate socio/economic impacts that effect the physical environment. In this regard, CEQA Guidelines section 15064(e) provides: "Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project." This provision, along with Guidelines section 15064(d) on indirect effects, requires that lead agency such as the City consider the reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental consequences of a project's economic or social changes. The development of massive high-rise residential towers as proposed in the middle of a carefully planned and integrated low-rise office park will result in lost tenancies and vacancies within the Center. Business vacancies and closures have time and again been determined by the courts to be blighting conditions, resulting in urban decay, that must be thoroughly analyzed in an EIR. Here, DEIR fails toxin any way consider these socio/economic impacts and how they will translate into direct and significant physical environmental changes. This complete lack of any analysis renders the DEIR inadequate and fails to provide necessary analysis for informed decision- making. (See C'itizensfor Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988)198 Cal. App. 3d 4J3,446 [EIR should consider whether potential economic problems caused by project could result in business closures and physical deterioration of downtown area]; Bakersfield Citizens,for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1215 [EIR improperly dismissed possibility that large shopping center could drive other retailers out of business as an economic effect when urban decay and other blight -like conditions could result.]) As set forth in the attached Environmental Audit Inc. report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the DEIR is deficient in its coverage of multiple other significant environmental effects, including aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas impacts, land use, noise, alternatives and cumulative impacts. As to the latter point, the DEIR must discuss a cumulative impact if the project's incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)) A project's incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant "when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (Guidelines §15065(a)(3)) The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to avoidconsidering projects in vacuum. The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list of projects approach and summary of projections approach. As explained in the t00117251.1 1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-154 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 210 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments MURPHY&EvERTG At t D, naya at Law Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division November 10, 2017 Page 3 attached, the list of cumulative projects in the DEB2 does not include a number of large projectsT cont'd which have been proposed in the City, rendering the entirety of the cumulative impacts analysis ll 4 entirely lacking in data and support for the stated conclusions. CAC hopes that the above and attached comments and concerns (as well as comments submitted by others which are incorporated herein) resonate with theCity. CAC and other owners and tenants within the Center have made substantial investments in theirproperties and businesses -- investments that will be significantly and irreversibly damaged by converting the comprehensively planned office and business land uses within the Center to a new high density residential development. We ask that the City carefully evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project, as well as the need for and utility of the Project within the Center. Bes gards, Douglas J vertz of M= & EVERT ta.P DJE/mm Enclosure cc: City of Newport Beach Mayor and City Council, e/o City Clerk's Office (00117251.1) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-155 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 211 City of Newport Beach COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Koll Center Residences State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002 Prepared for: Murphy & Evertz 650 Town Center Drive, Su Re 550 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Novem her 8, 2017 00117470.1 } Prepared by: aENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.,, 1000-A Ortega Way Placentia, CA 92870-7162 (714) 632-8521 = Phone (714) 632-6754 = Fax The Koll Center Residences Project 3-156 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 212 City of Newport Beach 00117470.1 } Prepared by: aENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.,, 1000-A Ortega Way Placentia, CA 92870-7162 (714)632-8521= Phone (714) 632-6754 = Fax The Koll Center Residences Project 3-157 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 213 City of Newport Beach COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Environmental Audit, Inc. (EAI) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Koll Center Residences, prepared by the City of Newport Beach, September 2017, State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002. The Koll EIR was. reviewed by Debra Bright Stevens and Marcia Baverman. Ms. Stevens and Ms. Baverman have combined over 45 years of experience preparing and reviewing CECA documents, including El Rs, negative declarations. and exceptions for a wide variety of projects. Resumes for Ms. Stevens and Ms. Baverman are included in Attachment 1. An EIR must disclose all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project (Pub. Res. Code §21100(b)(1).) Our review of this DEIR indicates that it fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Projects significant aesthetics, air quality (including public health), greenhouse gas, land use, noise, and their related cumulative impacts. The DEIR must be revised to address these impacts and recirculated for public review.. CECA requires recirculation of an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR following public review but before certifications (Pub. Res. Code §21092.1). New information is significant if the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project (CECA Guidelines §15088.5). The following provides our . comments on the DEIR, including potentially new significant environmental impacts, which must be addressed in a revised DEIR that is recirculated for public review. The page numbers, table numbers, sections, etc., refer to those in the DEIR. 2.0 DEIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The DEIR is inconsistent and it is difficult to determine the appropriate significance conclusion for several resource analyses. Please see below for examples of these inconsistencies. A. Aesthetics Executive Summary, Page 1-13. The significance conclusion for aesthetics, Threshold 4.1-3, is inconsistent in the text of Table 1-1 and is inconsistent with the conclusions regarding light and glare in the Aesthetic Impact section (see page 4.1-13). B. Noise Executive Summary, Page 1-25. The significanceconclusions for Operational and Stationary Noise indicate that it is "Potentially Significant" in Table 1-1 and that the level of significance after mitigation is "Significant and Unavoidable." These conclusions conflict with the conclusions in :Section 4.10. Page 4.10-30 indicates that Operational and Stationary Noise are less than significant. The is inconsistent and it is difficult to determine the appropriate significance conclusion for several resource analyses. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Page 3-6, fifth objective should be revised. "Pervious surface area would be increased by approximately 0.83 acre (or 7%) from existing conditions as a result of Project implementation" is not a project objective. This same comment applies to the objectives listed on page 6-3. B. Page 3-12, Open space. The Plaza Gardens are not included in Figure 3-14 as referenced. If they are included, itis such small print to be illegible. In addition, driveway numbers (e.g., Driveway 3) should be referenced on Figure 3-14 as the text discusses these features. [0011]4)0] Iros:mm:eoiimw commvta n -1- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-158 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences C. Page 4-3, Mitigation Measures. The DEIR indicates that modifications may be made to the Mitigation Program based on certain findings. Please note that changes to the mitigation cont'd monitoring program need to be disclosed to the public and not just made available upon 8 request. 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects. The numbers in Table 4-1 do not match the locations. in Figure 4-1.. For example, No. 3 on Table 4-1 refers to the Koll Newport Residential development. at 4400 Von Karman Ave. Figure 4-1 places No.3 in the southern portion of Corona del Mar. No. 8 on Table 4-1 refers to the Newport Dunes Hotel. Figure 4-1 places No. 8 on the Balboa Peninsula. It appears that virtually all of the cumulative projects in the City of Newport Beach are in the incorrect location on Figure 4-1. Therefore, the cumulative analysis is flawed as the DEIR does not accurately evaluate the cumulative impacts. B. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects. The DEIR indicates that it is using a list approach to analyze 9 cumulative impacts. CEQA requires analysis of "past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the (lead) agency." (CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1).) The list of cumulative projects in the DEIR does not include a number of large projects which have been proposed in the City of Newport Beach, including Newport. Crossings, Banning Ranch, Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan, and the General Plan Amendment. Substantial evidence shows that it is reasonably foreseeable that a number of other projects could occur in the Newport Beach/Airport Area. C. On November 1, 2017, the City of Newport Beach released the Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use Project'. The Newport Crossings would include 350 10 residential dwelling units, 2,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5,500 square feet of commercial space and a 0.5 acre public park, at the existing MacArthur Square shopping center, within about 0.3 mile of the proposed Koll Center project. This Newport Crossings project must be included as part of the cumulative impact analysis as it is a proposed project and probable foreseeable future project located within the airport areaand less than a mile from the Koll project. D. An EIR has been reviewed and development at Banning Ranch has been approved by the City, including 1,375 homes, a hotel and commercial uses. While the EIR has been overturned by the 11 courts, it is unreasonable: to assume no further development would occur at Banning Ranch and development at Banning Ranch is a probable future project.. E. The City has developed the 163 page. Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan and this project remains in the Capital Improvement Program component of the City's FY2017-2018 budget. A draft of the Master Plan is available at the following link 12 http://www.newportbeachca.gov/trend ing/projects-issues/other-important-issues/mariners-mile- ' The NOP is available at http://www.newporibeachca.gov/pin/CEQA REVIE W/Newport%20Cms;sings/NOP_Final.pdf (00117470] Ipos:mm:e000na commvta n -2- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-159 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 215 City of Newport Beach COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences Section 3.0 Responses to Comments planning-charrette/mariner-s-mile-revitalization-master-plan. The Master Plan has been placed on -hold by the City; however, a good portion of Mariner's Mile (the Ardell/Haskell properties and the,. adjacent Duffy Boat sales/rental office) has recently been sold and is expected to be considered for development in the near future. At minimum the DEIR should include the Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan as a cumulative project as it is a probable future project. F. The City is currently proposing an update to the General Plan which is scheduled to begin at the November 14, 2017 City Council meeting. A recent flyer from the City outlined the General Plan Update and indicates that the City intends to review its vision for the Airport area and Newport Center because of community comments related torecent development applications. Therefore, the City has acknowledged that the planning in the Airport area is an important component of the General Plan Update and the impacts associated with the General Plan update should be included in the DEIR. G. Finally, the EIR for the Uptown Newport Project and the Koll Project should have been included in a single EIR as they are adjacent to each other. Figures of the site show that the two projects have been integrated, their construction phases overlap, both are similar types of development (mostly residential but with mixed commercial uses), and they are being permitted by the same developer (Shopoff)'. Attachment 2 shows the location of these two projects and the fact that they have been designed together; therefore, the impacts must be evaluated together in a revised DEIR and recirculated. H. Population and Housing, cumulative impacts, page 4.11-8. The. DEIR states that the projects identified in Table 4-1 would result in an additional 3,766 residents. The cumulative projects identified above (Newport Crossings, Banning Ranch, Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan, and the General Plan Amendment) also must be included to provide an adequate estimate of the cumulative population/housing impacts. I. Section 4.14.7, Cumulative Traffic Impacts, page 4.14-54. The list of cumulative projects in the traffic analysis. (Table 4.14-17). is not consistent with the list of cumulative projects that are claimed to be used in the cumulative analysis in Table 4-1. For example, Table 4.14-17 lists Project No.3 as NewportCoast, while there is no Newport Coast Project in Table 4-1. More importantly, only three cumulative projects in the City of Newport Beach are included in the list of Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects - ExplorOcean, Harbor Pointe Senior Living, and Newport Coast (see Table 4.14-17). Table 4-1 identifies 36 cumulative projects within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts are inadequate and must be revised to include all cumulative projectsin Table 4-1, as well as the projects identified above (Newport Crossings, Banning Ranch, Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan, and the General Plan Amendment). Some of the cumulative projects in Table 4.14-14 do not appear to be included in Table 4.1 including Fashion Island Expansion, Temple Bat Yahm Expansion, San Joaquin Hills Plaza, and Santa Barbara condominiums. The list of cumulative projects must be used consistently for evaluation of the various environmental resources. J. Section 4.15.6, Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts, page 4.15-28. The DEIR provides a cursory review of the cumulative utilities and service systems impacts and is [00117470] E,o:mm:eoiimw commvta n -3- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-160 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 210 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KDII Center Residences inadequate. The cumulative projects identified above (Newport Crossings, Banning Ranch, Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan, and the General Plan Amendment) also must be conrd included to provide an adequate estimate of the cumulative utilities and service systems 1 17 impacts 5.0 AESTHETIC IMPACTS A. Aesthetic Impacts, Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1-2h are not done to scale. To determine whether there are significant shade/shadow impacts, Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1-2h must be done to scale. B. Aesthetic Impacts, page 4.1-8 Grading and Construction. The construction activities that are characteristic of a typical construction site should be considered significant as they degrade the visual characteristics of the area, even though they are "temporary." Construction activities would occur over a 4.5 year period and would impact the adjacent office buildings. C. Aesthetic Impacts, Degrade the Existing Visual Character (pages 4.1-8 thru 4.1-10). The project would result in an increase in building intensity versus the existing site. This increased density (three more 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet in height) are generally considered to degrade the visual quality of an area versus less development. D. Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts, page 4.1-13 and 4.1-14. Current, past and probable future development projects along Jamboree and the Airport Area has greatly changed the aesthetic environment of the area. The increased development intensity on the Koll property, alongwith the following, contributes to this cumulative impact. a) Uptown Newport., 4311-4321 Jamboree Road: 1,244 residential units, 11,500 sf of retail space, building heights up to 150 feet. b) Newport Business Plaza Project, 4699 Jamboree Road: 46,044 sf of commercial development. c) Colton Apartments, Campus Drive and Von Karman: 876 apartments in three, six story residential buildings. d) The Boardwalk Project, 18691 Jamboree Road: 458,000 sf office uses in two nine -story buildings. e) Newport Crossings, bounded by Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Scott Drive, and Dove Street: 350 residential dwelling units, 2,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5.500 square feet of commercial space, and a 0.5 -acre public park. f) Additional development that would be part ofthe General Plan Amendment. Clearly, the intensity of the development within the Airport area of Newport Beach and along the Jamboree corridor in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine has negatively changed the visual character of the area. Additional development in the Koll Center would continue this trend and result insignificant cumulative impacts. 6.0 AIRQUALITY [00117470] Ero:xx:oiimw commvt�ren 4- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-161 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 18 19 227 City of Newport Beach COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Koll Center Residences Section 3.0 Responses to Comments A. Page 4.2-5 identified diesel particulate matter as a TAC but no health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for TAC emissions. A significance threshold for TAC emissions is provided on _ page 4.2-10, yet no analysis was provided of the TAC emission impacts from the proposed project. B. Air Quality, Table 4.2-2. CEQA requires the lead agency to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project as they exist at the time environmental review commences (CEQA Guidelines §15125(a)). The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency may assess the significance of a project's impacts. The most recent ambient air quality data must be used in the DEIR to adequately describe the existing air quality in the project vicinity. The DEIR used 2015 ambient air quality data, while 2016 ambient air quality data are available. The 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data are available from the SCAQMD at the following link: htto://www.aa md,govldocs/default-sou rce/air-g uality/historical-data-by-yea r/2016 -a ir-qua lity- data-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=l4 1 C. Air Quality, page 4.2-13. The first sentence indicates that the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict with the second criterion. In the Impact Summary it is stated that "The Project would potentially conflict with the AQMP." The DEIR is inconsistent with its significance conclusions regarding AQMP compliance. . D. Air Quality, page 4.2-14, 1'r paragraph under Table 4.2-6 and Mitigation Measure MM4.2-1 (page 4.2-24). The DEIR concludes that emissions of NOx from Project Construction are significant. The DEIR's proposed mitigation is inadequate. The DEIR states that "Mitigation requiring all construction equipment to meet Tier 4 standards is not considered feasible because it means that the entire construction fleet would need to consist of new (or newly retrofitted) equipment. Additionally, Tier 4 equipment may not be available for all types of equipment, No other feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emission to levels that are less than significant" However, EIRs prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air district with jurisdiction over southern California, have determined that mitigation measures for significant construction emissions are feasible using Tier 4 equipment. For a recent project, the SCAQMD required the following mitigation measure: a. "A-7: For off-road construction equipment rated greater than 50 hp, the project proponent shall use equipment that meets Tier 4 off-road emission standards at a minimum. Any emissions control device used by the Contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy fora similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. The project proponent shall provide documentation in the Construction Management Program or associated subsequent status reports as information becomes available that equipment rated greater than 50 hp equipped with Tier 4 engines are not available." 2 Seepage 4-37 of the Final FIR for the Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project, SCH No. 2 0140 9102 0, Certified by the SCAQMD in May 2017. Available at: htto://w .mmd.my/home/libmry/documents-support- material/lead -agency-oermit-oroiec[s. iOM17470.1 kae; D.T:N0IIDEIPCommmtGM]I -5- The Koll Center Residences Project 3-162 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation ENrVMONbfENTALAUDIT, 1. RU, 218 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences There are some exemptions to the above mitigation measure including equipment cont'd unavailability and when equipment is used for fewer than 10 calendar days. Tier 4 23 construction equipment is feasible and must be used when it is available, subject to the same requirements and exemptions identified by the SCAQMD. E. Air Quality Cumulative Analysis, DEIR page 4.2-.3. The cumulative air quality analysis is wholly inadequate as presented. The proposed project and Uptown Newport, adjacent to the proposed project, will be under construction at the same time. While approved several years ago, Uptown Newport is just beginning construction which will occur in phases from 2017 24 through 20213. The construction schedule for the proposed project is 2019 through 2022, therefore, the construction activities associated with these two projects alone directly impact the same area and the cumulative impacts must be evaluated, instead of the cursory review provided in the DEIR. The NOx construction emissions associated with the Uptown Newport project exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold (100 lbs/day) and were considered to be significant (up to 209 lbs/day of NOx). In addition, the impacts associated with a number of other cumulative projects in the Airport area must be disclosed to the public and included in the cumulative air quality analysis. F. Air Quality Impacts, Appendix B and Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-7, 4.2-8, and 4.2-9 of the DEIR. The CalEEMod runs used to estimate the project emissions are incomplete and understate the emissions for the proposed project. Correspondence with the SCAQMD staff indicates that parking structures associated with high rise buildings need to be added as a separate land use in the "Land Use" tab for CaIEEMod (see Attachment 3). The DEIR only included the emissions 25 associated with the number of residential units and development of the parking included in the residential buildings was ignored. Therefore, the CalEEMod runs are incomplete and understate the operational emissions for the proposed project and could possibly change significance determinations, as well as cumulative air quality impacts, all of which must be corrected, revised, .and recirculated for public review. These errors need to be corrected, and the DEIR revised and recirculated for public review. G. Air Quality Impacts, DEIR page 3-7 and Appendix B page 47. The CalEEMod runs used to estimate operational air emissions underestimate air quality impacts. The residential floor area 26 used in the model runs was only modeled as 260,000 square feet (Appendix B page 47), while the DEIR shows 691,162 square feet (DEIR page 3-7). Therefore, air emissions associated with operations reported in the. DEIR for residential units are underestimated by over 60 percent. H. Diesel particulate matter (DPM), page 4.2-21. The use of construction equipment would occur over a 4.5 year period and expose residents to DPM, a toxic air contaminant (TAC) regulated by 27 the state of California. No analysis is provided in the DEIR of the potential health effects of DPM, rather the impacts are.. dismissed as being temporary with no further analysis. As s Final Environmental Impact. Report for Uptown Newport, SCH No. 2010051094, February 2013. Available at: littP:Hwww.newporibeachca.gov/pin/CEQA_REV IE W/Ul)town9'aONewport/Final_EIR_Februai y_2013/Final%20EIR _2-2013.pdf. [00117470.1)oos:xx:ouooAcommvtsl aI -6- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-163 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 229 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences discussed in Comment 6.E above, the DPM emissions from construction activities at the Koll cont'd Project site and Uptown Newport overlap and those impacts must be analyzed in the DEIR, 27 especially since DPM is a TAC. In addition, the cumulative impacts from other projects, such as recent modifications made to the John Wayne Airport operations as part of NextGen, also must be evaluated. The DEIR claims the following: "The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic.. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, 28 which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities." This is inaccurate. The accepted methodology for determining health risk is established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) and was adopted in 2015. The guidelines were outlined in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Progrom Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). The OEHHA guidelines explicitly state that the methodology only fails for projects that are shorter than 2 months, and is acceptable and accurate for any projects that last longer than 2 months (Section 5.2.10 of the OEHHA guidance). Since the construction of the proposed project will last longer than 2 months, the methodology should be used to determine health risk. J. Air Quality Impacts, Table 4.2-6 and 4.2-7. The values in Tables 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 for criteria pollutants are not actual peaks. These tables only include values from one season. The true 29 peak emissions would be a mix of the summer and winter scenarios from CaIEEMod. K. Air Quality Impacts, Section 4.2. The DEIR concluded that project -related construction emissions were potentially significant, but there was no discussion of related health impacts associated 30 with those potentially significant air quality impacts. The associated health impacts associated with these significant impacts must be included in the revised DEIR and recirculated for public review. 7.0 GREENHOUSE GASES A. GHG Impacts, Table 4.6-4, page 4.6-12, and Appendix F. The values in Table 4.6-4 for greenhouse gases (GHG) do not match the values from CalEEMod runs in Appendix F. For example, the GHG estimates for operational energy consumption in Table 4.6-4 are 163 metric tons per year. The GHG estimates in the CalEEMod runs in Appendix F for operational energy consumption are 1,017 metric tons per year. The same is true for GHG emissions from mobile 31 sources, waste, and water/wastewater. The GHG emission estimates between Table 4.6-4 and Appendix F are inconsistent and this discrepancy needs to be corrected. The correct total unmitigated GHG emissions are expected to be very close to the 3,000 metric tons per year threshold, and could possibly exceed the threshold when the parking and residential square footage identified in Comments 6.F and 6.G above is corrected in CaIEEMod. [00117470] Ira:xx:oiimw commvta n -7- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-164 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 220 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences B. City of Newport Energy Action Plan, page 4.6-12. How is the project consistent with the EAP when it will increase the use of energy and all of the policies identified in the DEIR emphasize a 32 decrease in energy use? C. SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, Page 4.6-13. The DEIR claims that the project is within a major employment center and is consistentwith the regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT. In order to make this claim, theremust be disclosure regarding the affordabilityof housing that would be builtin the Kolb Center. The more costly the housing; the more unlikely that workers in the Airport region would be able to afford housing in the Koll Center and live close to where they work, actually reducing VMT. A representative of Shopoff at the October 30, 2017 community meeting at the Newport Beach City library indicated that the proposed project consisted of 260 "luxury" units that would be in the range of $1,500,000 to 2,000,000. Studies completed by Caltrans show that programs to put more affordable homes. near transit would result in GHG emission reductions.' The study found two main conclusions: (1) Lower income households. drive 25-30 percentfewer miles when livingwithin !12 mile of transitthan those living in non -transit -oriented .development areas. When living within housing % mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50 percent less. However, the study also showed that higher income households. drive more than twice as many miles and own more than twice as many vehicles as extremely low-income households livingwithin % mile of frequent transit. It may reasonable to make the claim that a low income project neartrznsit would reduce VMT. However, it is clear that luxury dwellingunits cannot make this claim. The DEIR needs to be revised and recirculated to show the realistic impacts associated with luxury condos as opposed to affordable or low income housing. 8.0 NOISE A. Noise Impact, page 4.10-6. Policy N3.2 is outdated as it requires that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA contour based on the 1985 JWA Master Plan. The 65 dBA noise contours from the 1985 JWA Master Plan are based on noise data that is over 30 years old and do not account for the increase in noise. related to vehicle/truck traffic or airport traffic in the project area. CECA requires the lead agency to. include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project as they exist at the time environmental review commences (CECA Guidelines §15125(a)). The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by whicha lead agency may assess the significance of a project's impacts. Noise data from the 1985 JWA Master Plan do not represent the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project at the time environmental review of the project began and more recent noise data are required to adequately describe the existing noise environment in the project area. Note that the minimal ° California Housing Partnership Corporation, May 2014, Why Creatingand Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit isa Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy. Available at littp://www.tiansfoimca.org/tiansfolm- re po rt/why-creat i ng -and -pi eserving-affo rda ble-ho roes -near -transit -highly -effective -c I i mate [00117470] Ero:xx:oiimw commmraren -g- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-165 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 33 34 221 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences noise data provided in the DEIR (Table 4.10-5) shows that noise levels in the Koll Center are at orcont'd T near 65 dBA. 11 34 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements, page 4.10-8. Ambient noise levels are based on 10 - minute measurements taken between 11 am and 12:30 pm and "are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day." No evidence is provided in the DEIR to back up this statement, which appears to be incorrect. Further, a 10 -minute sample covers less than 1 percent of a 24-hour period (0.7 percent), is wholly inadequate for estimating ambient noise levels, and does not include peak noise periods. As stated on page 4.10-9 noise most commonly in the project vicinity is produced by automotive vehicles including cars, trucks, buses and 35 motorcycles. Vehicle traffic is highest during morning and evening peak traffic hours. Further, noise from the airport is also based on traffic levels and the highest air traffic is likely during the morningwhen the airport first opens. Ambient noise levels must be based on a minimum of 24- hour noise monitoring. For comparison purposes, the Uptown Newport Final EIR included both short-term (10-20 min) and long-term (24 and 48 hour) noise monitorings. The long-term noise monitoring was used to establish the existing CNEL in the vicinity of the Uptown Newportsite and similar monitoring is required as part of the Koll Development to establish the existing/baseline ambient noise levels. C. Construction Noise Impacts, pages 4.10-15 through 4.10-19. Construction noise impacts are estimated to range from 65.7 to 95.9 d8A during construction activities with the highest noise levels near office buildings. As shown in Table 4.10-1, noiselevels in the 75 dBA are considered to: be "normally incompatible" and noise levels over 80 dBA are considered to be "clearly 36 incompatible" with office buildings. Mitigation measures would not adequately minimize these noise impacts to be compatible with the adjacent office buildings and additional mitigation measures are required so that the noise impacts to workers in the adjacent office buildings are reduced to at least to a "compatible" level. Additional mitigation measures are required to reduce noise levels so that construction activities are compatible with the adjacent commercial buildings. D. Table 4.10-11, page 4.10-27. Table 4.10-11 was based on traffic volumes and airport noise estimates from the Final EIR for the adjacent Uptown Newport project. The JWA existing noise level contours were based on the 2006 General Plan EIR. Noise data in the 2006 General Plan EIR was based on monitoring in 2003. Therefore, the ambient JWA noise levels used in the Koll EIR are based on noise data that is over 14 years old, do not include expansion of the airport or 37 the increase in passenger/traffic volume. The airport reported that 10.5 million passengers went through JWA in 2016 as compared to 8.53 million passengers in 2003.' The noise from JWA needs to be updated with more recent data as noise data from 2003 is not representative s Final Environmental Impact Report for Uptown Newport, SCH No. 2010051094, February 2013. Available at: http://www.newportl)eachcagov/pin/CEO.A_REV IE W/Uptown4a2ONewport/Final_EIR_February_20131Final%20EIR _2-2013.pdf. s http://www.ocair.com/newsroom/fadsatagiance [00117470] Iros:xx: oiimw commvta n -9- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-166 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 222 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Kell Center Residences of the current noise levels, does not provide an adequate description of the existing cont'd environment, and does not include the recent changes to take -off patterns associated with 37 NEXTGEN recently imposed by the FAA which altered some of the.. airplane take -off routes. E. Table 4.10-11, page 4.10-27. CNEL noise estimates are provided in Table 4.10-11which average noise levels over a 24-hour period, including noise from airport take -offs and landings. Short- 38 term instantaneous noise levels, such as Lmax values, should also be provided so that the higher impacts from take-offs/landings area ccounted for in the analysis. F. Page 4.10-32, last paragraph. See Comment 8.D above. Updated noise contours for JWA need to be provided to determine the ambient noise levels and make an adequate impact 39 determination. The CNEL for John Wayne Airport are based on 2003 noise monitoring data which is insufficient to use in a 2017 noise. analysis. G. Cumulative Construction Noise, page 4.10-33. As discussed in Comment 6.E above, the proposed project .and Uptown Newport, adjacent to the proposed project, will be under construction at the same time. Uptown Newport is just beginning construction which will occur in phases from 2017 through 2021'. The construction schedule for the proposed project is 2018 through 2022, therefore, the construction activities associated with these two projects alone 40 directly impact the same area and the cumulative noise impacts must be evaluated, instead of the cursory review provided in the DEIR. H. Cumulative Operational Noise Impacts, pages 4.10-33 through 4.10-36. The cumulative operational noise impacts are based solely on traffic levels. Page 4.10-27 of the DEIR (first sentence) indicates that noise at the project site is associated. with traffic as well as aircraft noise. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts need to include updated airport noise data as well as traffic data. PA7IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIR1L1IFillya A. Geneml Plan and Zoning Designations, page 4.9-6, last paragraph. The DEIR indicates that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan but that the project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights of up to 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Site 41 A to Site B and references Figure 3.6. Figure 3-6 only shows the location of Site B. No figure or map in the DEIR shows the locations of Site A, therefore, the impacts of this transfer are not adequately disclosed to the public. No evidence is provided to substantiate the unused development rights from Koll Center Site A. If the project requires the transfer of development rights it would appear that it would not comply with the General Plan. B. Land Use Impacts, page 4.9-9, second paragraph. The project would result in an increased in 42 building intensity versus the existing site. This increased density (three more 13 -story buildings Final Environmental Impact. Report for Uptown Newport, SCH No. 2010051094, February 2013. Available at: littp://www.newporibeachca.gov/pin/CEQA_REV IE W/Ul)town9'aONewport/Final_EIR_Februai y_2013/Final%20EIR _2-2013.pdf. [00117470] Ero:xx:ouooacommvza n -10- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-167 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 223 City of Newport Beach COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The KOII Center Residences Section 3.0 Responses to Comments up to 160 feet in height) are generally considered to degrade the visual quality of an area versus cont'd less development. 142 C. Zoning Consistency, page. 4.9-10. The project is inconsistent with the existing zoning of the site as the zoning does not allow for residential uses and the DEIR should acknowledge this as a significant impact. The fact that the project applicant is requesting a zone change doesn't change the fact that the project is not. consistent with the existing zoning. D. Table 4.9-1, LU2.2, LU2.3, LU3.2, and H2.3. The DEIR claims that the project is within a major employment center and is consistent with the General Plan policies and goals to minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and 43 employment. In order to make this claim, there must be disclosure regarding the affordability of housing that would be built in the Koll Center. The more costly the housing the more unlikely that workers in the Airport region would be able to afford housing in the Koll Center and live close to where they work, actually reducing traffic and travel and improving the jobs -housing balance. The project would only provide a small amount of retail space and residents of the area would still need to travel outside of the Airport area for groceries, dry cleaners, etc. Nonetheless, the DEIR provides no data to make the claim thatthe DEIR is consistent with these policies. E. Table 4.9-1 LU Policy 6.2.1. Please provide a reference for the comment that the "General Plan designates these areas as appropriate for development of up to 5,025 new dwelling units:' 44 Some of the areas listed are fully developed or close to fully developed under the current General Plan, e.g., Newport Center. F. Table 4.9-1, LU 6.15.3, N1.1, N1.2,and N3.2. These policies require that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA contour based on the 1985 JWA Masters Plan. The 65 dBA noise contours from the 1985 JWA Master Plan are based on noise data that is 45 over 30 years old and do not account for the increase in noise related to vehicle/truck traffic or airport traffic in the project area. More recent noise data are required to adequately describe the existing noise environment in the project area. G. Table 4.9-1, NR8.1 requires developers to minimize air pollutants during construction activities. As discussed in Comment 6.D 15 above, the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is feasible and 46 must be used when it is available, subject to the same requirements and exemptions identified by the SCAQMD. Therefore, as currently proposed, the project would not be consistent with N R8.1. H. Cumulative Land Use Impacts, page 4.9-40 and 4.9-41. Same concerns as Comment 5.D above. Current, past and probable future development projects along Jamboree and the Airport Area has greatly changed the land use of the area. The increased development intensity on the Koll property, along with the following, contributes to this cumulative impact. 1 47 1) Uptown Newport., 4311-4321 Jamboree Road: 1,244 residential units, 11,500 sf of retail space, building heights up to 150 feet. 2) Newport Business Plaza Project, 4699 Jamboree Road: 46,044 sf of commercial development. [0011]4)0] Ero:xx:000na commvta n -11- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC.® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-168 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Koll Center Residences 3) Colton Apartments, Campus Drive and Von Karman: 876 apartments in three, six story residential buildings. 4) The Boardwalk Project, 18691 Jamboree Road: 458,000 sf office uses in two nine -story buildings. cont'd 5) Additional development that would be part of the General Plan Amendment. 47 Clearly, the intensity of the development within the Airport area of Newport Beach and along the Jamboree corridor in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine has significantly impacted the land uses in the airport area. Additional development in the Koll Center would continue this trend and result in significant cumulative land use impacts. 10.0 ALTERNATIVES A. Page 6-6, Alternative Sites. Alternative sites do not have to be limited to the Airport 48 Area and more extensive review should be provided for alternative sites. For example, the Newport Crossings project location is an example of an alternative site. B. Page 6-6, 4� paragraph. The paragraph indicates that "the mixed -used development would need to be sited on a minimum of ten acres as set forth in General Plan Policy LU 6.25.6:' LU6.15.6 allows development of mixed -used residential villages, each 49 containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities. While this is true, the EIR should note that the City of Newport Beach has approved mixed -used development on less than ten acres (e.g., Museum House Development, although approvals have been rescinded for other reasons). C. Alternative B, Page 6-15. The DEIR indicates that Alternative B would decrease construction -related emissions but they would still exceed the SCAQMD NOx threshold. I 50 No evidence (e.g., emission estimates) is provided to make this claim. 1 D. A reduced density alternative that considers developing only two buildings should be included in the DEIR as it could be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.9 and the 51 Airport Business Area ICDP; and it could be designed to reduce construction impacts such as noise, air, traffic, etc. by reducingthe building footprints. E. Alternative B, Feasibility and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. The DEIR indicates that Alternative B would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.9 and the Airport 52 Business Area ICDP which require a minimum density of 30 to 50 dwelling units per net acre. (OM1747e.1)m;..T:NOIIDEIRCommmtGMn -12- ENVMOWENTALAUDIT, IAC, Attachments are in separate document (Appendix A of Responses to Comments) and can be found at this link: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-169 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 225 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Response 1 The subsequent responses address the specific issues raised by this commenter. Response 2 As acknowledged by the commenter, the compliance with CC&Rs and "investment backed expectations" are not environmental issues. The legislative body for the City is not prevented from amending the Zoning Code pursuant to its public process. The EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts both during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. No further response is required. Response 3 The commenter alleges that the Proposed Project will result in "lost tenancies and vacancies" in Koll Center Newport resulting in urban decay and blight and cites Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Bakersfield), as reasoning for the Draft EIR to address urban decay. However, the commenter presents no evidence to support the assertion that the introduction of the mixed-use development would cause these outcomes. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." In Bakersfield, the courts defined urban decay as follows: "[N]ot simply a condition in which buildings become vacant as businesses compete with each other in the normal course of the market-based economy, nor is it a condition where a building may be vacated by one business or use and reused by a different business or for alternative purposes. Rather, under CEQA 'urban decay' is defined as physical deterioration of properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of the properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery, and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments." Blight in Koll Center Newport is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome associated with the implementation of an infill mixed development adjacent to an approved, under construction mixed use development within the Airport Area. As stated in Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California_(2017) _Cal.App.4th_ (Case No. A149501), "there is no reason to presume that urban decay would be a consequence of the project. As defined by CEQA, urban decay is a relatively extreme economic condition. In a dynamic urban environment, including that of a small city such as Placerville, change is commonplace. In the absence of larger economic forces, urban decay is not the ordinary result. On the contrary, businesses and other activities come and go for reasons of their own, without necessarily affecting the overall health of the economy." While the commenter suggests that the area is a low-rise business park, this characterization is misleading. The project site has a General Plan designation of "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2)". The MU -H2 designation specifically applies to some properties located in the Airport Area. It is intended to provide The Koll Center Residences Project 3-170 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 220 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments for the development of areas in a horizontally distributed mix of uses which may regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. As addressed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Business Area Integrated Development Plan (ICRP) which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in September 2010. It implements General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area) which requires the development of one conceptual development plan for the portion of the Airport Area that is generally bound by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Jamboree Road should residential units be proposed within this area. The Airport Business Area ICDP contemplates up to 1,504 new residential units, 11,500 sf of ground -level retail and commercial uses for Uptown Newport and 3,400 sf of commercial uses for the project site, as well as neighborhood park areas. Of the 1,504 dwelling units, 1,244 units are on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units at the project site were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development uses would be removed. These units would be allocated to the Proposed Project in accordance with the City's General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. According to the City's General Plan, "additive" units "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on site". Response 4 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 5 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 6 The subsequent responses address the specific issues raised by this commenter. Response 7 With respect to Aesthetics, the commenter suggests that the Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program, identifies a significance conclusion that is inconsistent with the analysis as it pertains to light and glare, and that Table 1-1 is inconsistent with Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Both Table 1-1 and Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR identify potential impacts related to the nighttime lighting associated with the free-standing parking structure. This is identified as an impact that can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.10-7 requires that the free-standing parking structure incorporate a solid perimeter barrier or other light and noise attenuation features. Section 4.1 incorrectly identifies the measure as MM 4.10-6. Page 4.1-13 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is in an urbanized area with existing sources of lighting. The site currently contains light standards within the surface The Koll Center Residences Project 3-171 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 227 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments parking areas. Additional lighting in the area includes vehicle headlights, traffic signals, illuminated signage, and lighting associated with office and commercial uses. The introduction of additional light sources would not be a significant impact. Building materials would minimize the potential for glare. MM 4.10-0 in Section 4.10, Noise, would mitigate potential lighting impacts associated with the free-standing parking structure to a less than significant level. With respect to Noise, Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program, has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR to clarify and provide consistency with Section 4.10, Noise. No changes to the Noise section are required. Table 1-1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program Environmental Impacts/ Level Summary of Mitigation Program: Level of of Significance Before Project Design Features, Standard Significance Thresholds Applied Mitigation Conditions, and Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Noise Construction Noise... Construction Potentially- Significant Impact. Noise: Operational Noise:... Significant and Potentially Significant. Unavoidable. Stationary Noise:... Operational Potentially Significant. Noise: Less than Significant Stationary Noise: Less than Significant Response 8 The City respectfully disagrees with the commenter. Page 3-6 of the EIR states that it is an objective of the Project to provide beneficial site improvements. Increasing the amount of pervious surface on the Project site would help to achieve this objective. No change to the existing Project objectives is warranted. The referenced objective does quantify the increase in pervious surface area that would be associated with the Proposed Project. However, this does not preclude an increase; rather, it demonstrates with the Project there would be less impervious areas. The range of alternatives addressed in the Draft EIR is not restricted to alternatives that would have the same amount of pervious surface. With respect to the Plaza Gardens, page 3-13 of Section 3.0, Project Description, has been modified to cross-reference the callouts on Figure 3-14, and included in the Final EIR as follows: Plaza Gardens. The Plaza Gardens would include four components: Entry Gardens Cl Stars of the Bay Plaza (C2), The Marsh C3 and Von Karman Plaza C4 (Figure 3-14; the references to C1 through C4 are shown on the figure). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-172 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 222 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Figure 3-12, Circulation Plan, identifies the locations of the driveways. As requested, this information has been added to Figure 3-14. With respect to potential modifications or substitutions to the Mitigation Program, Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, has been clarified and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "modification" and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for review and approval consistent with Municipal Code Section 20.54.070: Changes to an Approved Project. Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to any PDF, SC, and/or MM shall be maintained in the Project file with the MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request. Any changes made to any mitigation measures are included in this Final EIR, which is fully disclosed and available to the public. Additionally, the MMRP is incorporated as part of the public record forthe Project and thus is available for review. Response 9 The commenter has noted an inconsistency between Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1 has been revised to delete project location 3, and to renumber the subsequent cumulative project locations. The cumulative analysis provided in the EIR was based on the callouts of the figure and does not cause the analysis to be flawed. Response 10 With respect to Newport Crossings, please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 11 With respect to Newport Banning Ranch, please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 12 With respect to the Mariner's Mile Revitalization Master Plan, please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 13 The City has not initiated the process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to utilize the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. As a point of clarification, the memo referenced by the commenter notes that an update to the General Plan may include a "review the City's The Koll Center Residences Project 3-173 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 229 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments vision for the Airport area and Newport Center...." The statement should not be construed by the commenter as a commitment by the City to modify the development assumptions for the Airport Area. Response 14 The commenter's reasoning that the Uptown Newport Project and the Koll Center Residences Project must be evaluated as one project is flawed. The commenter states that because the approved and under construction Uptown Newport project site is adjacent to the proposed Koll Center Residences project site; contains some of the same land uses; that construction schedules could overlap, and that the projects have the same applicant, that one EIR is necessary. The Uptown Newport EIR was certified and the project was approved in 2013; the first phase of development is under construction. Although the two projects are near each other, the City received two separate applications for the two projects at two different times, and as such are processing them separately. The Uptown Newport Project is assumed in the cumulative analysis set forth in the Draft EIR. Response 15 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 16 Please refer to the response to Comment 9 and to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 17 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 18 Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1-2h mistakenly reference that the images are not to scale; the images are to scale. Response 19 The opinion of the commenter stating that the development has changed the aesthetic environment of the area is noted but does not focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR analysis. Response 20 Toxic air contaminants (TACs) and Health Risk impacts were addressed on page 4.2-21 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, health risk impacts for the project area were analyzed in the 2014John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2014 John Wayne Airport EIR), which addressed risk impacts from the airport to surrounding receptor areas. As noted in the Draft EIR, the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR identifies the project area as being outside of the airport risk area. Table 4.1-23 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR shows that the worst-case cancer risk of a resident receptor ranges from 2.4 to 5.9, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 (risk in one million). As the risk level for the worst-case airport scenario is 5.9, the cancer risk to all receptors would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As indicated in Exhibit 4.1-1 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport EIR, the nearest modeled residential receptorto the airport boundary line is closer than the project site. Additionally, the wind rose for the meteorological station indicates that the predominant wind patterns do not blow toward the site. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-174 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 230 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Therefore, pollutant concentrations would continue to disperse going toward the project site and the cancer risk of future residents at the site would be at or below the risk levels identified in the John Wayne Airport EIR. The Project would not include operational sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) as it is proposed as a mixed-use infill residential and retail development. As addressed on page 4.2-18 of the Draft EIR, operational emissions, including diesel particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), from the Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in exhaust (NOx) emissions slightly above the SCAQMD threshold. Mitigation Measure (MM) M 4.2-1 identified in the Draft EIR would require the use of newer construction equipment with better emissions controls and would reduce construction -related NOx emissions. Potential impacts of NOx construction emissions on sensitive receptors was analyzed using localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR Table 4.2-8 identifies that NOx construction emissions would remain below LSTs. Therefore, it is not necessary to further analyze health risk impacts in relation to the operation and construction of the Proposed Project. Particulate matter exceedances of the LSTs occur primarily due to fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, the LSTs for particulate matter were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust is comprised of inert silicates and does not include TACs or other toxins. As such, the exceedance of particulate matter LSTs (see Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR) does not indicate health risk would occur. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable construction emissions. Response 21 The analysis was initiated and completed prior to the release of the 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data (May 2017). Ambient air quality monitoring data does not vastly differ from 2015 to 2016. Therefore, the incorporation of the 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data would not change the conclusion of the Draft EIR and additional mitigation would not be required. Response 22 Two criteria are identified under Threshold 4.2-1: Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase. As stated on page 4.2-12 of Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not be consistent with the first criterion due to the potential exceedance of NOx pollutant concentration standards during construction. However, the Project would be consistent with the second criterion as discussed on pages 4.2-12 and 4.2-13 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Impact Summary is referring to the first criterion as it is The Koll Center Residences Project 3-175 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2312 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments not consistent with the 2016 AQMP. The Draft EIR is consistent with its significance conclusions regarding AQMP compliance. Response 23 The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft EIR's proposed mitigation is inadequate. Tier equipment has limited availability and it is not certain that all construction equipment will be available that meets Tier 4 standards. The commenter states that since Tier 4 construction equipment was required in the SCAQMD's Tesoro Refinery Project EIR, that it should be feasible for the Proposed Project. However, the Tesoro Final EIR acknowledges that the pool of available Tier 4 equipment is limited and it is not certain that all construction equipment will be available that meets Tier 4 standards.9It should be noted that the emissions associated with the Tesoro project would still exceed thresholds despite the implementation of Tier 4 equipment. The Draft EIR for the Proposed Project conservatively requires all equipment greater than 50 horsepowerto meet Tier 3 standards. Because Tier 3 equipment is readily available, the mitigation for the Proposed Project is reasonable and feasible. Response 24 Cumulative air quality impacts are fully analyzed within Draft EIR. It should be noted that the SCAQMD does not require cumulative projects to be quantified and compared to thresholds. The following is stated on page D-3 of the SCAQMD 2003 White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution: As Lead Agency, the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR... Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. Therefore, the project -specific thresholds were used to analyze the cumulative impact. As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.2-20, the Project would result in a significant cumulative impact for construction NOx emissions (a criteria pollutant precursor). The Proposed Project, the Uptown Newport Project, and other cumulative projects would be required to reduce construction emissions per SCAQMD rules and mandates. However, as described in the Draft EIR, the Project's exceedance of construction NOx thresholds despite the implementation of mitigation would be cumulatively considerable. Response 25 The CalEEMod run has been revised to incorporate the parking structures for Buildingsl, 2, and 3 and to incorporate the residential square footage. Additionally, refinements were made to the construction acreage assumptions. Refinements to operational assumptions also included incorporating improvements from regulatory requirements such asthe Renewable Portfolio Standards, and accounting forthe Project's density and proximity to jobs. These model updates and refinements would not change the magnitude of 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Tesoro Los Angeles Refinery— Integration and Compliance Project Final EIR, page 4-42, May 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-176 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 232 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments impacts or the conclusions and mitigation in the Draft EIR. Table 4.6-3, Table 4.6-4, Table 4.2-6, Table 4.2-7, and Table 4.2-9 of the Draft EIR are revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Table 4.6-3. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Metric Tons per Year Construction Year COze 2018 1,4' 1 140 2019 258 22061 2020 1,3551 549 2021 2,8 2 693 2022 42-6927 Total Construction 9,56" 370 Source: Michael Baker International, 2017b. Table 4.6-4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Project Operation — Metric Tons per Year Emissions Source COze Construction Amortized over 30 Years 283 279 Area Source 61 Energy -163987 Mobile 352962 Waste 31 Water and Wastewater 116 Total X938 2 157 SCAQMD Bright -line threshold 3,000 Exceeds threshold? No Source: Michael Baker International, 2017b. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-177 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 233 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Table 4.2-6. Unmitigated Construction -Related Emissions Pollutant (pounds per day)2a-b Coarse Fine Reactive Sulfur Particulate Particulate Organic Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Matter Matter Construction Year Gases (ROG) Oxide (NOx) Monoxide (CO) (SO2) (PM20) (PM2.5) 2018 S-.2-26.69 471365.90 36 4 44.03 0440.17 S:Q2-8.67 2-.-733.46 2019 1&.9-510_10 66.4466_41 71.2-371.55 0.24 16.9316.92 5.83 2020 9479.23 74.9372_68 66.72-67_06 0.24 16.66 5.57 2021 17.9917_65 142.43135.08 136..81 129.05 0.41 .40 33.65 30.61 135612_86 2022 9-.939.89 7108 79_68 76.o, 77.61 0.27 26.0323.45 9-.6-79.42 Highest of all Years 47W 17.65 142.43135.08 49641-129.05 0.41-0.40 33 66 30.61 1.54612.86 SCAQMD Potentially Significant Impact 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceed SCAQMD No Yes No No No No Threshold? a. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. b. Construction emission incorporate reductions/credits in CaIEEMod that are required by the SCAQMD. The credits include the following: replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces two times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a The Koll Center Residences Project 3-178 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation J� City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Table 4.2-7. Mitigated Construction -Related Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds per day) a, °• ` Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Coarse Fine Area Reactive 4.13 Carbon Sulfur Particulate Particulate Energy Organic Nitrogen Monoxide Dioxide Matter Matter Construction Year Gases (ROG) Oxide (NOx) (CO) (SO2) (PM10) (PM2.$) 2018 3.55 4.33 44.24 57.87 40.90 52_59 044-0.17 G�-9-6.57 2.242.80 2019 7.2-7.61 60.08-59_72 71.99-71_59 0.24 13.3113.30 4.75 4.74 2020 798-7.06 62.8662_17 675367_44 0.24 133313.32 4.634.66 2021 11 31106 118.47 113.15 145.25 135.09 9.41-0.40 236422.11 18:839.50 2022 7.2-5-7.28 69:.88-70_50 85.99-85_93 0.27 17:42-16.35 6:646.57 Highest of all Years 4147-11.06 11841-7-113.15 145.26135.09 0.41-0.40 24XA-22.11 49.039.50 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Note: emissions rates differ from summer to winter because weather factors are dependent on the season, and these factors affect pollutant mixing/dispersion, ozone formation, etc. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a No Yes No No No No Threshold? a. Emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. b. Construction emission incorporate reductions/credits in CalEEMod that are required by the SCAQMD. The credits include the following: replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces two times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. c. Mitigation includes the use of CARB certified Tier 3 engines. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a Table 4.2-9. Operational Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds per day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Summer Emissions Area 659-16.31 4.13 23.1923.40 0.03 0.43 0.43 Energy 8:89-0.08 00.71 9.330.30 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 1.665-1.97 6.41 .72 28:69 20.50 0480.06 7:28-4.77 1:961.32 Total Summer Emissions 8.64-18.37 41.31-11.56 44.21 4.20 83-1-0.09 7.69-5.26 2-05-1.81 Winter Emissions Area 659-16.31 4.13 23.4123.40 0.03 0.43 0.43 Energy 9.09 .11 0.770.71 0330.30 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 4.631.95 637-6.89 19.99-20.21 0.090.06 7.294.77 1.961.32 Total Winter Emissions 8761-18.35 41.4311.73 4142-43.91 0110.09 7.69-5.26 2:-0-SI.81 SCAQMDThreshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No Note: emissions rates differ from summer to winter because weather factors are dependent on the season, and these factors affect pollutant mixing/dispersion, ozone formation, etc. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a The Koll Center Residences Project 3-179 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2SJ5 City of Newport Beach Response 26 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Please refer to the response to Comment 25. The CalEEMod model default value for 260 multi -family dwelling units is approximately 260,000 sf. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-9, mobile emissions are the Project's primary emissions source and that the floor area square footage has a nominal effect on area and energy emissions and would not affect the Project's magnitude of emissions, or the significance finding or mitigation in the Draft EIR. However, as described in the response to Comment 25, revising the residential square footage in CaIEEMod would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIR or require additional mitigation measures. Response 27 Please refer to the response to Comment 20 and Comment 28. There is not a considerable health risk impact for projects that only last a small fraction of a lifetime. Therefore, it would not be necessary to analyze the health risk of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and the construction phase. Additionally, most DPM is from the use of heavy equipment which would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. Please refer to the response to Comment 24 regarding cumulative impacts. However, in the interest of full disclosure, a screening -level dispersion model has been run to further support the conclusions in the Draft EIR. The EPA recommended screening model AERSCREEN was used to further address Project construction risk. AERSCREEN is the recommended screening model based on the AERMOD dispersion model. The model produces estimates of worst-case concentrations without the need for hourly meteorological data. According to the EPA Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) website, AERSCREEN is intended to produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of meteorological and terrain data.10 Maximum daily Win exhaust construction emissions were used in AERSCREEN to approximate construction DPM emissions. Construction exhaust emissions were modeled as a volume source and resulted in a maximum annual concentration of 0.052 µg/m3 and a risk level of 7 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Risk levels were calculated based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). It should be noted that the risk calculations use conservative age sensitivity factors and breathing rates. Since construction would only last 4.5 years, the age sensitivity factors for the first youngest (most conservative) age groupings were used. As described above, worst-case construction risk levels based on screening -level modeling (AERSCREEN) and conservative assumptions would be below the SCAQMD's thresholds. Response 28 Section 8.2.10 of the OEHHA guidance states, "The local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program in permitting decisions for short-term projects such as construction or waste site remediation. Frequently, the issue of how to address cancer risks from short- term projects arises. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime. There are some 10 https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models The Koll Center Residences Project 3-180 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 230 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments studies indicating that dose rate changes the potency of a given dose of a carcinogenic chemical. In other words, a dose delivered over a short time period may have a different potency than the same dose delivered over a lifetime." The OEHHA methodology uses a 70 -year exposure duration and the construction phase would only last 4.5 years. Due to the uncertainty of the short time period methodology it would not be necessary to analyze the health risk of the construction phase. Response 29 Air quality emissions model results shown in Tables 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 are the worst case and daily maximum values. Winter and summer emissions do not occur concurrently. Therefore, winter emissions (which have slightly higher NOx emissions) were reported in the Draft EIR. Summer emissions are provided in Draft EIR Appendix B and vary slightly (less than one pound per day) than winter emissions but would not change the level of significance or require new mitigation. The worst-case scenario is provided in the Draft EIR. Response 30 As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-6, NOx during 2021 would be the only criteria pollutant to slightly exceed SCAQMD thresholds. However, SCAQMD thresholds are based on regional attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as well as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and are not locally significant. Please refer to the response to Comment 19 regarding the health-related impacts from construction emissions. As indicated above, although construction NOx emissions exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds in one year, localized NOx thresholds are not exceeded and health-related impacts would not occur. Additionally, refer to the response to Comment 28 for the health risk associated with short-term (one year) of NOx construction emissions above the SCAQMD threshold. Response 31 Please refer to the response to Comment 25. The commenter identifies a typographical error in the energy and mobile emissions reported in the Table 4.6-4 of the Draft EIR. However, the commenter incorrectly identifies that emissions associated with waste and water/wastewater do not match the outputs. As previously addressed, the model refinements and the correction of the typographical errors for energy and mobile source emissions would not result in total Project emissions that exceed GHG thresholds. The magnitude of impacts would not change, the conclusions in the Draft EIR would remain the same, and additional mitigation would not be required. It should be noted that the Project's GHG emissions were calculated with CaIEEMod version 2016.3.1, which was released in October 2016. CalEEMod version 2016.3.1 calculates energy consumption and associated emissions based on consumption rates in the 2013 version of Title 24 (Part 6). However, the energy consumption based on the current version of Title 24 (2016) is 28 percent more efficient than the previous 2013 version. As such, an adjustment was applied in the CaIEEMod mitigation module to account for this State mandated improvement. Implementation of the 2020 Renewable Portfolio Standards goal was also incorporated." Although the adjustment was made in the mitigation module, it is a conservative assumption, as Title 24 is updated on an approximately three-year cycle and the 2019 Standards will continue to improve upon the 2016 Standards. As the Project would be constructed through 2022, it is Senate Bill X1-2 was signed in April 2011 and set the RPS target at 33 percent by 2020. Senate Bill 350 (signed in October 2015) requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-181 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 237 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments likely that it would be subject to more stringent energy efficiency standards. Furthermore, PDF 1 identifies that the Applicant will pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification for the Project. Additional Project efficiency features include the use of landscape irrigation systems with weather sensors, timers, and low -flow irrigation devices to further reduce the overall water use (and associated water energy use) in the community. Non -potable water would also be used for all site irrigation (reducing energy associated with water treatment). The GHG emissions analysis provided in the Draft EIR is conservative because it does not take credit for 2019 Title 24 improvements or LEED certification. Please also refer to the response to Comment 25 regarding modeled residential floor area. As noted above, CalEEMod default values were used the residential floor area/square footage. It should be noted that the mobile emissions are the Project's primary emissions source and that the floor area square footage has a nominal effect on area and energy emissions. Additionally, the revised model results provided in response to Comment 25 demonstrate that these refinements would not affect the Project's magnitude of emissions, or the significance finding or mitigation in the Draft EIR. Response 32 Please refer to Topical Response: Energy Action Plan Consistency. Project consistency with the City's EAP was reviewed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR and Project energy consumption was assessed in Section 4.15.5, Energy Consumption, of the Draft EIR. The Project would not conflict with the City's Energy Action Plan. Response 33 Please refer to the responses to Comment 20 and Comment 21. The project site is located within walking distance of transit stops and OCTA's i -Shuttle, and would increase urban density, diversify land uses, and is located within a mixed-use development close to several major employers. These features would encourage active transportation and contribute to a reduction in VMT. Response 34 As discussed in Topical Response: Airport Noise, the project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour based on the 2008 Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport 12, and the John Wayne Airport 2016Annual60-75 [5 d8 intervals] CNEL Noise Contours." General Plan Policy N3.2 is included in Draft EIR Section 4.10 (Noise) for informational purposes, and is currently adopted in the City's General Plan (adopted July 25, 2006). Response 35 As stated in Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, three 10 -minute noise measurements were taken at three locations in the project vicinity between 11:00 AM and 12:30 PM on April 18, 2017. The recorded noise measurements captured both mobile traffic and airplane noise during the 10 -minute measurement 12 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, http://www.ocair,com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf, April 17, 2008. 13 John Wayne Airport, John Wayne Airport 2016 Annual 60-75 [5 dB intervals] CNEL Noise Contours, http://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/cnelnoisecontours/2016.pdf, 2016. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-182 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments recordings. As mobile traffic noise and airplane departures/arrivals are continuous throughout the day, a 10 -minute measurement is considered representative of the existing noise environment. The 10 -minute measurements were recorded and shown in the Draft EIR in terms of dBA Leq. The commenter suggests that a 24-hour dBA CNEL measurement is needed since traffic is loudest at peak hours and airport noise is loudest in the morning. Peak hour traffic noise can be quieter than non -peak hour traffic where traffic congestion results in slower travel speeds. As noted above, airport noise was captured during the 10 -minute noise measurements for the project and is considered part of the existing noise environment. According to the Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (California Department of Transportation, September 2013), a 24-hour measurement (dBA CNEL) is normally about 0.5 dBA higher than the 24-hour noise metric. As such, the difference in the three noise measurements recorded forthe Proposed Project would vary by a maximum of+0.5 dBA, which is nominal and not detectable by the human ear. Response 36 As discussed in the Draft EIR (pages 4.10-12 to 4.10-19), construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels to various receptors adjacent to site development, including residential, office, and commercial uses. Implementation of SC 4.10-1 and MMs 4.10-1 through 4.10-4 would help reduce short-term construction noise impacts to the furthest extent feasible, and indoor noise levels at the nearby office uses would be reduced by 24 dB due to outdoor -indoor noise attenuation. It is noted that the Project's construction noise levels were provided in Draft EIR Table 4.10-7 for informational purposes, as construction noise is exempt from the City's noise standards in compliance with the allowable hours outlined in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Construction activities are not considered a "land use"; therefore, construction noise levels were not compared to the City's land use compatibility standards. Land use compatibility standards are typically used as thresholds for operational noise impact analyses. Response 37 Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. As discussed in the topical response, the project site is currently located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour based on the most recent data provided by John Wayne Airport.la," The project site is also located outside the 60 dBA CNEL under future expansion conditions at John Wayne Airport (i.e., an increase in the number of daily flights and passengers at John Wayne Airport) per the 1WA EIR. Response 38 The noise levels identified in Table 4.10-11 of the Draft EIR are provided in dBA CNEL, as the City of Newport Beach does not have noise standards for Lmax. Lma„ noise levels are inconstant and of short duration, and are not representative of long-term noise impacts. Noise levels expressed in terms of dBA 14 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf, April 17, 2008. Ss John Wayne Airport, John Wayne Airport 2016 Annual 60-75 [5 dB intervals] CNEL Noise Contours, http://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/cnelnoisecontours/2016.pdf, 2016. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-183 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 239 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments CNEL represent long-term (24-hour) noise exposure, and thus, were used for the long-term noise analysis in the Draft EIR and as shown in Table 4.10-11. Response 39 Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise, and the response to Comment 37. Response 40 The commenter incorrectly characterizes the construction noise analysis in the Draft EIR. Construction noise impacts are thoroughly analyzed in Draft EIR Section 4.10.5. Additionally, construction of the Uptown Newport Project was taken into account in the Draft EIR. As indicated in the comment, the Project's construction timing would be offset from the timing of the Uptown Newport Project. Additionally, both projects would be constructed in phases, and the active development area in each phase would not be immediately adjacent to each other. For example, Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport Project would be located along Jamboree Road and would be located approximately 400 feet from Phase A of the Proposed Project. Additionally, these two phases would be separated and noise would be shielded by the existing industrial building. Although, Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport Project would be located closer to the property line of the project site, actual construction activities of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Proposed Project would be located approximately 600 feet away. Furthermore, the grading and earthwork (typically the loudest construction activities) for Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport Project would be completed by the time grading and earthwork for the Proposed Project begins. Additionally, the Draft EIR determined that construction noise would be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Cumulative construction noise impacts were also found to be significant and unavoidable. As discussed on page 4.10-33 of the Draft EIR, construction noise impacts were determined to be cumulatively considerable should other development proximate to the project site occur concurrent with the Project. The commenter also incorrectly states thatthe Draft EIR does not examine cumulative noise impacts from the aircraft as well as traffic noise. Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. As indicated in the topical response, the proposed Project is outside the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour for existing and future airport scenarios (including future airport expansion scenarios). Project exposure to future airport noise levels is addressed in Table 4.10-11 of the Draft EIR which includes combined cumulative noise levels from various noise sources in the Project area (i.e., traffic and airport noise). The commenter also takes statements from page 4.10-33 of the Draft EIR out of context. The full statement is: "Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and reduces as distance from the source increases." The intent of this statement is to set up the subsequent sentence that cumulative contributions to noise typically occur in the general project area and project -related noise attenuates further from the source. Furthermore, this discussion occurs in the cumulative operational noise section of Draft EIR Section 4.10, and focuses on cumulative traffic noise. Project exposure to airport noise is addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-11 and the associated discussion and combines the cumulative noise levels from various noise sources in the project area and uses worst-case future airport noise levels. The analysis fully complies with Section 21096 of the California Public Resources Code. Additionally, Section 21151.8 relates to school sites and is not applicable to the Project. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-184 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 240 City of Newport Beach Response 41 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The anomaly locations for the Airport Area are shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area 1-4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. Response 42 The commenter has not provided any evidence to support the suggestion that "increased density' typically degrades visual quality of an area when compared to "less development." Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, includes a full analysis of visual resources, including the visual quality of the Project site. As discussed in Section 4.1, impacts regarding the visual quality of the site are considered to be less than significant. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-185 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 241 City of Newport Beach Response 43 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The Project, if approved, would be consistent after the Zoning text amendment is valid and in effect. The legislative body for the City is not prevented from amending the Zoning Code pursuant to its public process. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project includes an amendment to PC -15 to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. PC -15 would be amended to include the following permitted land use: Residential Mixed Use on Site B. Site B is 43.703 acres with 966,720 sf of office uses and 260 dwelling units. The Project also requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer of up to 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Site A to Site B. Because the amendment would be consistent with the General Plan and Airport Business Area ICDP, the amendment to PC -15 Koll Center would not result in a change in policy that would result in significant impacts. The commenter has stated, without providing evidence or support, that the level of affordability directly correlates and mandates General Plan goals and policies to minimize travel. No evidence or support is provided that the costlier the housing, the more unlikely that employees could afford housing in Koll Center Newport and would live closer to their place of employment. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4`h 556, 580.) With respectto the commenter's opinion regarding alleged inconsistencies, it should be noted that, under CELLA, a project is consistent with the underlying general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 238). Moreover, a lead agency's determination that a project is consistent with the general plan is entitled to deference (ibid.). Response 44 The analysis for General Plan LU Policy 6.2.1 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Consistent. The Project is consistent with this policy. The General Plan Housing Element identifies five locations—Newport Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and the Balboa Peninsula—as key sites for future housing opportunities. The General Plan designates these areas as appropriate for development of up to &42-5 44,446 new dwelling units jsource: Table H32 Site Analysis and Inventory Summary). The project site is in the Airport Area and 260 units are identified as additive units for the site. Response 45 Please refer to Topical Response, Airport Noise. Response 46 Please refer to the response to Comment 23. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-186 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Mffijij Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Response 47 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 48 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 49 As a point of clarification to the commenter, compliance with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.6, Size of Residential Villages, is a requirement for the Airport Area. Elsewhere in the City, the City Council may waive the minimum acreage requirement as set forth in Municipal Code Section 20.56.020. Response 50 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 51 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 52 The comment is noted. Alternative B would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.9 and the Airport Business Area ICDP which require a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. Alternative B would have a density of approximately 20 dwelling units per net acre which is less than the requirements of the Airport Business Area ICDP and General Plan Policy 6.15.9. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-187 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 243 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-188 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments V of Section 3.0 to Comments (B am"Hom The Kell Center Residences Project 3-189 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 245 r� ,� auowra.m.n i J �r nMe� IMY`M Yurar \ M u yLe�e.emf �rarfn.wm EM bfN nxnL , BET, R , a� feYn� f�eIW AIabN fMe Wr {� M p�Pna..l��^nu_e bl Ml fey MmmnWavr nWn+e NNrf ft �^''. t�� fMi twn. �yr'n.n avy.Grv.n rf � FIGURE 3-M Conceptual Landscape Plan the RcR cemef Rendences Prorc Section 3.0 to Comments (B am"Hom The Kell Center Residences Project 3-189 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 245 Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-190 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 240 ' IUl114V�YnL n .11111 OP1 ._ HUNTINGTON BEACH / 2`F _F 19 2 COSTA MESA 7 ___• .� IRVINE � �.�....! Q .._ NEWPORT 31 BEACH 11 0 2 30 SSD 1] - . 21123 L© 12 � LEGEND: Project Site -- City Boundary - UNINCORPORATED OX Project Loc)t,o^ -Refer to Table 4-1 - - . ORANGE COUNTY Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-192 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 242 City of Newport Beach Letter C-6 Meyer Properties James Hasty, Senior Vice President October 12, 2017 MEYER PROPERTIES 4320 VON KARMAN • ',FISPORT FFACH, CAI-IFORNIA 92660 (949)562-0500 • FAX (949) 862-0515 �,nEIVED ey COIdh71JNRY Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner roaveroaMENT City of Newport Beach OCT 12 2017 Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 r.RYOF 114ZIPOR7 96PG Re: The Residences at Koll Center Newport Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As a brief overview, the core of Koll Center Newport, bordered by Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street is an office park developed more than three decades ago and consists primarily of office buildings set in a campus like environment. All of the office buildings are four stories or less, excepting two high-rise office buildings that are situated nearly a mile apart. There are two, two-story parking structures that are situated about a half mile apart. The remaining acreage is surface level parking and landscaping including a pond which is habitat to many bird species. The buildings have been situated to avoid massing and to create a significant amount of open space which affords substantial light as well as easy pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress. Having read the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Kell Center Residences one, who didn't know better, would think inserting three 13 -story high-rise residential structures practically in the middle of the office park and dwarfing all but one of the surrounding buildings would somehow be unobtrusive and compatible with the existing environment. One who knows better is, of course, insulted. To read a report that has so many statements that are factually incorrect is disappointing and suggests an intent to mislead the reader. I will elaborate with a few examples as follows: Threshold 4.1-2: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? Per the EIR, "Less Than Significant." This is patently ludicrous. What is now surface parking with substantial landscaping including a variety of trees and plants with a very wide open vista will be obliterated by three massive concrete and glass monoliths that will not only cast substantial shadows on most of the surrounding buildings, they will almost completely destroy the visual character of the existing open view corridors- The proposed project would create a street through the property which will not only impede The Koll Center Residences Project 3-193 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 249 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments October 10, 2017 easy pedestrian movement which has long existed, but this will also minimize the security currently provided by gated access at both Von Karmen Avenue and Birch cont'd Street. Of even greater importance is the change in the nature of the use. The introduction of dogs, cats, skate boarders and the like will forever disrupt the calm professional business environment which has existed for more than three decades. Schools 4.12.9 The description of the distances of the project to the schools appears disingenuous. They may be accurate as the crow flies, but not as the car travels. According to Google Maps, Monroe Elementary is not 3.3 miles away, but 4.1 miles (+24%), McFadden 2 Intennediate is not 3.6 miles away, but 5.8 miles (+61 %) and Century High is not 4.4 miles away, but 5.8 miles (+32%). THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.9.4 Would the Project physically divide an established community? Per the EIR, "No Impact." Again, this is ludicrous. The ease of pedestrian access will be harmed by the construction of a street that will essentially run through the heart of the existing office park and thereby effectively bifurcate an established office 3 community. Approval of this project by the city is an affront to all existing Koll Center Newport property owners because the residential use is not allowable under the existing Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions of Koll Center Newport. Sincerely, Meyer Properties James B. Hasty Senior Vice President CC: City of Newport Beach Mayor and City Council s Page The Koll Center Residences Project 3-194 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 250 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments With respect to landscaping, please refer to Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, in the Draft EIR and Section 3.6, Biological Resources, which identifies existing trees on the project site and changes associated with the Proposed Project. The landscape plan will be subject to City approval as a part of Site Development review process. With respect to view corridors, the General Plan does not identify any viewpoints or view corridors in this area. With respect to view protection, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.100: ...provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from private property, to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code .... The provisions of this section shall apply only to discretionary applications where a project has the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space.... It is not the intent of the Zoning Code to protect views from private property. Further, the City's General Plan goals and policies provide directives in its consideration of aesthetic compatibility. While Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20 is the "Preservation of significant visual resources', the policies of the Natural Resources Element are applicable to public views and public resources not private views or private resources. With respect to shading, a shade/shadow analysis was prepared as a part of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1-2h. The analysis identifies both shadows cast by existing buildings; the 4320 Von Karman office building is south of the buildings shown in the figures and would not be shaded by Buildings 1, 2, or 3 or the free-standing parking structure. No impact would occur. The commenter's opinion regarding the change of use is noted. Response 2 The comment is noted. The distances between the project site and the noted public schools will vary depending on the route of travel. This difference does not affect the analysis set forth in the Draft EIR. Response 3 The referenced CECA Guidelines threshold asks whether a project would physically divide an established community. The commenter suggests that the "office community" will be bifurcated by the construction of a road which would affect pedestrian access. The Proposed Project would not introduce any roadways thatwould bisect ortransect the adjacent business uses. The proposed mixed-use buildings, free-standing parking structure, and public park would be constructed on existing surface parking areas. The Project The Koll Center Residences Project 3-195 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 251 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments maintains the existing spine street through the property between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue and provides for pedestrian walkways on both sides of the spine street (see Figure 3-8). The locations of existing sidewalks, and proposed walkways/pedestrian connections are shown on Figure 3-12. The Project would not preclude pedestrians from walking through the area (e.g., northwest of the spine street to southeast of the spine street). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-196 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 252 City of Newport Beach Letter C -7a OLEN Julie Ault, General Counsel October 13, 2017 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner nmgPnewoortbeachca zov Leilani Brown, City Clerk cityclerk@newl2ortbeachw.gov City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments October 13, 2017 RE: Request for a Minimum 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period on Koll Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Ms. Ung, The Kell Center Residences Draft EIR was published or) September 13, 2017 initiating a 45 -day public review period scheduled to end on October 27, 2017. As you are aware, the California Environmental Quality Act places high value on public participation noting in CEQA Guidelines 415201, "(p)ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process." The California Environmental Quality Act states that the public comment period for a draft EIR shall not be less than 30 days nor should it be longer than 60 days except under unusual circumstances. CEQA Guidelines 415205. We recognize that the close of the Draft EIR comment period does not limit the public's ability to continue reviewing and commenting on the DEIR and to provide written comments after the close of the comment period. The distinction is that comments received before the close of the comment period may not, at the discretion of the City and Consultant team, receive a formal written response and be included in the Final EIR. Ideally, public comments are received by the end of the official public comment period and included in the Final EIR response to comments document. Unless extended, the short comment period on this highly complex Project makes likely that significant comments will be submitted after the DEIR public comment period closes. "Environmental review derives its vitality from public participation" (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 400) We appreciate your consideration of a 15 -day extension of the public comment period for the following reasons: Seven Corporate Plaza - Newport Beach, CA 92660 • [9491 644-OLEN www.0len Prop e rties. com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-197 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 253 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The Project's Location—near both Airport and significant growth areas in the City of Irvine— make review of safety and transportation issues of paramount interest to the public. As such we have retained experts to review these sections of the DEIR requiring additional time for adequate review. Long Planning History -The long and complex planning history of the Koll Center and its surrounds is relevant to the public's review and understanding of the Project -related planning issues addressed in the DEB. It is time consuming to fully understand the planning context, particularly since Irvine has experienced high growth in areas nearby the project site that must be considered in an adequate review of the project related and cumulative impacts. Missing Information - Essential information about the Project, including, but not limited to the Development Agreement (DA), has not been released for public review and could result in additional project impacts or mitigation depending on its substantive provisions. The DEIR also contains numerous citations and links to information relevant to an adequate review that are not readily available. This information should be released as part of the documents for review before the close of the public comment period so that the public can be assured that the DA does not invoke either impacts or mitigation. To allow time for the public to review the Draft EIR and complete the bulls of their comments during the formal Draft E I R period, we request an extension of an addition a 120 days, extending the public comment period to 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2017. We appeal to your prerogative, as allowed by CECA, to grant an extension of the comment period to November 16, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Finally, it recently came to our attention that the proposed Study Session for this project presented at the Newport Beach Planning Commission has been removed from the calendar. We also understand, the Commission will instead hold one hearing and vote on the project without prior knowledge, introduction, or questions about it on December 7, 2017. We respectfully request a new date for a Study Session be issued based on the complexity of this project and concerns from the public. Sincerely, - it Julie A"Ault General Counsel I CC: �eny of Newport Beach Mayor and City Council via distribution from Ms. Leilani Brown, City Clerk The Koll Center Residences Project 3-198 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 1 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The public review period for the Draft EIR was extended from October 27, 2017 to November 13, 2017. With respect to the commenter's position that there are "missing elements of the Project Description", the City requests that the commenter contact City staff directly with any questions. CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-199 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2155 City of Newport Beach Letter C-716 OLEN Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Robert Perlmutter and Carmen Borg, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger representing OLEN November 9, 2017 SHUTE MIHALY -WEINBERGERLLP 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T.(41S) 552-7272 R (415)552-5816 w smwlaw.com November 9, 2017 Via Electronic Mail Only Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Rung®newportbeachca.gov ROBERTS.PERL UTTER Attorney Pe Irnuaeresmwlaw.com Re: Kull Center Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002 ' Dear Ms. Ung: This firm represents Olen Properties on matters relating to the proposed Koli Center Residences. The purpose of this letter is to inform the City that the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DE1R") for the KOH Center Residences Project violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. Olen Properties is deeply concerned about the far-ranging environmental impacts that the Proj ect may have on quality of life in the vicinity of the Project. As described below, the DEIR violates CEQA because it fails to: (1) adequately describe the Project, (2) adequately analyze the Project's inconsistency with the City's General Plan, (3) adequately analyze cumulative impacts, and (4) include an adequate range of alternatives. The EIR is `the heart of CEQA." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392 (citations omitted). It is "an environmental'alann bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return. The EIR is also intended 'to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' The Koll Center Residences Project 3-200 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2150 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 2 Because the FIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." Id. (citations omitted). Where, as here, the environmentalreview document fails to fully and accurately inform decision -makers, and the public, of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisfy the basic goals of either statute. See Pub. Res. Code § 21061. ("The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to fist ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.") As a result of the DEIR's numerous and serious inadequacies, there can be no meaningful public review of the Project. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR in order to permit an adequate understanding of the environmental issues at stake. Further, the City must develop feasible and prudent alternatives to redevelopment at this location. I. The DEIR's Flawed Project Description Does Not Permit Meaningful Public Review of the Project. Under CEQA, the inclusion in the EIR of a clear and comprehensive description of the proposed project is critical to meaningful_ public review. County of-Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185,193 ("Inyo II ). The court in Inyo II explained why a thorough project description is necessary: "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and pubo c decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance." Id. at 192-93. Thus, "[a]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative mid legally sufficient FIR." Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830, The DEIR fails to describe aspects of the Project critical to its analysis. In perhaps themost glaring example, the Project requires an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PC -15 Koll Center). DEIR at 3-19. Amazingly. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-201 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 1 257 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 3 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments however, the DEIR fails to identify the content of this amendment or explain how it would relate to the existing Community Plan. As discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with numerous provisions of the General Plan. Yet, because the DEIR does not identify the specific amendment to the Community Development Plan, the public and decision makers have no idea whether it is even possible to rectify all of the potential inconsistencies between the Community Plan and the General Plan, while ensuring the cont'd integrity of both Plans. The amendment may result in environmental impacts or internal 2 inconsistencies within Plan. The environmental impacts and planning inconsistencies arising from these amendments are indirect impacts of the Project. Under CEQA, they must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated now; they cannot wait until after approval of the Project. In another glaring omission, the public has yet to be informed regarding the contents of the Development Agreement, but this Agreement will vest certain specific rights and entitlements with the developer, should the City approve the Project as proposed. Regardless of the specifics, once a development agreement is approved, a public agency "shall not prevent development of the land for theuses and to the density or intensity of developmentset forth in the agreement," even if the project requires further discretionary approvals. Gov. Code § 65865.2; see also Citizens for Responsible Government a City of Albany (1997) 56 Ca1.App.4th 1199,1214-15 (development agreement creates vested rights in the form of an "entitlement for use"). If the agency breaches a development agreement, it maybe subject to danrages. See Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes (2010) 191 Cal.AppAth 435, 443-47, 476 (developer awarded $30 million for town's anticipatory breach of development agreement). Given the importance of these documents, the City most release this information to the public and provide additional time for review and comment. Pub. Res. Code § 21092(b)(1). Without an opportunity to review the Development Agreement, the public and decision makers are in the dark about what it may contain. Evenwhere the DEIR does provide a description of Project features, the description is incomplete and confusing. For instance, the Project Description includes a Est of Project Design Features ("PDPs") that purportedly address tine Project's energy usage, storm water treatment, water use, traffic circulation, and parking during construction. DEIR. at 3-15 and 3-16. However, the DEIR is unclear as to whether these features will be implemented. For example, PDP 1 Building Design states that project features "may" include electric vehicle charging stations, optimized energy performance, low emitting materials, and other features leading to LEED Silver Certification. But there is no commitment on the part of the applicant to follow through with this feature. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-202 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 251T City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 4 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments To add frther uncertainty, the DEIR states that all but one of the PDFs listed are notproposed as part of the Project, but will be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Id. The DEIR further states that the applicant may modify the PDFs during the approval process. Id. Thus, the DEIR presents an unstable project description so that the public and decision makers cannot know if these features will actually be implemented or not. This approach is not permissible under CEQA. CEQA requires that an agency fust assess the project's environmental impacts. Only after impacts are identified may the agency identify and assess the effectiveness of feasible mitigation measures for those impacts. The two steps cannot be conflated. In sum, the DEIR fails to describe the Project with sufficient accuracy and specificity to enable either substantive public comment or an informed decision on the Project. II. The DEIR's Analysis of Land Use Related Impacts is Inadequate. CEQA requires that FIRS analyze the consistency of a project with applicable local plans; including General Plans. See Napa Citizens for Honest Govt. v:. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th 342, 386-87; CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, § IX (b). Inconsistencies with a General Plan or other local plan goals and policies that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and CN, can also be evidence of other significant impacts. See. id.; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 929. Here, the DEIR aclorowledges that the Project must be consistent with the City's General Plan, andpmports to analyze the Project's consistency and inconsistency with various specific General Planpolicies and goals. However, in its analysis, the DEIR glosses over inconsistencies in order to reach the unsubstantiated conclusion that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. For example, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan land use and built environment policies, including but not limited to the following: LU 4-3 Transfer of Development Rights: Permit the transfer of developmentrightsfrom a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-203 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation ��9 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 5 b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of extraordinary open space, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation ofa historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character: (4) consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and/or (5) reduction oflocal vehicle trips and traffic congestion, c. The incrennentofgrowth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and designpolicies contained in this Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. The Project would transfer development rights of up to 3,019 square feet of unbuilt office andretail space fromholl Center Site A to Site B. Therefore, the DEIR should have analyzed the Project's consistency with this General Plan policy. It did not. Transfers of development rights have historically been used to preserve open space and to move the rights to develop this space to lands more suited to development. This open -space -centric view of the transfer of development rights (TDR) is clear in the Newport Beach General Plan. The Land Use Element permits the transfer of development rights only when the reduced density/intensity at the donor site provides benefits to the city including the "provision of extraordinary open space" and "the preservation of... natural landscapes." See LU 4.3. The requested transfer does not appear to provide any specific benefits to the City and certainly does not provide or preserve open space. Moreover, the DEIR's consistency analysis omits discussion of the Project's consistency with LU 4.3 Transfer of Development Rights. Because the proj ect requires a TDR and no analysis is done in the DEIR, there is no way to ensure that such a transfer is consistent with the General Plan policy. LU4.1: Land Use Diagram: Accommodate landuse development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Table LU2: Anomaly Locations The Koll Center Residences Project 3-204 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 6 200 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 6 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As discussed above, the transfer of development rights requested is inconsistent with the General Plan, therefore, approval of the requested density transfer would necessitate a General Plan Amendment (GPA). ' The TDR creates an inconsistency with the General Plan since the Anomaly Table will no longer reflect the actual development limits. Kell Center Site A appears to be located in Anomaly Location 1 while Site B appears to be located in Anomaly Location 2.' A TDRwill reduce the development limit in Anomaly Location 1, while increasing it in Location 2. Thus, the Anomaly Locations Table must be amended to reflect this change. To make this change, Project proponents must request an amendment to the General Plan. Absent a General Plan Amendment, the Project will be inconsistent with the General Plan. , Since the current General Plan was adopted in 2006, there have been three GPAs in Statistical Area L4 where the Project is located that have increased the development limits in the Anomaly Table. See GP2006-096 (increasing the limit by 19,212.8 square feet); GP2008-007 (increasing the limit by 9,235.2 square feet in Anomaly Number 6); GP2007-009 (increasing the limit by 11,544 square feet in Anomaly Number 2); see also City Council Staff Report, Agenda Item No. 12, Feb. 22, 2001, PRES Office Building B 4300 Von Karman Avenue? Each of these GPAs has changed solely the development limit in Table LU2 Anomaly Locations in the General Plan and otherwise made no other changes to the General Plan. In the same way that these developments changed the development limit in the Anomaly Locations Table, the TDR in. this Project would do so as well. The development limit for Anomaly Number 1 needs to be reduced by 3,019 square feet and the development limit f'or Anomaly Number 2 must be increased by 3,019 square feet to reflect the TDR and ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Project. Therefore, a GPA is necessary before the Project can proceed. LU3.3: John Wayne dirportArea: re -use ofunderperfornning industrial and office properties and development efcohesive residential neighborhoods in p-oxineity to jobs and services. The Project would directly conflict with this policy. The Project would disrupt a vibrant office park, which emphasizes open space. The three 13 -story buildings would eliminate much of the office park's common/open space. This loss of open space is concerningto businesses that operate out of the office park The high-rise buildings will encroach on sunlight currently afforded the existing buildings. Businesses may choose 'See, General Plan Figure LU l i showing the Anomaly Locations. z http://ecros.newportbeachea.govAVeb/0,0/dgc/74613/Pagel.aspx ..,,,,.. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-205 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 201 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 7 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments not to renew their leases and move to an office park where open space is valued. So T cont'd rather than re -using an underperforming office park, this Project would create one. 1 8 Additionally, this Project in no way fiuthers the development of a cohesive residential neighborhood The 13 -story towers will be isolated from services other than those provided in the small amount of retail space at the lower levels of the buildings. The surrounding land uses in existence now include hotels, office buildings, and a strip of 9 fist food restaurants. There are no grocery stores, banks, pharmacies, or other similar stores that are necessary to create a cohesive neighborhood While the DEIR purports to find the Project consistent with this policy, claiming it would provide connectivity and livability close to employment, tiansportation, and retail centers, a closer look undermines this assertion. The DEIR seems to rely on the Uptown Newport development to conclude that there will be sufficient services available in the 10 neighborhood to meet LU 3.3. while this development includes space for retail uses, there are no details provided to explain what type of retail this might include. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that this development will exist in proximity to necessary services. LU5.3.1 Mored --Use Buildings: Require that maxed -use buildings be designed to convey a high levelofarchitectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles:... Architectural treatment ofbuilding elevations and modulation of their massing. 11 The Project drops three nearly identical 13 -story mixed-use buildings into the Koll Center. Rather than working to ensure compatibility with existing buildings and creating visual interest with a modulation of rooffines and building locations, all three towers are the same height and right next to each other. This failure to create visual interest conflicts with this General Plan policy and the DEIR does not even discuss the Project's consistency with LU 5.3.1. LU 6.15.6 Size of Residential Villages [refer to Figure 12 LU23]: Allow development ofmixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in. Figure LU23).... and The Kell Center Residences Project 3-206 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 202 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 8 LU 6.15.10 Regulatory Plans: Require the development ofa regulatoryplan foreach residential village, which shall contain a minimum of 10 acres, to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways; set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood -serving commercial uses and other amenities; establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses - While the ses. Whilethe DEIRpurports to comply with the 10 -acre minimum size for residential villages, its calculation is misleading. The DEIR states that the project develops an approximately 13.16 -acre project site. DEIR at 4.9-17. However, its calculation of the 13.16 -acre site is not entirely composed of land that the developer owns outright. Instead, the 13.6 -acre site includes common areas and streets. Without including the common areas, the project site is approximately five acres, well below the 10 -acre requirement. This is a significant inconsistency and must be considered and remedied. LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses: Require thatproperties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels ofarchitectural quality in accordance with policies LU 5.1.9 and L U.5.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses amiprovide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. and LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide {or the development of distinct business park, commercial, andairport-serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. As noted above in the discussion about the Project's inconsistency with LU 3.3, the Project fails to folly integrate the residential village with nonresidential uses. While a The Koll Center Residences Project 3-207 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 12 13 203 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 9 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments parking structure is included along the side of the Project shared by Uptown Newport, the parking structure is actually for use by one of the office buildings. An office parking cont'd structure will likely be empty at night and serve as a barrier between the two areas, as 13 pedestrians will be hesitant to find their way through or around a desertedparking structure after dark. The Project also fails to be integrated in order to ensure a quality enviromnent since the existing uses around the Project are not currently compatible with residential uses (hotels, office buildings, and a strip of fast food restaurants). The expected commercial and retail uses at Uptown Newport and the Project are not discussed so therefore cannot be analyzed. Without grocery stores, banks, and pharmacies, the Project 14 will be an isolated residential development. This isolation will increase impacts on the environment as residents are forced to drive to essential services, thereby undermining one of the essential purposes of a mixed-use development and the purpose of these General Plan policies. LU 6.2.3 Residential Affordability: Encourage the development of residential units that are affordable for those e» vployed in the City. 15 The DEIR does not discuss the Project's consistency with this policy nor does it include expected prices for the residential units in the towers. Therefore, the DEIR fails to inform the public and the decision -makers about the Project's consistency with this General Plan policy. In addition to misinforming decision -makers and the public about the Project's consistency with the General Plan, this analysis underestimates the actual impacts of the 16 Project. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to provide a comprehensive and accurate analysis of all General Plan inconsistencies. III. The DEIR's Analysis of Project -Related Traffic and Circulation Impacts is Inadequate. The DEIR's analysis of transportation impacts fails to achieve CEQA's most basic 17 purpose: informing governmental decision -makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed activity. CEQA Guidelines § 1.5002(a). CEQA additionally requires "adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at fi ll disclosure" in an EM CEQA Guidelines § 15003(i). The DEIR's analysis of the Project's traffic impacts fails to meet these standards. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-208 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 204 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 10 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments In fact, the DCIR's analysis of Project -related traffic impacts contains numerous deficiencies that must be remedied in order for the public and decision -makers to fully understand the Project's impacts. First, the DEIR fails to describe, discuss or address potential impacts resulting from a significant change in on-site circulation and parking access. Specifically, the proposed Project will segregate parking areas available to site users. Currently, all site ingress points provide fill access to parking lots accessed from .any one of the four gates. The Project would alter parking access such that if, for example, a driver enters at Driveway 1 and folds no parking availablein the areas served confd by Driveway 1, the driver would have to exit via Driveway 1 or 4 and. re-enter via 17 Driveway 2, 3 or 5. Similarly, traffic entering via Driveways 2, 3. or 5 intending to access the surface parking lot serving 4490 Von Korman would need to exit and re-enter at Driveway 1. Moreover, the DEIR fails to analyze the potential circulation impacts on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street resulting from the elimination of efficient on-site circulation. The traffic volumes in and out of Driveway 1 may increase due to the lack of access and connectivity to overflow parking provided in the proposed new parking structure accessible from only Driveways 2, 3 and 5. Second, the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate parking impacts. The DEIR discloses the Project's removal of surface parking, but fails to identify or address the impact to existing office uses as a result of the removal of convenient surface spaces and replacement with puking located hundreds of feet away in a new parking structure. DCIR at 3-18. The Project will remove 782 convenient surface parking spaces serving existing office tenants and guests. The Project proposes to replace the lost parking with 276 less convenient parking spaces in a structure under Proposed Building'I and 544 inconvenient 18 spaces in a new structure on Lot 5 located 300-500 feet away. IT" inconvenience will likely result in additional circulation impacts on both Von Karman Avenue and. Birch Street as drivers search for the most conveniently located parking spaces. Moreover, the DEIR fails to provide the square footage and parking requirements for each of the existing office buildings, thus making it impossible to accurately determine the extent andseverity of the parking impact on each existing office building on the site. Third, the D$IR fails to analyze impacts associated with the Project's inadequate provision of support facilities for alternative modes of transportation. Pursuamm the City's General Plan, as well as State Bill 743, the Project is required to include facilities to support alternative transportation modes, such as loading areas for rideshare and 19 transportation network company services (e.g., Lyft and Uber), so area for ridesharing and transit options, preferential parking for carpools, and implementation oftheplanned The Koll Center Residences Project 3-209 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 205 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 1 I Class II bicycle facilities on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. General Plan Policy cont'd CE 6.2.2. The Project fails to meet this mandate: 1 19 Fourth, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project's impacts on existing non-residential uses on-site. Specifically, because the Project will introduce residential uses to an established commercial area, the Project will trigger compliance with General Plan 20 policies addressing noise. As such, the Project will be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy N 2.3, which probibits truck deliveries between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The DEIR fails to analyze adverse impacts to existing businesses on site due to this requirement. Finally, the DEng's analysis of the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts is also inadequate. The City's General Plan assumes build -out conditions in 2030. Rather than evaluateimpacts under cumulative conditions in 2030, however, the DEIR only considers the Project's cumulative impacts related to growth within the next five years in 21 2022. Thus, the DEIR fails to assess the impacts of the Project together with impacts of future cumulative projects anticipated under the City's General Plan. A revised DEIR must include this analysis.. IV. The DEIR's Analysis of Cumulative Impacts is Incomplete.. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project, for several reasons including an incomplete list of projects in the vicinity. The discussion of cumulative impacts must include a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects, a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts, and full consideration of all feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4(a)(1) and 15130(b)(3). The DEIR fails to meet these requirements. A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis must consider the impacts of the Project combined with other past, present, and probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1). Projects currently raider environmental review clearly qualify as reasonably probable future projects to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 n.13 (1984). In addition, projects anticipated beyond the near future should be analyzed for their cumulative effect if they are reasonably foreseeable. See Bomng v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal.3d 263, 284 (1975). Here, the DEIR's list of cumulative projects is incomplete. because it. omits projects planned in the area. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-210 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation PA 200 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 12 The Project site is located in close proximity to the western portion of the City of Irvine, where multiple, sizeable development projects areproposed. These include residential projects that will result in more than 3,100 residential units. A list of omitted development projects is included below. List of Development Projects In City of Irvine Development Process sA,`�.ojeut71t vahon�v Ao-ss�.K`al�v'lcS� ,Uwi ��» „mora.§ `�, aµ°-. S4atus rvcrnsr� &"�.�?' 2851 Alton Parkway 170 Under construction 2501 Alton Parkway 344 Under construction 2660 Barranca Par"my 180 In Review 17275 Derian Avenue 80 Under construction Pistoia Apartments 371 In Review 2801 Kelvin Avenue 372 Under construction 1000 Elements Way 1600 Partially under construction All of the above listed projects most be included in a revised environmental docmnent that is circulated to the public. In order for the DEIR to be adequate it must list, analyze, and mitigate to the extent feasible the cumulative impacts from all of these development projects, V. The DEIR's Analysis of Project Alternatives is Inadequate. Every EIR must describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project and its location that would feasibly attain the project's basic objectives mobile avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant impacts. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(6)(4); CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). A proper analysis of alternatives is essential for the City to comply with CEQA's mandate that significantenvironmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where. feasible. Pub. Res. Code§ 21002; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d); Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988).198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-45. As stated in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California, "[w] ithout meaningful analysis of alternatives in the DEIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process.... [Coutts will not] countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the consequences of action by their public officials." 47 Cal. 3d 376, 404 (1988). The DEIR's discussion of alternatives in the present case fails to live up to these standards. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-211 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 22 23 207 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 13 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As this letter, and others from community members make clear, the DEER fails to adequately analyze the Project's environmental impacts. Had the DEIR done an adequate analysis, there is no doubt that thedocument would have determined that the Project would result in numerous potentially significant environmental impacts, including impacts to visual character, traffic, air quality, climate change, increased risk of accidents, and land use incompatibility. In light of the Project's extensive significant cont'd impacts, it is incumbent on the City to carefully consider a range of feasible alternatives 23 to the Project. The DEER fails to do so. In fact, it analyzes only one alternative, in addition to the No Project Alternative, that is substantively different from the proposed Project. To ensure that the public and decision -makers have adequate information to consider the effects of the proposed Project, the City must prepare and recirculate a revised EIR that considers additional meaningful alternatives to the Project. A. The DEIR's Failure to Adequately Analyze Project Impacts Results in an Inadequate Range of Alternatives. As a preliminary matter, the DEIR's failure to disclose the severity of the Project's impacts necessarily distorts the document's analysis of Project alternatives. As a result, the alternatives are evaluated against an inaccurate representation of the Project's impacts. Proper analysis would have revealed that far more impacts were significant and unavoidable. Proper identification and analysis of alternatives is impossible until Project 24 impacts are fully disclosed. Moreover, as discussed above, the document's analysis is incomplete and/or inaccurate so that it is simply not possible to conduct a comparative evaluation of the Project's and the alternatives' impacts. This information necessitates consideration of additional alternatives. Without sufficient analysis of the Project's underlying environmental impacts, the DEIR's comparison of this Project to the identified alternatives is meaningless and fails CEQA's requirements. B. The DEIR's Narrow Project Objectives Prevent Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives. The first step in conducting an alternatives analysis under CEQA is to define the project's objectives. This step is crucial because project objectives "will help the Lead 25 Agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b). The lead agency may not define project objectives so narrowly as to make the proposed development a foregone conclusion. Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 736. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-212 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 202 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 14 Here, the Cityhas identified the following very specific objectives fox the Project: • Implement thegoals and policies that the Newport Beach General Plan established for the Airport Area and the Integrated Conceptual Plan Development Plan. • Develop a mixed-use eouununity that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance. livability. • Develop up to 3,000 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve residents, businesses, and visitors within the business park. • Develop an attractive, viable project that yields a reasonable return on investment. • Provide beneficial site improvements including implementing a reclaimed water system for existing and proposed uses and a first flush (storm water) water quality treatment facility on the site. Pervious surface area would be increased by approximately 0. 93 acre (or 7%) from existing conditions as a result of Project implementation. • Develop and maintain a 1 -acre public park, adding additional park/open space for the City of Newport Beach. DEIR at 3-6. The City may not define the Project's objectives so narrowly as to preclude a reasonable alternatives analysis, Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (20 10) 183 Cal. App:. 4th 1059, 1089 (the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts," not to identity alternatives that meet few of the project's objectives so that they can be "readily eliminated"). Unfortunately, the Project objectives listed in the DEIR violate this core CEQA principle. Specifically, the objectives include such specifics as increasing pervious surface area by 7% and developing a 1 -acre public park. In other words, the City's objectives for the Project is the Project itself. CEQA forbids the use of this sort of circular logic to justify a project. Additionally, one of the Project objectives specifies criteria unique to the Project site: Develop up to 3,000 square feet of retail commercial uses to serve residents, The Kell Center Residences Project 3-213 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 25 209 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments November 9, 2017 Page 15 businesses, and visitors within the business park. In this way, the DEIR ensures that only a limited range of alternatives could possibly satisfy all Project objectives. This objective cont'd limits the range of viable alternatives to options that would locate the residential 25 development on the Koll Center site. The DEIR's pursuit of this objective is impermissible because it forecloses analysis of off-site alternatives and foreordains approval of the Project, or a similar alternative, on the proposed site. By designing its objectives to make selection of the Project's site a foregone conclusion, the DEIRfails to proceed according to law. C. The DEIR Does Not Present a Clear Alternative that Reduces a Majority of the Project's Significant Environmental Impacts. The alternatives analyzed in the DEIR represent a false choice, because none reduce a majority of the Project's significant environmental impacts. Far from complying with its obligations to suggest and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed site, the DEIR offers "straw men" alternatives that are simply meant to bolster the case for the proposed project. For example, the DEIR discusses a "Reduced Height and Density" alternative: Alternative B, which reduces the size of the height of the buildings from 13 stories to 9 stories and allows 173 dwelling units instead of 260. However, this alternative still represents a use that is far too intensive for the proposed area and offers limited environmental benefits. Alternative B would do little to reduce the most impactfid features of the Project (i.e., excessive building height and density) and would still result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, and changes to the site's visual character. Thus, this alternative is not taken seriously in the DEIR, and does not satisfy CEQA's mandate that an EIR discuss a reasonable range of alternatives that `offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal3d at 566 (1990). 4:1 The other two alternatives presented in the DEIR are substantively similar to the proposed Project. Alternative C: Age -Restricted Residences and Alternative D: Modified Site Plan both assume 260 for -sale residential units, 3,000 sf of retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, the same development footprint and the same building heights just like theProject. The DEIR itself acknowledges that these two alternatives would only 27 incrementally reduce significant impacts. DEIR at 6-31. The DEIR thus requires City decision -makers to choose between alternatives that, according to the DEIR, largely share the Project's environmental impacts. None of these alternatives present a clearly less impactfirl alternative. The City claims that Alternative C, Age -Restricted Residences is environmentally superior, but this option still yields similar or greater impacts in many The Koll Center Residences Project 3-214 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 270 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 16 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments impact issue areas. Id. CEQA requires that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially cont'd lessening any significant effects of the project ...."CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b); 27 emphasis added. None of the DEIR's alternatives meet this requirement. Moreover, the DEIR contends that an offsite alternative was considered but rejected because "no other site in the Airport Area is known that would definitively avoid or substantially less any of the significant effects associated with the proposed project. DEIR at 6-7. The County's actual analysis fails to support this determination with 28 substantial evidence. Therefore, the DEIR provides no evidence that other sites in the Airport Area or elsewhere in Newport Beach were evaluated or by what criteria. CEQA is clear that an agency must explain in "meaningful detail ... the basis for the alleged infeasibility" of an alternative. Preservation Action Council v. San Tose (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1357. The DEIR fails to do so. Given the adverse impacts that this Project would have on the visual character of the site, on traffic and circulation in the area, and on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, the DEIR must include a rigorous, honest assessment of additional, less impactful, alternatives. A revised DEIR should include analysis of a substantially 29 reduced height and density alternative and should thoroughly analyze the potential for an off-sitealternative. Without this opportunity, the DEIR asks the public to accept on "blind frust" that the proposed Project is the best alternative. This approach is unlawful "in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the consequences of action by their public officials." Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 494. VI. A Revised DEIR Must Be Prepared And Recirculated. CEQA requires recirculation of a revised draft DEIR "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report" after public review and comment on the earlier draft DEIR. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1. The opportunity for meaningful public review of significant new information is essential "to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Suffer Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Sutter County Board of 30 Supervisors (1981) 122 Ca1.App.3d 813, 822; City of SanJosev. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987)192 Cal.App.3d 1005,1017. An agency cannot simply release a draft report "that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final [EIR] that is insulated from public review." IvfounlainLion Coalition v. California Fish and Game Comm'n. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1053. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-215 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 272 City of Newport Beach November 9, 2017 Page 17 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments In order to cure the DEIR's defects identified in this letter and in letters from other community members, the City must obtain substantial new information to adequately assess the proposed Project's environmental impacts, and to identify effective mitigation coned and alternatives capable of alleviating the Project's significant impacts. This new 30 information will clearly necessitate recirculation. CEQA requires that the public have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon this significant new information in the form of a recirculated draft supplemental LTR VIL Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Olen Properties urges the City to delay further consideration of the Kell Residences Project unless and until the City prepares and recirculates a revised draftEIR that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 936079.6 Response 1 Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGERLLP Robert"Peri" Perlmutter n o._._ J •� Carmen J. Borg AICP SHUTE MIHALY C'S'T--WEINBERGERU.v The subsequent responses address the specific issues raised by this commenter. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-216 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 272 City of Newport Beach Response 2 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As a point of clarification to the commenter, the Project is not a part nor includes the preparation of a community plan. The Planned Community Development standards establishes the zoning regulations for the project site. While the Municipal Code requires consistency between the General Plan and provisions of the Zoning Code, PC -15 Koll Center is not a community plan/General Plan. The proposed new sections of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards that pertain to the Proposed Project are provided following the responses to this comment letter. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay and Public Park Overlay. The Draft EIR analysis has been prepared consistent with the assumptions identified for the two overlays. Response 3 CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. Response 4 The comment has misunderstood the EIR's discussion of Project Design Features (PDFs). Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, states that "PDFs are specific design elements proposed by the Applicant that have been incorporated into the Project. Where noted in the Draft EIR, PDFs are proposed to prevent the occurrence of, or reduce the significance of, potential environmental effects. Because PDFs have been incorporated into the Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. However, PDFs are identified in the Mitigation Program, and are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be developed for, and would be implemented as a part of, the Proposed Project" Whether a PDF is proposed to preclude an environmental impact or is proposed as a part of the Project, all PDFs identified in the EIR would be required as a part of Project approval. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A) specifically permits the incorporation of project design features into a project. The Project Design Features are incorporated into the Project design and included in the Draft EIR as such. Failure to maintain the Project Design Features into project design would represent a change to the Project Description. Furthermore, the analysis does not rely on Project Design Features to reduce impacts. The GHG emissions analysis conservatively does not take credit for emissions The Koll Center Residences Project 3-217 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2j 3 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments reductions resulting from implementation of PDF 1 (LEED Certification). Project -related improvements in energy consumption associated with PDF 1 would reduce emissions beyond what is identified in the Draft EIR. Response 5 Please refer to the response to Comment 4. Response 6 As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The anomaly locations for the Airport Area are shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area L4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-218 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2,74 City of Newport Beach Response 7 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The proposed transfer of development rights would allow for a mix of land uses within the project site. Please refer to the response to Comment 6. The Project does not require a General Plan Amendment. Response 8 The comment's characterization of surface parking lots as common/open space is misleading. The Project would be constructed on existing surface parking, and would provide a 1.17 -acre public park and landscaping. Further, the Draft EIR does not characterize the project site as "an underperforming office park." In its entirety, Land Use Policy 3.3, Opportunities for Change, states "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." The Project allows for the introduction of 260 dwelling units and retail uses proximate to jobs and services. The commenter's opinion that the Project will create an "underperforming office park" is noted but is not supported by evidence. Under CECIA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4`h 556, 580.) No further response is required. Response 9 The commenter's opinion regarding the necessary components of a "cohesive neighborhood" is noted but does not raise an environmental issue. No further response is required. Response 10 The commenter alleges that the Draft EIR relies on the Uptown Newport Project to provide consistency with General Plan Policy LU 3.3, Opportunities for Change. Rather, the Draft EIR recognizes that the Uptown Newport Project is an under construction mixed-use development project adjacent to the project site and which would provide pedestrian connections between the two project sites. LU 3.3 identifies the John Wayne Airport Area forthe development of residences because of the proximitytojobs and services. This policy state that all potential services are to be provided within the limits of a singular project or project site. Response 11 General Plan Policy LU 5.3.1, Mixed -Use Buildings, states: Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: • Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses The Koll Center Residences Project 3-219 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 275 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses • Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces (Imp 2.1) The Project is consistent with this policy as demonstrated in the analysis set forth in the Draft EIR, including but not limited to Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. Draft EIR Figures 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-14, and 4.1a through 4.1h conceptually depict Project architecture, massing, and landscaping. Figure 4.1-1 identifies proposed building heights in relationship to existing and planned development. The commenter's opinion regarding the proposed architecture is noted. Response 12 As a point of clarification to the commenter, compliance with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.6, Size of Residential Villages, is a requirement for the Airport Area. Elsewhere in the City, the City Council may waive the minimum acreage requirement as set forth in Municipal Code Section 20.56.020. Furthermore, project acreage (site area) may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category (i.e., office) to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, and newly -created neighborhood parks. The same property ownership is not necessary. Response 13 Please refer to the response to Comment 8; the Project is not inconsistent with Policy LU 3.3. The opinion of the commenter is noted. Response 14 Please refer to the response to Comment 10. Response 15 Future owners of the condominium units are unknown and it would be speculative to identify who would purchase the units. The commenter provides no evidence that the proposed dwelling units would not be affordable to a portion of the population in the City of Newport Beach, which has a median income of $113,071 and median home prices of over $1,00,000,16 or to persons working in the area including Koll Center Newport. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion 16 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Newport Beach, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newportbeachcitycalifornia,US/INC110215#viewtop, accessed November 11, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-220 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 270 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments or narrative does not constitutes ubstantia I evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4`h 556, 580.) Response 16 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. Response 17 The traffic analysis did survey the existing flow of traffic into and out of each of the Kell Center Newport driveways, and evaluated the change in traffic patterns that would occur as a result of the changes in the gate locations, on-site circulation, and the access to the parking areas. The changes in site circulation that would occur as a result of the placement of the buildings and the access to the parking areas were described in detail in the Draft EIR, and were taken into account in the analysis of all of the surrounding intersections, including Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street. While it is acknowledged that the parking areas that are directly accessible via Driveway 1 (with exit also available at Driveway 4) would no longer be accessed via Driveways 2, 3, or 5, with the completion of the Project, there would be more parking spaces accessible via Driveway 1. The parking areas directly accessed by Driveway 1 would have approximately 120 existing surface spaces removed during the construction of Phase 1. With the completion of the Building 1, 276 structure spaces would be added for the office uses. These would be accessible from Driveway 1, and as is the case with the current parking utilization, would most likely be used by employees in the 4490 Von Karman Avenue, 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and 4910 Birch Street buildings. Response 18 Section 3.0, Project Description, identifies that during the construction of the new parking structure (Phase A) and the construction of the public park and completion of landscaping and reconfiguration of surface parking (Phase 3), complimentary valet parking would be provided for the use of office employees of and guests to the office buildings. A complimentary shuttle would be provided during all phases of Project construction. The parking supply for the existing Kell Center Newport development is the parking that has been approved forthe site by the City of Newport Beach. The Project does not change the existing office square footage or the parking requirements for the office development. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. Response 19 General Plan Policy CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes states: "Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as referential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loadings areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements." As addressed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project is consistent with this policy. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-221 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Loading areas would be provided in curbside pullouts along the spine street or within the buildings. Designated parking spaces for carpools, clean air vehicles, electric charging stations, etc. would be provided in accordance with CALGreen requirements. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would provide bicycle storage for 144 bicycles, and bicycle racks would be provided on the site. With respect to transit, there is an existing OCTA bus stop on the east side of Jamboree Road (southeast of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street); on Von Karman Avenue (between Birch Street and Campus Drive); and, along Campus Drive. OCTA also operates the i -Shuttle. Route A connects the Tustin Metrolink Station to the John Wayne Airport area via Von Karman Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Von Kaman Avenue at Dupont Drive, one block north of the project site. As addressed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, the City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan recommends Class II bicycle facilities on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street near the project site (Newport Beach, 2014). There are existing 12 -foot wide sidewalks, and 19 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle City easement along both Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street that could serve to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with planned bicycle facilities. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) encourages infill development to place complementary land uses, such as residential and employment uses, together; to reduce automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled. The Residences at Koll Center is consistent with the primary goals of SB 743. Response 20 As noted by the commenter, the existing immediately adjacent uses are offices where truck deliveries are not typical between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The commenter has not identified or provided evidence that an environmental impact would result. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4" 556, 580.) Response 21 The Project was analyzed for Year 2022 because that is the Project's anticipated opening year. Because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and does not require a General Plan Amendment, the City does not require a General Plan buildout traffic analysis to be prepared. Cumulative development is included in the Project's traffic analysis. Response 22 Please refer to Topical Response, Cumulative Projects. Response 23 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 24 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the El deficient. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-222 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 272 City of Newport Beach Response 25 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 26 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 27 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 28 Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. Response 29 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Please refer to Topical Response, Alternatives. The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 30 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-223 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C -7c OLEN Julie Ault, General Counsel November 10, 2017 „B OMNI. OOMMI INITYy DEVELO-"ENT NOV 13 d11 November 10, 2017 City of Newport Beach ATTN: Rosa] inh Ung CITY OF 100 Civic Center Drive 4�._ t, Newport Beach, CA 92660 �Rr RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Kell Center Residences (SCH No. 2017011002) Dear Ms. Ung: This letter provides comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEI R) for the proposed Koll Center Residences (KCR) (PA2015-024) as allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Olen Properties has been in the commercial and residential real estate development and management business in Orange County for over 40 years and has made Newport Beach its headquarters for over 20 years. By way of background, Olen Properties owns the building located at 4910 Birch Street, and is one of the many long -tern) commercial owners within Koll Center Newport. Our primary concerns about this project focus on the impacts to our existing tenant; future economic impacts to our building, as well as neighboring buildings; land use planning impacts; and several other issues. After careful review of the publicly available information related to the project and policy documents available through the City of Newport Beach's website, Olen Properties offers the following substantive comments related to the project's DEIR. Proleel Fails to Alien and Analyze Adonted Plans and Ordinances The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the relationship between this project and the City of Newport Beach's General Plan and already approved Ordinances and policies. Newport Beach General Plan While the City has updated its General Plan numerous times, the residents and City have acknowledged a new vision needs to be drafted for this Airport Area. It is our understanding the City is launching into a General Plan update right now. With this in mind, we believe the City and residents would be far better served by actually completing the update prior to processing 1 this project. We respectfully request the City halt processing this project and update the General Plan to determine the most appropriate new uses—if there are any—for (tis site. Furthermore, the DEIR failed to analyze multiple General Plan policies and their consistency with proposed KCR project. These policies include: Seven Corporate Plaza • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 644-OLEN www.OlenProperties.com The Kell Center Residences Project 3-224 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 220 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments • LU 2.4 Economic Development Since this project portends to createjobs, where is the analysis that this project is 2 warranted and fulfills a specific community need? • LU 5.3.4 Districts Integrating Residential and Non -Residential Units This policy focuses on the viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. The 3 project includes three 13 story residential towers which have no integration or alignment IIIl with the existing commercial uses. • LU 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location T Existing convenient integrated parking will be removed to make room for this project. Traffic impacts and parking lot segmentation reduce the ability for existing owners and 1114 tenants to find and reach adequate parking spots. • LU 6.2.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses This policy focuses on complementary and supporting uses for a living environment. The only public benefit this project asserts is a one acre park in the midst of a commercial 5 complex. There are no other supporting amenities that integrate within a residential neighborhood and based on the size of the retail within the towers, they will likely be coffee -shop type retail, nothing close to grocery store or market place. • LU 6.15.7 Overall Density and Housing Type This policy emphasizes density and a mix of housing types and incomes. The project fails to meet this policy. As described by the applicant at the October 30, 2017 forum, 6 there is one housing type and one income level—these will be luxury condominiums. NR 6.1 WnikableNeighhorhoods As demonstrated below this project site does not have amenities near -enough to consider T it a walkable community. Nevertheless, the City failed to even analyze this policy even 7 though the project claims walkabilily and sustainability. • NR 6.2 Mixed -Use Development The purpose of this policy is to reduce vehicle trips by making amenities—specifically identifying jobs, services, and entertainment—accessible to the residents in new developments. However, this is a mixed-use project that railed to look at this policy. S Further, the limited –3,000 square feet orretail is a token gesture by the applicant and doesn't provide near the needed services a new residential area needs to function adequately. • NR 6.3 Vehicle Trip Reduction Measures T Again, to reduce vehicle trips the Newport Beach General Plan promotes at -work day g care facilities and on-site automated banking machines. 111 • Airport Area While the General Plan states there was strong support for mixed use development, recent voter -based referenda and even City -run community workshops prove this "support" is no longer present. In a workshop about the upcoming General Plan Update, the City acknowledges it needs to revisit the Airport Area land uses. (See Attachment 1) This 10 policy needs to be analyzed and the General Plan for this area needs to be updated. All of these policies were omitted from the DEIR General Plan consistency analysis and must be included and analyzed in a revised document. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-225 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 221 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Additionally, several policies that were included in the DEIR appear to have been substantiated by opinion and not fact. Without fact based analysis, it makes challenging a consistency analysis difficult. These include: • LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces This policy focuses on the pattern of land use types. This project inserts a residential component into a stable commercial district, thereby ignoring the current pattern of 77 commercial centers. We assert KCR is inconsistent with this policy. • LU 3.2 Growth and Change This policy focuses on changes in land use based on economically underperforming areas. (emphasis added) What evidence does the City have to substantiate a claim that the existing industrial and office properties are underperforming? There was no economic 12 analysis provided tojustify this in the DEIR. We assert KCR is inconsistent with this policy. • LU 3.3 Opportunities fur Change Again, this policy includes re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties in the Airport Area. (emphasis added) Again, what evidence does the City have to 13 substantiate this claim? Without an economic analysis, the City has no justification of this claim. We assert KCR is inconsistent with this policy. • LU 5.3.1 Mixed Use Buildings This policy seeks to avoid conflicts with noise, lighting, and other impacts and incorporates an integration of residential and non-residential uses with building elevations. How exactly does a 13 story residential building align building elevations with the existing compact, low commercial buildings? We also believe noise as it relates 14 to airport take off and landings has not been properly analyzed for the building itself. New residents will have balconies facing the airport and take -off and landing -approaches have significant sound implications. This was not addressed in the DEIR and should be. • LU 5.6.2 Form and Cmironment This policy outlines how abrupt changes in scale and form can have impacts on neighboring properties. We do not believe the scale and form of these three towers aligns 15 with the existing buildings. • LU 6.15 GOAL The General Plan states (page 3-100) "A mired -use camnnmity then provides jobs. residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. "This project provides seven permanent jobs for which the average compensation will be insufficient to afford the 16 proposed luxury condominiums and has limited pedestrian amenities with no access to transit. Furthermore, it includes a low walkability score as detailed in our comments below. • LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements This policy confirms that development agreements are required for infill residential projects, but the documents available with this project, do not include said agreement. We 17 request a copy of the development agreement. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-226 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 222 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Planned Comnanritv Standards The Planned Community Development Standards for this area, known as Ordinance No. 1449, adopted by the City of Newport Beach August 14, 1972, (See Attachment 2) states on page 2 18 "This area is mostappropriate for commercial and light industrial uses." This site has been commercial and industrial uses for 45 years. We wholly concur and by inserting residential fundamentally changes the character of the exiting stable business center. Within Ordinance 1449, it slates that the requirements for parking include (page 35): "One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net Floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet ornet floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee." This Ordinance sets very clear standards related to the parking requirements for each building and yet the project is being considered in a vacuum. Both 4910 Birch Street and 19 4490 Von Kalman are wholly excluded from this project and deemed "Not a Part of Project." The DEIR fails to analyze how buildings that are within Koll Center Newport, especially those listed as "Not a Pail of Project" will or will not be impacted by the new parking offered by the KCR, or that during the minimum four year construction period will have all adjacent parking removed entirely. In addition, on page 48 of Ordinance 1449, it states, "Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls, shall be provided in the parking area. Planting area around building shall not be included in parking area." The DEIR fails to analyze if this project is or isn't cons's ent 20 with the Ordinance. Furthermore, no mitigation measures are offered due to this lack of analysis which violates one of CEQA's primary tenants—to avoid or minimize through mitigation (he project's impacts. Airport Land Use Commission Based on the DEIR's position, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) must make a finding for consistency between this project and the airport. As a reminder, the ALUC is governed by the Public Utilities Code §21670. Its primary goal is to help local jurisdictions ensure compatible land uses near all airports. If the ALUC does not find consistency, the City Council could make a 21 statement of overriding considerations. Should the City chose to override the ALUC—the liability the City takes on is enormous. In addition, Ordinance 1449 also outlines, on page 7 that "The height of all buildings and structures shall comply with Federal Aviation Authority criteria." A determination by the ALUC should be followed to reduce liability for the City. Project Goals Are Unrealistically Limiting Within the DEIR's Project Description (§3.5, page 3-6) the project limits the alternatives for the site due to the artificially constrained project goals. First, it notes that the project should be consistent with the City's General Plan, of which we've already pointed out deficiencies there, as well as the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). However, the DEIR fails to focus any analysis on the goals from the Planned 22 Community Development Standards (Ordinance 1449). Furthermore, it fails to consider the Grant Deed and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted by the City of Newport Beach as part of the original Koll Center Newport project in June 1973. (See Attachmcnt'3) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-227 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 22S Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The Grant Deed and CC&Rs relay (page 1) rights to Common Areas and Common Facilities. Section 1.01 specifically describes that this area is governed by (1) the CC&Rs, (2) the Planned Development Standards, and (3) Ordinance 1449. Standards and rights are established in the Grant Deed and CC&Rs that outline specific uses and rights of Common Areas and Common Facilities, including but not limited to: public and private streets, walkways, parking, etc. conftl Furthermore, the owners within Kell Center Newport have been paying a pro -rated share of the 22 maintenance of Common Facilities, yet the DEIR fails to even acknowledge the existing owners have a right to existing facilities and have been, in some cases for many years, paying into those facilities. blow will the various owners reach agreement on the pro -rated share for new facilities? What authority does the project applicant have to remove common arealracilities without having updated/revised the existing CC&Rs? Therefore, the DEIR does not adequately review, acknowledge or understand the existing conditions for the Koll Center Newport area. Second, the project goals outline a mixed use facility that provides jobs and supporting services with pedestrian oriented amenities. As noted later in our letter, based on the meager walk score for the site, it really is not a pedestrian friendly development—nor with -3,000 square feet of retail space does it have much in terms of supporting services. None of the existing commercial 23 buildings would provide any supporting services for these new residents as all are business and professional uses as was intended by the Planned Community Development Standards. The DEIR reveals that construction jobs are temporary (lasting 4.5 years) (page 4.11-8), while there will be only seven new permanent jobs added to the Newport Beach economy. The DEIR boxes in this specific project through the project goals and unnecessarily limits project alternatives. Project fails to Meet Wallcability and Sustainability Benchmarks The project claims to be walkable and sustainable. However, our research indicates otherwise. Walkability Walk Scores demonstrate how easy it is to live a car -lite lifestyle. Walk Scores utilize 13 different categories and award points for the proximity of each amenity between 'A to one mile. Amenities within 1A mile receive maximum points, while no points are awarded for amenities further than one mile. The categories include: grocery store, coffee shop, movie theatre, park, bookstore, drug store, clothing and music stores, restaurant, bar, school, library, fitness, and hardware store. Generally anything over a score of 70 is considered good. To calculate the Walk Score for the KCR project, we used the nearest address to the project (4910 Birch Street) because the address for the proposed project does not exist yet. The 4910 Birch Street address has a walk score of 43 out of 100. (See Attachment 4) furthermore, it does not include standard features like transit stops, benches, bike racks, etc.—all things that promote active transportation options. Therefore, this is not a walkable project. SCAG RTP/SCS Every four years the Southern California Association ol'Governmems (SCAG) releases a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). With the passage of SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities Act of 2008), SCAG, as a Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Southern California The Kell Center Residences Project 3-228 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 24 224 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments region, has also included a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The most recent RTP/SCS was adopted in April 2016. (See Attachment 5) Nine goals were identified in the 2016 RTP/SCS and only one relates to this local project. Goal 8 (page 64) slates, `Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation." Since this project does not facilitate transit, and based on the project's walk score, does not promote active transportation, it does not align with this regional plan. Greenhouse Gds (GHG) Emission Standards Furthermore, in September 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation that, through the Department of Transportation, consolidated the existing state and federal active transportation programs in California. The primary goal for consolidation was the focus of having California be the national leader in active transportation. Outside of providing sidewalks, the KCR provides no other active transportation benefits to this area or the City. Additionally, based on the parking revisions for this project, this proposal plans for a single driver automobile dependence. This project does not meet the goals of AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) (to reduce GFIG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020), SB 375 [to reduce GHG emissions by reducing the vehicle miles travelled (VM'I) by light duty trucks and vehicles), and SB 32 (the extension of AB 32) [which establishes the goal of a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 20301. The KCR DEIR Appendix F asserts that no mitigation measures are required for the project "because of the global nature of climate change, most projects will not result in GHG emissions that are individually significant" (page 19). The reason it is "global" climate change is because many small pieces do add up to the larger picture—the context is cumulative. A death by a thousand cuts—is still death. As stated in Appendix P, the revised AB 32 threshold for GHG reductions is 21.7%. This project, even with its GHG construction emissions amortized over 30 years coupled with the remaining "daily' GHG emissions, still produces 1,938 metric tons of CO2, per year above the baseline for that site. Therefore any increase in COze emissions does not meet state thresholds because it is an increase—not a decrease. An increase does nothing to meet the 21.7% reduction threshold. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board established regional GHG targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization. As outlined in Appendix P (page 14), SCAG's GHG reduction targets are 8% by 2020, 18% by 2035, and 21% by 2040. An increase of any amount, does not meet a reduction target. And, reliance on other projects within the SCAG region to reduce its GHG and VMT reduction goals places the burden unfairly on others—alternatively, every project should be reducing emissions to meet the regional goals. cont'd 24 25 26 CAPCOA Mitigation Measure The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has detailed GHG mitigation measures available from its August 2010 report. This project should consider 27 substantive mitigation measures that to further reduce GHG emissions. (See Attachment 6) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-229 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 225 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Newport Beach Energy Action Plan Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach adopted its Energy Action Plan in July 2013. The first goal listed in the Plan is to: "Meet or exceed energy reduction goals." And, the Plan states (page 26) that "the City of Newport Beach will strive for a 15% reduction in City-wide energy use by the year 2020." How can this project be consistent with a 15% reduction by 2020 when it is 28 contemplating adding 1,938 metric tons of CO2, per year? This project is inconsistent with the City's Energy Action Plan. To claim that this project is sustainable or walkable is not supported with the project as proposed. _ The Project Fails to Consider Related Projects and Ambient Growth The ambient growth rale of one percent is consistent with the SCAG TransCAD model. However, the ambient growth floes not account for projects that are under construction, approved, or under consideration (pending). The Related Projects List (Table 4.14-17) and map (Figure 4.14-4) included in the document fail to include several projects within close proximity to the Project in the City of Irvine that are under construction, such as 700 units at Campus and Van Kamran and 372 residential units at Jamboree Road and Kelvin. (See Attachment 7) It also fails to include several major projects in the City of Irvine that have been approved/entitled, such as an additional 900 residential units at Campus and Von Karman. Furthermore, it fails to include proposed projects that are under consideration by the City of Irvine, such as 371 residential units at Jamboree and Alton. It is unclear whether these projects were missed in the Related Projects List in the document but are included in the [TAM (Irvine Transportation Analysis Model) or if they were excluded from the modeling, as well. If they were not included in the modeling, the cumulative impact analysis is failed. If these projects were captured in the traffic modeling, were they also captured in the other analyses — such as impacts on schools, police and tire? . . The Project Fails to Analyze Parking Utilization incl Shared Parking The DEIR fails to provide a parking utilization analysis of the existing surface parking areas. The impact of the removal of surface parking is difficult to determine without a parking utilization analysis. The DEIR does not consider or analyze the opportunity to unbundle and share the new parking that will be provided under Buildings 1, 2 and 3. This parking could be shared with existing office tenants and visitors of 4490 Von Karman Avenue, 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and 4910 Birch Street. Shared parking could prevent over -construction of parking, improve ease of access to parking, and allow for better on-site circulation by connecting the existing surface parking to the proposed structured parking under Buildings I, 2 and/or 3. As mentioned in comment 91, existing office tenants will have access to Building I parking only via Driveway I. Office users will not be able to enter Building I parking from Driveways 2, 3 or 5. Figure 3-13 shows New Residential Gates, including one near Driveway 2 for Building I and one for Buildings 2 and 3 near Driveway 5. Accordingly, Building I parking access from Driveways 2, 3 and 5 is limited to residents only. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-230 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29 30 220 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The Project Fails to Consider Visual Impacts As noted in our Scoping Comments from January 31, 2017, the project is always only viewed from one side. The DEIR fails to provide any other viewpoints, as well as before and after 31 illustrations. This means both the public and decision makers will not understand the true impacts of the project's scope and magnitude because it was unanalyzed. The DEIR must include an analysis of impacts including more thanjust a shade analysis—specifically, sight lines, proximity to existing slrucllrres, landscaping, visibility of increased traffic associated with towers and other factors. The Project Fails to Analyze Impacts to Birds When the application for construction of the DaVita building (4300 Von Karman) was approved by the City of Newport Beach, a neighboring owner, Meyer Properties, provided comments on die biological impacts to the building. Those comments are attached to this letter because they are relevant to the biological impacts of the proposed KCR project. (See Attachment 8) The KCR project is less than 500 feet from this studied water source and yet, the DEIR fails to 32 look at any possible impacts. We also reaffirm the conclusions found in this letter, specifically as they relate to the possible presence of special status species, since Upper Newport Bay is located 0.8 miles southwest of the project site and San Joaquin Marsh property is 0.5 miles from the site. These possible special status species include, but are not limited to: Least Bittern, American Peregrine Falcon. California Least Tern, Black Skimmer, Clark's Marsh Wren, Tri -colored Blackbird, as well as other species identified on-site such as: Allen's Hummingbird, Osprey, Cooper's Hawk, Costa's Hummingbird, and Nuttal's Woodpecker. The DEIR fails to even consider impacts on these avian species. Additionally, when the height, characteristics of..ihe environment, and wind flow, among other things, are modified in areas where birds are known to congregate, they can easily become confused by window reflections and balcony glass. Birds often do not see clear glass as the barrier—sometimes lethal barrier—because the environment (trees, sky, clouds, habitat) are 33 reflected back to them. Collisions are often fatal. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, between 365 and 988 million birds die annual from window collisions. The DEIR fails to even consider bird strikes as a possibility when the three new 13 story towers are constructed and therefore has not identified any mitigation opportunities to reduce impacts. Furthermore, tall buildings tend to attract some bird species that nest on buildings and building ledges. Sometimes falconers are hired to keep nesting birds at bay. The new balconies on the three towers offer prime "urban" habitat for nesting birds. Finally, there is also a potential 34 significant risk with the displacement of birds in this area as the towers reduce in their flight corridors. Moving the birds' flight path could create an increased potential for bird strikes with a plane from John Wayne Airport. None of these topics were analyzed in the DEIR. The Project Fails to Analvze Loss of and Mitigation of Trees The DEIR notes as a Standard Condition (SC 4.3-I) (p. 4.3-7) that the applicant shall replace the trees removed from the existing common area/parking area for the construction of the project per 35 the Newport Beach Municipal Code 13.09. However, the DEIR fails to include a quantification of the requirements of the tree replacement and completely ignores their long-term survival. The Kell Center Residences Project 3-231 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation �g�7_ Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Flow many trees will be removed? How many trees will be replaced? What is the monitoring period for the trees? What is the required success rate for survival? What happens if the trees die—is there a replacement ratio? Without this information the DEIR fails to demonstrate an confd adequate mitigation measure. Until this inl'onnation is available this measure defers mitigation. 35 Under CEQA, deferred mitigation is it violation of the law. The Project rails to Quantity All Known Water Uses The DEIR relies on the Irvine Ranch Water Distric('s Urban Water Management Plan to confirm the available water supply for the project. And, the DEIR demonstrates through Figure 4.15-4 If. 4.15-9) that the residential towers, retail, and parking structure car wash will use an estimated 33,665 gallons per day (GPD). Further, in the Air Quality section, the Standard Conditions (4.2-1) include regular watering of the on-site roads and transported materials will be watered or stabilized, including daily street sweeping. In §4.2-13, it confirms the project estimates 2,366 tons of demolition materials from the removal of 819 parking spaces and landscaping, and the net export of -118,504 cubic yards of soil during the grading and site preparation. One Standard Condition 4.15-1 relays that the project must abide by the Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.16. However, the DEIR fails to analyze how much water will be used to control the 54 months of construction dust and daily street sweeping. That's nearly five years of daily water use that wasn't included in the project's water use analysis. And, the short and long-term watering needs of the newly planted landscaping was also not analyzed. By only including the towers, retail, and parking structure car wash, potentially significant short and long-term water uses and needs of the remainder of the project are being completely ignored and is not allowed under CEQA. 'rite Project's Transfer or Development t2ights is Undefined The DEIR notes that a transfer of 3,000 square feet will be transferred from "Site A to Site B." Yet, the DEIR fails to document where these sites are actually located. There is no associated map or description of the sites or even how they relate to this project—or maybe they don't. Consequently, the DFIR has failed to adequately describe the project violating CEQA. 36 Additionally, the DEIR is inconsistent in its estimates for the transfer. Lt some places it is listed 37 as up to 3,019 square feet and in other places it is 3,000 square feet. Which exactly is it? Without this foundational information being accurate and consistent throughout the DEIR, the public can only guess at which number is actually correct. The project description and document need to consistently reflect the correct square footage. Project Underestimates Shade Impacts to Neiehborine Properties Based on the Shade Analysis within the DEIR, it appears the project will have significant shading impacts to our building -4910 Birch Street. In order to fully understand the cumulative 38 impacts of the shadows on said building, we compiled all the new shadows that would fall across the roofline over the course of the year. Separating out the shadows by season doesn't give the entire impact. As it turns out only 13.2% of out building is ever going to be completely outside of the shadow zone. In other words, 86.8% of our building has a shadow on it at some point The Koll Center Residences Project 3-232 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2g1T Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments throughout the year with the major impact occurring at the south comer of our building which would now remain in shade perpetually. (See Attachment 9) eont'd With such a dramatic change in the shadows, this has potential impacts that were not included in 38 the DEIR, including but not limited to: how the shading will increase our energy bills (for heating and lighting), how the shading will impact our ability to install solar on our roof top in the future, how the lack of sunlight will preclude vegetation and trees from growing between the towers and our building, and how the dark offices in the building will now be less attractive to existing and potential tenants. There are similarly other things that cannot be measured, such as how the decrease in sunlight will change productivity of the business, etc. The DEIR failed to analyze this serious impact to existing buildings. Conclusion Based on the above comments, it is clear that the DEIR contains numerous, critical omissions from the disclosure required by CEQA, as well as numerous unanalyzed policies within the Newport Beach General Plan. Consequently, we request a recirculation of the DEIR in its entirety addressing these and other issues submitted by the public and businesses, to bring the document in compliance with CEQA. Futhermore, we again, request the City consider halting 39 this and other future development applications since the City is undergoing a General Plan Update. To more adequately reflect the community's vision, this is step in the right direction. Finally, we intend to supplement these comments in the future. Thank you for consideration of our comments Sincerery, It Aas(—�, Gene I Counsel n sures: Attachment I – City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Flyer Attachment 2 – Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards (Ordinance 1449) Attachment 3 – Koll Center Grant Deed and Newport Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Attachment 4 – KCR Walk Score Attachment 5 –2016 SCAG RTP/SCS Attachment 6 – CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Attachment 7 – Irvine Notable Development Attachment 8 – Meyer Properties Biological Review Attachment 9 – 4910 Birch Street Shade Study Overlay 10 Attachments are in separate document (Appendix A of Responses to Comments) and can be found at this link: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-233 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The City has not initiated a process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to utilize the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. Response 2 The commenter broadly asserts that the Project would be inconsistent with several policies of the City's General Plan and the zoning code, as identified and responded to below, as necessary. As a general note, the Draft EIR identified and analyzed consistency with the General Plan and other applicable plans in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. With respect to the commenter's alleged inconsistencies, it should be noted that, under CECIA, a project is consistent with the underlying general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 238). Moreover, a lead agency's determination that a project is consistent with the general plan is entitled to deference (Ibid.). General Plan Land Use Policy LU 2.4 states "Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents." The commenter mistakenly states that economic development is the same as employment. However, the Project is anticipated to generate jobs both during construction and once the project uses are operational. Response 3 General Plan Land Use Policy 5.3.4 requires that "sufficient acreage be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses." The commenter mistakenly identifies that the Project has no integration with the surrounding uses. The Proposed Project includes a mix of residential and ground -floor retail uses within an existing business park. As a part of Project, a neighborhood park, several garden areas, and a pedestrian linkage system consisting of sidewalks would be created that would provide an important and convenient connections throughout the project site and to adjacent and surrounding uses. Response 4 The parking areas directly accessed by Driveway 1 would have approximately 120 existing surface spaces removed during the construction of Phase 1. With the completion of the Phase 1 building, 276 structure spaces would be added for the office uses. This parking would be accessible from Driveway 1, and as is the case with the current parking utilization, would most likely be used by employees in the 4490 Von Karman, 4440 Von Karman, and 4910 Birch buildings. The new free-standing parking structure, at the southeast corner of the project site, would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the southeast side of the spine street — 5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue and 4350 Von Karman Avenue — which would be the buildings closest to the structure. The remaining surface parking on the northwest side of the spine street road and the new The Koll Center Residences Project 3-234 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29 O Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments structured office parking in Building 1 would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the northwest side of the main spine road — 4910 Birch Street, 4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4440 Von Karman Avenue. Response 5 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Please refer to Section 4.13, Recreation, which describes the public and private open space amenities associated with the Proposed Project. Response 6 This land use policy does not mandate that each development project include a range of building types (e.g., townhomes, high-rises). Rather, this policy aims at ensuring that, City-wide, a range of building types and densities are developed. The City acknowledges that the Project is a condominium development in three, 13 -story buildings. Townhomes or other development types have not been proposed by the Applicant. Response 7 General Plan Policy NR 6.1, Walkable Communities, states "Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas." The mixed-use development with residential and retail uses, park and recreation amenities, and structured parking would be implemented on an existing surface parking area, and configured to provide a pedestrian -friendly environment with strong connectivity to adjacent and surrounding non-residential uses, as well as connectivity to Uptown Newport, The Project would create a better balance of buildings and open space, link open space amenities and create a network of pedestrian -friendly streets. Additionally, a 1.7 -acre public park is a part of the Project. Response 8 General Plan Policy NR 6.2 states "Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment." The commenter asserts that the Project would be inadequately served by local commercial uses. The Airport Business Area ICDP contemplates up to 11,500 square feet (sf) of ground -level retail and commercial uses for Uptown Newport and 3,400 sf of commercial uses for the project site. Upon buildout of the General Plan, existing and proposed commercial uses within the general vicinity of the project site would more than adequately serve residents living there. Response 9 The Project is a mixed-use project with a small retail component, and therefore would not typically be a candidate to provide the at -work facilities referenced. However, the placement of 260 residential units within an existing, vibrant employment center presents a strong potential for on-site trip capture between the residential and office components of what would otherwise be off-site commute trips. This trip capture potential is acknowledged but was not assumed in the impact analysis (i.e., no reduction in Project trips was assumed) for a more conservative approach in the Draft EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-235 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 291 City of Newport Beach Response 10 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The City has not initiated a process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to use the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. The opinion of the commenter regarding potential policy changes to the General Plan do not address an environmental issue for the Propose Project. No further response is required. Response 11 The opinion of the commenter is noted. As addressed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project is an infill, mixed use development on an existing surface parking area. The Airport Area, inclusive of Koll Center Newport, includes a mix of existing and planned office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. As concluded in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would be of similar height, scale, and character to many of the other buildings in the Airport Area, inclusive of Koll Center Newport. Proximity to Newport Beach's job centers can reduce commute distances between home and jobs. Response 12 The Draft EIR does not characterize the project site as "an underperforming office park." In its entirety, Land Use Policy 3.3, Opportunities for Change, states "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." The Project allows for the introduction of 260 dwelling units and retail uses proximate to jobs and services. The commenters opinion is noted. Response 13 Please refer to the response to Comment 12. Response 14 While the commenter suggests that the area is a low-rise business park, this characterization is misleading. Figure 4.1-1 of the Draft EIR identifies the heights of existing structure in the project area which includes a mix of building heights. Additionally, the Uptown Newport Project will include buildings up to 150 feet. Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. The comment provides an anecdotal discussion of airplane noise in the area and states that proposed balconies and exterior living spaces are not practical because of significant airport noise. The commenter does not specifically challenge the data or analysis within the Draft EIR. However, as discussed in the topical response, the project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 cIBA CNEL contour. As described in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to reduce on-site noise impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.10-6 requires a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-236 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 292 City of Newport Beach General Plan Policy LU 5.3.1, Mixed -Use Buildings, states: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: • Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses • Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces (Imp 2.1) The Project is consistent with this policy as demonstrated in the analysis set forth in the Draft EIR, including but not limited to Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning. Draft EIR Figures 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-14, and 4.1a through 4.1h conceptually depict Project architecture, massing, and landscaping. Figure 4.1-1 identifies proposed building heights in relationship to existing and planned development. The commenter's opinion regarding the proposed architecture is noted. Response 15 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Figure 4.1-1 identifies proposed building heights in relationship to existing and planned development. No further response is required. Response 16 The opinion of the commenter is noted. This or other projects in the City of Newport Beach are not required to provide on-site housing for a project's employees. Future owners of the condominium units are unknown and it would be speculative to identify who would purchase the units. With respect to transit, there is an existing OCTA bus stop on the east side of Jamboree Road (southeast of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street); on Von Karman Avenue (between Birch Street and Campus Drive); and, along Campus Drive. OCTA also operates the i -Shuttle. Route A connects the Tustin Metrolink Station to the John Wayne Airport area via Von Karman Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Von Kaman Avenue at Dupont Drive, one block north of the project site. As addressed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, the City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan recommends Class II bicycle facilities on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street near the project site (Newport Beach, 2014). There are existing 12 -foot wide sidewalks, and The Koll Center Residences Project 3-237 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2J 3 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 19 -foot wide pedestrian and bicycle City easement along both Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street that could serve to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with planned bicycle facilities. Response 17 CEQA does not require the public disclosure of a development agreement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires the project description to identify, to the extent known, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement a project. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR identifies a Development Agreement as a required approval for the Project consistent with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.020. The Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant establishes terms for payment of impact fees and other financial obligations for the Project. As such, no physical environmental impacts are associated with the Development Agreement. A copy of the draft Development Agreement will be provided to the public as a part of the City's standard public review and public hearing process for development agreements. Response 18 The opinion of the commenter is noted. The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which was adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council in September 2010, implements General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area). The Airport Business Area ICDP provides a framework for residential development on the project site. It contemplates up to 1,504 new residential units, 11,500 sf of ground -level retail and commercial uses for Uptown Newport and 3,400 sf of commercial uses for the project site, as well as neighborhood park areas. Of the 1,504 dwelling units, 1,244 units are on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. The Proposed Project would carry out the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan because the project site would be developed with the mix of uses envisioned in and approved under the Airport Business Area ICDP. Response 19 As addressed in 3.0, Project Description, there are three office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site, of which two of the office buildings are not a part of the Project (Figure 3-2): 4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4910 Birch Street. In addition to the two aforementioned office buildings, the 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building is a part of the Project to allow for the inclusion of the property into the landscape plan including the provision of non -potable irrigation, as well as sidewalk improvements and the reconfiguration of accessible parking. No change in the square footage of the building is proposed as a part of the Project. The Draft EIR Project Description thoroughly describes the number of parking spaces that would be removed and that would be provided during each phase of the Project: both during the construction of the phase when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. The Project Description includes in this assessment common surface parking spaces including those available to tenants in the 4910 Birch Street and the 4490 Von Karman Avenue buildings. Please also refer to Figure 3-19, Parking Use Allocation, of the Draft EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-238 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 294 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The Project does not change the existing office square footage or the parking requirements for the Koll Center Newport development. All parking spaces that would be removed for construction of the Project would be fully replaced. As stated above, the combination of remaining surface parking to the northwest of the main spine road and the new office parking spaces that would be provided in the Building 1 parking structure would meet the parking needs of the buildings on that side of the spine street. Response 20 Ordinance 1449 (PC -15 Koll Center) requires one tree per five surface parking stalls. This requirement does not apply to parking within structures. Where parking area trees are removed as a part of the reconfiguration of surface parking, as noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, landscaping would be provided within the surface parking areas consistent with City requirements governing the Project. The conceptual landscape plan is depicted on Figure 3-14 of the Draft EIR. The landscape plan would be subject to review and approval by the City as a part the Site Development review process. The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with landscape requirements. Response 21 As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. The opinion of the commenter is noted. No further response is required. Response 22 Please refer to the response to Comment 20 for a discussion of compliance with Ordinance 1449. Private maintenance and association cost concerns should be directed to the Association. The legislative body for the City may amend the Zoning Code from time to time pursuant to its public process. The comments are noted but do not raise a CEQA issue. No further response is required. Response 23 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please refer to the response to Comment 16. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the Airport Business Area ICDP which focused on pedestrian connectivity and walkability between the project site and Uptown Newport (under construction). Both projects are designed to share common open space areas, parks, and retail uses. Response 24 Walk Score is a part of the residential real estate company, Redfin. Walk Score provides data to assist persons looking for walkable places to live (listings on Redfin). Please refer to the response to Comment 16. The overall goal of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long- range regional transportation plan that provides a vision for regional transportation investments, integrated with land use strategies. The RTP/SCS provides strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction The Koll Center Residences Project 3-239 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2JJ5 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments and air quality conformity requirements. is to create conditions and infrastructure that motivate increased mobility and accessibility, expanded transportation options, broader economic growth, equitably distributed benefits, and sustainability. The RTP/SCS strategies intend to reach the GHG emissions reduction targets through land use and transportation strategies. They focus on improving mobility, improving the transportation system, and encouraging land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non -motorized transportation. Proposed Project is within a major employment center and is proximate to major employers within Orange County. Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich. A major transit stop along Jamboree Avenue connects the project site to major employment within the Irvine Business Complex with the OCTA i -Shuttle. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT. Response 25 Please refer to Topical Response, Senate Bill 32. Response 26 The commenter suggests that all GHG emissions above zero must be treated as causing direct and cumulatively significant environmental impacts. This approach would involve quantifying GHG emissions and using a zero net carbon dioxide equivalent increase as the threshold. Use of a zero net GHG emissions increase threshold is not a recommended threshold by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or any other applicable jurisdiction. Additionally, CEQA explicitly gives lead agencies the authority to choose thresholds of significance and defers to lead agency discretion when choosing thresholds. For this Project, the City of Newport Beach has selected the bright -line threshold developed by the SCAQMD and GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group and is based on substantial evidence. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the State's ability to meet GHG reduction targets. Please also refer to Topical Response: Senate Bill 32 regarding GHG emissions thresholds. Response 27 Refer to Topical Response SB 32. As analyzed in the Draft EIR Section 4.6, the Project would not exceed applicable GHG thresholds and mitigation would not be required. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the State's ability to meet GHG reduction targets. Furthermore, the Project design would implement several CAPCOA measures, including increase density (LUT -1), increase location efficiency (LUT -2), land use diversity (LUT -3), increase destination accessibility (LUT -4), increase transit accessibility (LUT -5), pedestrian network improvements (SDT-1), among others. Response 28 Please refer to Topical Response, Energy Action Plan. Response 29 The list of cumulative projects located in the City of Irvine was provided by the City planning staff, and includes all known projects at the time of the NOP. Cumulative project traffic for projects in the City of Irvine are included in the ITAM forecasts provided by the City. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-240 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29 0 City of Newport Beach Response 30 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments A parking survey was conducted for the Koll Center Newport offices to determine the current parking utilization of the existing parking supply within the project site and the availability of parking during each phase of Project construction. The results of the survey showed that the current parking utilization is approximately 75 percent, after taking current office occupancy rates, seasonal variations, and other potential fluctuations into account; leaving a surplus of 408 unoccupied spaces throughout the site under existing conditions. The survey substantiated that a parking deficit would not be created. The parking supply forthe existing Koll Center Newport development was previously approved bythe City of Newport Beach. The Project does not change the existing office square footage or the parking requirements for the existing Koll Center Newport development. The existing parking supply (1,651 spaces) and available parking supply by phase must be maintained. In addition to the 492 parking spaces in the new free-standing parking structure, as addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, 238 parking spaces would be provided for existing office tenants in the Building 1 Parking Structure. This additional parking would more than offset the change in parking in that area. The walk from the free-standing parking structure to the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building would be approximately 200 to 300 feet, and approximately 400 feet to the 4350 Von Karman Avenue office building. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. The changes in site circulation that would occur as a result of the placement of the buildings and the access to the parking areas were described in detail in the Draft EIR, and were taken into account in the analysis of the site circulation and surrounding intersections. Response 31 The Draft EIR thoroughly evaluates the relationship of the Proposed Project to existing and planned land uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated....CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR" Response 32 The commenter is referencing a comment letter from 2010, on the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community TextAmendments Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ICF Jones & Stokes, August 2010). The water source referenced by the commenter as being 500 feet from the project site is a man-made pond bordered by Von Karman Avenue and three office buildings. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) found that the project would have no impact on: (1) candidate, sensitive, or special status species; (2) riparian habitat; (3) federal wetlands or jurisdictional waters; (4) regional wildlife corridors; or (5) local polices and ordinances, or adopted conservation plans. As with the Koll Center Residences Project, the PRIES Office Building IS/MND included The Koll Center Residences Project 3-241 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2q7 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments a mitigation measure requiring compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act related to nesting sites for migratory birds. With respect to issues related to migratory birds, a robust discussion of potential impacts can be found in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. While there is no suitable habitat for any special -status wildlife species on the project site, some of the existing trees could provide nesting habitat for native birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.3-1 requires a preconstruction survey for nesting birds with procedures should nesting birds be discovered. Implementation of MM 4.3-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Response 33 The Draft EIR provides the information requested by the commenter concerning architectural features; please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. With respect to bird strikes, the City of Newport Beach does not have adopted design guidelines related to potential bird collisions with buildings. As with all development, avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with the proposed buildings as well as the existing buildings within and outside of Koll Center Newport could occur. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images. In addition, internal building lighting can interfere with some night -migrating birds. The frequency of bird collisions in any particular area depends on many factors, including local and migratory avian populations; densities and species composition; migration characteristics; resting and feeding patterns; habitat preferences; time of year; prevailing winds; and weather conditions. Where existing and proposed buildings include wide expanses of glass, there is the potential for bird collisions and mortalities. It should be noted that the project site is within an existing developed area. The City is not aware of known reports of avian injury or mortality associated with the existing buildings within or adjacent to Koll Center Newport. It is not expected that there will be any substantial adverse effect on sensitive species because of the lack of suitable on-site foraging habitat to attract such species to the project site. The proposed building design includes architectural details to break up the amount of glazing on the facades as is shown in Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9, and Figure 3-9 of the Draft EIR. As addressed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, reflective or shiny materials would not be used. The Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) and concrete structural materials have matte finishes and would therefore have minimal to no reflectance. Metals accents would be specified to have a matte finish with minimal reflectance. The Proposed Project does include the use of glass throughout the buildings for window walls, curtain walls, and railings. However, the glass and glazing would be specified as Solarban 60 Clear with minimal reflectance. There are glazing design features that are compatible with energy conservation and bird safe design such as low reflectivity and opaque surfaces. The Proposed Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on avian populations. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-242 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation M City of Newport Beach Response 34 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 617, John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment (JWA EIR) (County of Orange, May 2014) addressed the potential for bird strikes noting that "Bird strikes at JWA are relatively rare." The EIR noted that increased airport operations between 6:00 AM to noon could result in a potential increase in wildlife aircraft collections without a wildlife management plan. The FAA requires Part 139 airports to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment as a part of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP). The JWA EIR notes that JWA has depredation activities under the WHMP, such as pole trapping for live captures of birds of prey, and relocating birds, using decoys, chasing out coyotes, and permanently removing individual animals under the FAA Depredation Permit. Additional planned actions under the WHMP include initiating efforts to identify and remove any type of habitats attracting wildlife at the JWA, initiation of live raptor demonstrations to maintain high level of awareness for bird strike reporting, and distribution of bird strike kits for identification purposes and data collection. John Wayne Airport has a WHMP that meets its obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act and meets the requirements of the FAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The JWA EIR also notes that bird migration typically occurs in the evening hours and overnight with birds arriving to their foraging ground very early morning. The EIR says that JWA is not active during nighttime hours. Further, the EIR states that literature on the subject indicates that airport -related bird strikes are almost never of any ecological significance and concludes that no significant direct or indirect biotic impacts would occur. The JWA EIR states "JWA is located approximately one mile from Upper Newport Bay. In contrast to the Airport, Upper Newport Bay attracts numerous migratory bird species during the winter months. Given the Airports departure pattern (i.e., very steep climb to minimize noise impacts over the residences in Newport Beach, reaching an elevation of approximately 1,000 feet at the northern edge of the Upper Newport Bay) the height at which departing commercial aircraft pass over Upper Newport Bay is such that bird strikes would be expected to occur very infrequently. Although occasional bird strikes involving both private and commercial aircraft are reported at JWA, there is no evidence to indicate that these occurrences are of any significance to local bird populations or to migrating birds utilizing the Pacific Flyway. In addition, as discussed above JWA has a WHMP that provides minimization measures to wildlife - aircraft conflicts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors." Response 35 As clarification, Municipal Code 13.08 applies to public areas not private property. Municipal Code 13.09.020 states "It shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owner to water and fertilize the parkway trees adjacent to his property. The City shall be responsible for pruning and spraying parkway trees. (Ord. 2002-13 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1338 § 1 (part), 1970)." The replacement ratio is 2:1 (for Table 4.3-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised to note that, of the nine City trees, only two (not seven) trees would be removed. Trees would be replaced to comply with Municipal Code 13.09.010 as addressed in SC 4.3-1. The City of Newport Beach Department of Municipal Operations, Parks and Trees Division currently is responsible for the maintenance and care of resources within public rights-of-way and on public The Koll Center Residences Project 3-243 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 29� City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments property. Please also refer to Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, in the Draft EIR. The landscape plan will be subject to City approval as a part of Site Development review process. Table 4.3-1. Trees Summary Common Name Scientific Name Existing Trees Trees to be Removed Trees to Remain City Trees California sycamore Plantonus racemose 7 70 87 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 2 62 20 Private Trees Camphora tree Cinnamomum camphors 39 31 8 Spotted gum Corymbia maculate 33 28 5 Carrot wood Cupaniopsis anocardioides 5 0 5 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 32 15 17 Benjamin tree Ficus benjamina 20 20 0 Rustyleaf Ficus rubiginoso 13 13 0 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 2 2 0 Crape myrtle Logerstroemio indica 5 0 5 Sweet gum Liquidambarstyraciflua 77 62 15 Brisbane box Lophostemon confertus 4 0 4 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 6 6 0 California sycamore Plantanusrocemose 101 84 17 Aleppo pine Pinus holepensis 50 24 26 Fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 2 2 0 Ornamental pear Pyrus calleryana 4 0 4 Tipu tree Tipuona tipu 45 38 7 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 12 12 0 Total 459 339 120 Source: BrightView Design Group, 2016b. Response 36 Data regarding non -potable water use was inadvertently omitted from the Draft Koll Center Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) Addendum for the Proposed Project. Table 6, Non -Potable Water Demands, from the Draft SAMP Addendum are provided below. Non -potable water will be used for all landscaping. With respect to water use during construction, parking lot and street cleaning for dust and debris removal is typically conducted by a service purveyor using water trucks using water from off-site sources and would be less that the Project's daily average. Table 4.15-4 has been revised to incorporate non -potable water information and is incorporated into the Final EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-244 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 300 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Table 6: Non -Potable Water Demands Building Land Use Demand Factor Average Gallons per Day (gpd) v C y W a n 125 gpd/du 10,875 12.2 1 Retail 175 gpd/ksf x E m x High Density Residential 125 gpd/du 10,750 12.0 E E E 216 0.3 3 High Density Residential 125 gpd/du 10,875 E E D v d u Non -Potable m E C V Total Potable Non -Potable Q a E y v a s '« 1 Park Area Irrigation 0.72 2,471 36 65 90 2 Building 1 Irrigation 0.60 2,336 17 31 43 3 Buildings 2 and 3 Irrigation 1.18 4,605 25 45 63 4 Parking Lot. Irrigation 0.36 1,168 16 29 40 5 Parking Structure Irrigation g 0.19 937 12 22 30 Total 11,517 106 191 265 Water Supply and Demand The Proposed Project would increase water demand on the project site. Projected water demand for the Project is shown in Table 4.15-4. The Project includes 260 residential dwelling units and approximately 3,000 sf of retail uses. The SAMP Addendum calculated the Proposed Project's potable water demand to be 33,665 gpd (37.7 AFY) and its non -potable water demand to be 11,517 gpd. It should be noted that landscaping would not require irrigation on a daily basis. Table 4.15-4. Potable and Non -Potable Water Demand Building Land Use Demand Factor Average Gallons per Day (gpd) Acre -Feet per Year (AFY) Potable High Density Residential 125 gpd/du 10,875 12.2 1 Retail 175 gpd/ksf 309 0.3 High Density Residential 125 gpd/du 10,750 12.0 2 Retail 175 gpd/ksf 216 0.3 3 High Density Residential 125 gpd/du 10,875 12.2 Parking Structure Car Wash 20 gpv 640 0.7 Non -Potable Landscaping 1517 Total Potable Non -Potable 33,665 11� 37.7 (1 gpd = gallons per day; du = dwelling unit; ksf =thousand square feet; gpv =gallon per vehicle a. Landscaping does not require daily watering. Source: DEA, 2017. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-245 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 301 City of Newport Beach Response 37 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The anomaly locations for the Airport Area are shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area L4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. Response 38 The commenter has not provided any documentation for the methodology used for Attachment 9. However, it appears that the commenter has first, selected one, one-hour image (e.g., Spring Equinox at 9:00 AM) from the Draft EIR shade/shadow exhibits and has used the one image to suggest it is representative of a much longer duration of time. The last image in Attachment 9 overlays all of images from the Spring Equinox, Fall Equinox, and Winter Solstice (no images for the Summer Solstice are provided as there are no shadows across the building) to suggest that this is representative of shadows that would be cast on the building every day. This is inaccurate and intentionally misleading. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-246 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 302 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The shadow studies provided in the Draft EIR are intended to convey the impacts of shadows from the Proposed Project at a given hour of each day per season. Shadows cast on a particular area of a building, at a given hour of the day, do not necessarily impact that same area for the remainder of that day, nor do these same shadows necessarily impact that same area on subsequent days of the year. Although shadows may be cast on a particular area of the 4910 Birch Street building, on a given hour and day of the year, the property owner to date has not installed solar equipment on the roof area and the Project would not preclude the potential for solar energy equipment to perform. Response 39 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-247 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation SOS City of Newport Beach Letter C -7d OLEN Barbara Lichman, Buchalter representing OLEN November 13, 2017 Buchalter November 13, 2017 VIA E-MAIL (RUNG@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV) City of Newport Beach Attn: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 18,100 Von Kerman Avenue Suite 808 Irvine, CA 92612 919.180.1121 Phwe 9,19 M 0182 Fm 969.22,1.8292 Direct diMman®6uchalla¢mm Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Dear Ms. Ung: We represent Olen, owner a commercial property in Koll Center Newport, the site for the proposed Koll Center Residences ("Project"). Olen is, therefore, a patty directly impacted by the proposed Project, comprised of three, 13 -story residential condominium towers and two parking structures, to be located in the parking area contiguous to Olen's building. That same area is utilized by Olen's customers, those of its tenants, and tenants of other buildings in Koll Center. Olen is deeply concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, which, as set forth in more detail below, are not fully disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. These include, but are not limited to: (1) the Project's land use impacts, which include the dramatic change in the business character of the Project site, brought about by the overwhelming presence of residential structures in its midst and the overburdening and ultimate usurpation of easements granted to Olen for use of the parking area at the time of its purchase of the building; (2) the unexplored, but clear, visual impacts of the looming high rise structures which are not ameliorated or excused by the proximity of other high rise structures, but rather exacerbated by the their cumulative impacts taken with those of the Project; and (3) the Project's potential noise impacts, both independent and cumulative. Therefore, for all the following reasons, Olen strongly recommends that the DEIR be sent back to the drawing boards and ultimately recirculated to adequately address Olen's concerns and those of other equally affected property owners and tenants. buchalter.com Los Angeles Napa Valley Orange County Sacramento San Francisco Scottsdale BN 31166095x1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-248 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation W19011 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 2 THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROJECT'S CLEAR IMPACTS ON EXISTING PROPERTY RIGHTS The Project site includes significant existing legal ownership rights, among them, for private restricted ingress, egress and surface parking, all of which are proposed to be eviscerated by this Project. This includes both significant temporary impacts during construction and phasing as well as significant permanent impacts, none of which are adequately identified or addressed in the DEIR. A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose or Analyze the Required Public Park and Access Easement Dedication The DEER references "public access easements for the purpose of facilitating public access to the park," DEIR, Land Use and Planning, Table 4.9-1, p. 4.9-16, and further references a "1.17 -acre public park" that is to be offered for dedication to the City. The DEIR Traffic and Transportation Section 4.14 (page 4.14-17) correctly identifies that access to the site is currently controlled and not open to the public. However, Land Use Section, Table 4.9.1, (page 4.9-22) references that the Project will have "24 hour public access," in contravention of the existing significant third -party ownership rights of the Office Park owners and the access easements, and a significant change from current conditions. The DER is not forthcoming with respect to the true function and public use of the internal streets within the Project and the function and use has not been fully disclosed nor analyzed. The Office Park owners currently have the right to adjacent surface parking to accommodate their office uses, which will be dramatically and fundamentally changed by the Project. Neither does the DEIR address or analyze the potential "taking" of the third -party, real property interests of the existing Office Park owners, the L 17 acres that will be effectuated by the park dedication. Given Office Park owners' existing easement rights over the proposed park area which are not discussed in the DEIR and which will be completely abrogated by such a park dedication, absent revelation concerning these issues and thorough discussion, the City could be exposed to liability for failure to compensate the Office Park owners for the loss of L 17 acres of prime land that such owners currently have exclusive right to use for access and surface parking. B. The Project Will Both Physically Divide the Established Business Community On -Site and Conflict with the City Zoning Code Directly contrary to the DEBYs claim of "no impact" on "established communities," DEIR, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-9, the Project will facially violate Threshold of Significance 4.9-1 by dividing the established business community on-site with a residential component that will dominate the site's current, business -devoted character, and transform it into a shopping center BN 31 166895, I The Koll Center Residences Project 3-249 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3015 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 3 with constant ingress and egress of vehicles, school buses, and even the possibility of children using the parking lot as a baseball diamond.' The Prooect will further divide and burden the site with a public street through the center of the property. That street will not only divide the property into two sections that never before existed, but will further occupy areas that might otherwise be used to accommodate parking for existing building occupants and their customers as well as providing public competitors for the still available parking spaces. For those reasons alone, the Project's land use impacts should he deemed significant. However, Threshold 4.9-1 is not the only measure of significance applicable to the Project. Rather, the DEIR acknowledges further that the Project facially violates Threshold 4.9- 2, where the only uses currently permitted on the site by the Newport Beach Zoning Code, § PC - 15 -B are "professional and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses." DEIR, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-10. While the DEIR asserts that "[i]mplementation of the Proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan for the project area," DEIR, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-10, and, thus, "would not result in a change in policy that would result in significant impacts," Id., the City's development intentions are not expressed merely in its General Plan designation for a "majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site," DEIR, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-9. More specifically, those intentions are contained in the City's zoning of the Project area; and its dedication for a specific business use. Any change in that zoning will create a palpably significant impact on the site and its current occupants. In summary, the proposed zoning amendment to create predominantly residential uses on the site, with the accompanying physical division of the site by a public street meant solely to accommodate the new residential and retail uses planned for the Project area, are the very definition of the physical division of an established community by a proposal that conflicts with an applicable plan for the area. The impacts of that conflict, and its resulting division of the commercial community currently on the site, must be further disclosed and analyzed in the DEER, or the DEIR's land use discussion will remain manifestly inadequate. 1 The DEIR acknowledges that "[g]iven the predominately existing office uses in the surrounding area, the transition of the project site to include residential land uses would alter the character of the existing business community by introduction residential population [sic] and Froviding recreational open space amenities." DEIR, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-9. "The spine street that crosses the property from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue would become an open -access (ungated) center spine street through the site." DEER, § 4.9.4, p. 4.9-9. BN 311660950 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-250 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 4 Soo City of Newport Beach Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 4 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments lI. THE PROJECT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE, BOTH INDEPENDENTLY AND CUMULATIVELY The DEIR acknowledges that the Project site is "relatively flat with a gentle slope to the west. Site elevation are [sic] approximately 46 to 52 feet above. mean sea level (msl)." DEIR, § 4.1.4, p. 4.1-5. On to this flat landscape, currently improved with "surface parking lots and common landscape areas associated with adjacent office buildings," Id., which range from one to four stories in height, DEIR, p. 4.1-9, will be superimposed three, 13 -story, high rise residential condominium towers, closely bunched along a "spine street" along the middle of the site, accompanied by multi -story parking structures. Despite that description, the DEIR concludes that the Project will not "substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings." DEIR, § 4.1.5, p. 4.1-7, Threshold of Significance 4.1-2. A. The DEIR Attempts to Obscure the Acknowledged Visual Impacts of the Pro)ect by Improper Reference to the Impacts of Surrounding Existing and Planned Uses The DEIR's conclusion could not further from reality. In fact, the DEIR already acknowledges that "the introduction of residential mixed-use land uses would change the general character of the project site." DEIR, § 4.1.6, p. 4.1-9. Nevertheless, it goes on to excuse the Project's impacts by reference to the height of surrounding uses such as the Uptown Newport project, where "[a]llowed building heights" are up to 150 feet, DEIR, § 4.1.6, p. 4.1-9; the Duke Hotel, and the Bank of the West building. DEIR, § 4.1.6, pp. 4.1-9-4.1-10. The DEB2 goes even further by attempting to take environmental credit for the impacts of the Uptown Newport's future planned development which does not yet exist. DEIR, § 4.1.7, p. 4.1-14. Unfortunately for the Project Proponent, however, the California Supreme Court has already determined that: "Section 21060.5 [of CEQA] defines 'environment' as 'the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance.' [Cites omitted.] Given the text of section 21083 and other relevant provisions of the statutory scheme to which it belongs—including CEQA's statute -wide definition of 'environment'—the phrase in question is best interpreted as limited to those impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment... [S]ection 21083 does not contain language directing agencies to analyze the environment's effects on a project. Requiring such an evaluation in all circumstances would impermissibly expand the scope of CEQA." BN 311 5,1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-251 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3L)7 City of Newport Beach Buchalter Section 3.0 Responses to Comments City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 5 California Building Industry Assn., supra, 62 Cal.0 at 387 [emphasis in original]. Therefore, the DEIR's comparison to what are purported to be even more draconian visual impacts from cont'd building off the site are to no avail in diminishing the palpable, although unanalyzed visual 5 impacts of the Project. B. The DEIR Flies in the Face of CEOA's Mandate to Properly Evaluate Cumulative Impacts While the DEIR admits that "the Newport Business Plaza and the PRES Office Building B cumulative projects would alter the visual character of the area," DEIR, § 4.1.7, p. 4.1-14, it goes on to deny that the "development of the Proposed Project in addition to these two cumulative projects would ... negatively impact the visual character of the area." Id. The DEIR also gives short shrift to the cumulative impacts of 876 apartments located at the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive, "approximately 0.4 miles] north of the project site," as well as the Boardwalk project, two nine -story towers, 0.6 miles northeast of the Project site, DEIR, § 4.1.7, p. 4.1-14, on the entirely unsupported ground that "[d]ue to the distance between the projects and the flat topography in the project area, the development of the Project in addition to the two cumulative projects would not negatively impact the visual character of the area." DEIR, § 4.1.7, pp. 4.1-14-4.1-15. The DEIR fails in its full disclosure obligation on both counts. There is no dispute that the referenced projects, in combination with the proposed project, will "alter the visual character of the area," DEIR, § 4.1.7, p. 4.1-14. Thus the projects fall directly within the definition of cumulative impacts set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355(b) ["The change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects."]. Because the impacts of the contiguous Uptown Newport project were invoked merely for the improper purpose of obscuring the otherwise obvious visual impacts of the Project itself; and absent any cumulative analysis of the Project when combined with the Uptown Newport and the other proximate projects with similar visual impacts of height and bulk, the DEIR clearly violates CEQA. III. THE CITY'S OVERRULE OF AN AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY IS BOTH PROCEDURALLY DIFFICI:' I 'f AND SUBSTANTIVELY PROBLEMATIC The DEIR takes the position that a potential determination of inconsistency with the applicable Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") is possible, potentially significant, and unntitigatable. Therefore, approval of the Project will require an overrule by the Newport Beach City Council ("Council") BN 311660950 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-252 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 6 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments and a Statement of Overriding Considerations at the time of Project approval. DEIR, § 1.5, Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts, p. 1-11; see also § 4.9, Land Use and Planning. The overrule process, however, is neither simple nor without penalty to the overruling jurisdiction. First, an overrule requires a two-thirds vote by the governing body, see, e.g., Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21676. Because the relevant governing body here, the Council, has seven members, the "two-thirds majority" requirement actually translates into a "five out of seven" requirement, in order to exceed the 66% of the governing body required for an overrule by the governing statute. In addition, the overrule decision cannot be made in a vacuum. It must be based on "specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670." Id. Thus, the Council will be required to find that the overrule complied with the statute's purpose to "provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the areas surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goal and objectives of the California airport noise standards ...... Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21670(a)(1) and "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21670(a)(2). Those findings will be difficult if not impossible to make with regard to a project that moves approximately 500 additional residential occupants into an area regularly overflown by aircraft from John Wayne Airport (` JWA"), located less than one-half mile from the Project area. See DEER, App. I, p. 35, Table 14. Finally, and not least important, is the section of the State Aeronautics Act that provides: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." Cal. Pub. Ufil. Code § 21678. Therefore, according to the express provisions of the governing statute, while the Project is located within AELUP Zone 6 which allows (but does not require) additional residential development, DEIR, § 4.9.2, p. 4.9-7, it is still less than one-half mile from JWA, Id., and i> regularly overflown by general aviation aircraft circling to approach the airport. Thus, an overrule will make the City and its coffers potentially responsible for any mishap, aberrant or BN 31166095x1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-253 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 309 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 7 not, that may involve the three high rise residential structures constituting the Project, as well as their occupants. In short, the City is assuming a large risk, to its citizens and its finances, that it should carefully consider before taking the major step of an overrule. W. THE DEIR'S NOISE ANALYSIS IS INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT AND. THUS. DOES NOT MEET THE DEIR'S INFORMATIONAL PURPOSE The DEIR denominates the Project noise impacts as significant and unavoidable only with respect to the impact of construction activity. DEIR, § 4. 10, p. 4.10-30. The DEIR thus turns a blind eye to other equally significant noise impacts arising not only from Project specific activities, but also from the demonstrably substantial traffic and aircraft overflight impacts on the Project and its residents. A. The Noise Levels at the Project Will Violate the Requirements of the Newport Beach General Plan The DEIR first sets forth the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element, DEIR. Table 4.10-1 as the governing standard, and then proceeds to recount the Project's violation of it. Specifically, DEIR Impact Threshold 4.10-1, § 4.10.5, p. 4.10-12 asks "[w]ould the Project expose persons to or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?" DEIR, App. I, p. 35, Table 14, first discloses that the total exterior noise level on the northeastern boundary of the Project (Birch Street), taking both traffic noise,3 and aircraft overflight noise into account is 64.1 dB CNEL which appears to fall within the permitted levels for mixed-use residential development set forth in DEIR, Table 4.10-1, p. 4.104. The noise levels at the western boundary (Von Karman) bring about a different result, however. In that instance, the total exterior noise level created by combined traffic and aircraft noise is 66.3 dB CNEL, a level that the Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element denominates "normally incompatible" with mixed -used residential development. [Emphasis added]. "New construction or development should generally be discouraged." DEIR, Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-4. 3 Both traffic and airport noise are measured in Cumulative Noise Equivalent Levels, or CNEL, which is a 24 hour average of each single event with a 5 decibel weighting for the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10 decibel weighting for the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Thus CNEL denotes only average, not single event, noise levels created by aircraft or overflight or traffic. BN 311660950 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-254 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation coned 7 310 City of Newport Beach Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 8 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Surprisingly, the DEIR appears to take quite the opposite position in its discussion of Thresholds of Significance 4.10-5, p. 4-10-32 ["For a Project located within an airport land use compatibility plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?"]. In dismissing the impacts under this threshold as "less than significant," the DEIR asserts that "a review of the Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport cont'd (2008), shows the Project site located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour," and, "[[]herefore, 8 there is no impact surrounding the Proposed Project concerning airport noise and no mitigation is required." Id. This assertion appears to directly contradict the results of the "On -Site Mobile Combined Noise Levels Analysis," set forth in DEIR, App. 1, Table 14, in which aircraft noise is designated at the 60 dBA CNEL level over the Project, thus placing the Project inside the 60 dB CNEL contour.° While no mitigation of airport noise may be required, or even possible, per the assertions in the DEIR, the combined effects of traffic and airport noise need to be reexamined in order to determine if, and how, the Project can meet the requirement that the Project "meet the City's 60 dBA daytime noise standard." DEB[, § 4.10.7, Mitigation Measure 4.10-6, p. 4-10-39. B. The DEIR's Analysis of Construction Noise Impacts is Based on Unsupported and Unsustainable Assumptions The DEIR purports to support its estimate of construction noise, set forth in DEIR Table 4.10-8, p. 4.10-17, based on assumptions concerning the type and numbers of equipment that will be used during the construction process. No "worst case scenario" is provided to accommodate the possibility of additional, or different, types of equipment being used that might materially affect the level of noise being produced during the construction phase. Consequently. the DEIR entirely fails to provide a properly documented analysis of the Project's construction noise impacts. C. The DEIR's Discussion of Cumulative Noise Imnacts Fails to Fullv Acknowledge or Analyze the Impact of Current and Future Airport Noise on the Project Last, but certainly not least important, the DEIR's examination of cumulative noise - impacts is sorely deficient where it fails to acknowledge the impact of the noise from JWA on the Project. First, the DEIR violates this standard at the most basic level. 4 JWA operations have grown significantly during the seven year interim between the 2008 noise analysis and the DEIR which may account for the discrepancy. In any event, this fact should be disclosed in the DEIR so that the public can weigh its importance. BN 3116fi 5,1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-255 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 311 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 9 "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355(b). As a threshold matter, the criteria for ascertaining the existence of a cumulative impact as set forth in the DEIR is hopelessly complex for the uninitiated public.' Ultimately, the DEIR concludes, based on those "criteria," that "[njoise by definition is a localized phenomenon," DEIR, § 4.10.6, p. 4.10-33, and "only the Proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts." Id. That presumption of noise as a localized phenomenon does not apply to the noise corning from closely located JWA. The DEIR already acknowledges that the ambient noise impacts of overflights from JWA reach the level of 60 dBA CNEL over the Project site. DEIR, App, 1, Table 14. Nevertheless, the DEIR fails to contain even the most cursory discussion of the potential changes in the aircraft fleet mix, possible construction of airport improvements, or any changes to the airport as set forth in the Airport Master Plan, that might increase the noise level over time and contribute to an increase in the ambient noise levels over the Project. And there is no legally supportable excuse for this omission. The California Supreme Court has conclusively held that "[a]lthough CEQA does not generally require an evaluation of the effects of existing hazards on future users of the project, it calls for such an analysis in s "A project's contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level ('Cumulative With Project') would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over 'Existing' conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the Proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the Proposed Project. The following criteria have been used to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase. • Incremental Effects. The 'Cumulative With Project' causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the 'Cumulative Without Project' noise level. A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded." DEIR, § 4.10.6, p. 4.10-33. BN 31 tG"5v1 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-256 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd to 312 City of Newport Beach Buchalter City of Newport Beach November 13, 2017 Page 10 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments several specific contexts involving certain airport (§ 21096) and school construction projects (§ 21151.8), and some housing development projects ... [remaining cites omitted]."s California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist., 62 Cal.41° 369, 391 (2015)nt `] Consequently, the impacts of airport overflight noise and its potential increase over time need to be definitively, not ambiguously, disclosed as significant at the specified level of 60 dB CNEL, and completely evaluated as the potential source of significant cumulative noise impacts on the Project. IV Based on the above, it is clear that the DEBT contains numerous, critical omissions from the disclosure required by CEQA, as well as numerous exceptions from the mandates of the Newport Beach General Plan which cannot be adequately remedies by isolated, equally numerous, General Plan Amendments. Olen, therefore, submits that both a recirculation of the DEIR in its entirety, and an update of the Newport Beach General Plan to reflect the Project's numerous exceptions to the existing General Plan requirements, are necessary to rectify the manifest deficiencies in both the Project and accompanying DEB2, and to allow the community the opportunity for a complete review of the full panoply of the Project's impacts, as required by CEQA. Sincerely, BUCHALTER APrProfessional CorporaationQ` By Barbara Lichman b The referenced housing development projects are those, among others, subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment to determine the existence of hazardous substances on site, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21159.21; is being developed to house agricultural employees, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21159.22; or low-income residents, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21159.23. BN3116 50 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-257 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 313 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Response 1 The subsequent responses address the specific issues raised by this commenter. Response 2 The Draft EIR thoroughly evaluates the potential impacts of the Project both during construction and operation. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and has been designed to be sensitive to the surrounding business and office uses. Mitigation measures and standard conditions are intended to address and reduce temporary construction and noise -related impacts on adjacent uses. The parking supply for the existing Koll Center Newport development was previously approved for the site by the City of Newport Beach. The Project does not change the existing office square footage or the parking requirements for the existing Koll Center Newport development. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. The changes in site circulation that would occur as a result of the placement of the buildings and the access to the parking areas were described in detail in the Draft EIR, and were taken into account in the analysis of the site circulation and surrounding intersections. Response 3 The proposed parcel to be dedicated to the City for a neighborhood park is under the ownership of KCNA Management, LLC (Koll Company) who has authorized the Applicant to file the application with the City for its consideration of site development (Proposed Project). Three -party ownership rights are a private matter between property owners, not a CEQA issue. Response 4 The referenced CEQA Guidelines threshold asks whether a project would physically divide an established community. The commenter suggests that the "office community' will be bifurcated by the construction of a road which would affect pedestrian access. The Proposed Project would not introduce any roadways that would bisect ortransect the adjacent business uses. The proposed mixed-use buildings, free-standing parking structure, and public park would be constructed on existing surface parking areas. The Project maintains the existing spine street through the property between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue and provides for pedestrian walkways on both sides of the spine street (see Figure 3-8). The locations of existing sidewalks, and proposed walkways/pedestrian connections are shown on Figure 3-12. The Project would not preclude pedestrians from walking through the area (e.g., northwest of the spine street to southeast of the spine street). With respect to the commenter's assertions that the Project is transforming the site into a "shopping center", the Project does not propose a shopping center. With respect to the assertion that the site will have a constant flow of vehicles and school buses, the existing office uses currently generate traffic which enters and exits the property. Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, evaluates the traffic generated by the Proposed Project; no significant impacts would occur. With respect to school buses, the Santa Ana Unified School District provides transportation to special education students and on a limited basis due to distance to a school. As identified in Table 4.12-1 of the Draft EIR, using these student generation rates, the Proposed project would introduce approximately 29 students into the attendance area of school The Koll Center Residences Project 3-258 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S-14 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments district. Should these 29 students be transported by the school district, this does not represent a constant ingress and egress of school buses. With respect to the use of "the parking lot as a baseball diamond", this assertion is not supported by any evidence nor raises an environmental issue. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Palo Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4`^ 556, 580.) No further response is required. Threshold 4.9-2 asks whether the Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Draft EIR clearly identifies and evaluates the amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay and Public Park Overlay. What is not acknowledged by the commenter is that the Airport Business Area ]CDP contemplates up to 1,504 new residential units, 11,500 sf of ground -level retail and commercial uses for Uptown Newport and 3,400 sf of commercial uses for the project site, as well as neighborhood park areas. Of the 1,504 dwelling units, 1,244 units are on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units at the project site were identified as "additive' units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development uses would be removed. These units would be allocated to the Proposed Project in accordance with the City's General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. According to the City's General Plan, "additive" units "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on site". Response 5 The commenter opines that a change in visual character is a significant environmental impact. The commenter further asserts that the identification of existing and under construction land uses is not permitted under CEQA. The Draft EIR recognizes that the Uptown Newport Project is an under construction, mixed-use development project adjacent to the project site with permitted development up to 150 feet above ground level. This is a statement of fact, not an impact analysis. Response 6 Please refer to the response to Comment 5. Additionally, refer to Section 4.1.7 of the Draft EIR for a thorough discussion of cumulative aesthetic impacts, including those related to both existing and proposed projects in the area. Response 7 The opinion of the commenter is noted. Should the ALUC find the Proposed Project to be inconsistent with the AELUP, as a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC's decision by following the procedure established in Public Utilities Code The Koll Center Residences Project 3-259 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3115 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Sections 21676 and 2176. 5. This two-step procedure requires the City Council to conduct two separate noticed public meetings. The initial step is to notify ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to override the ALUC's determination by adopting a resolution of intent at least 45 days in advance of the overruling; and the second meeting is to make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. Should the Council adopt the notification resolution, this action does not constitute the Project's approval nor does it predispose the City's future action on the Project. When the ALUC makes a determination that a project is not consistent with the AELUP, approval of a project by the City Council requires a two-thirds vote to override this determination. Response 8 Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. As discussed in the topical response, the Project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNEL contour. As described in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.10-5 and 4.10- 6 to ensure that on-site noise levels are less than significant. The comment also cites modeled exterior noise levels that combine to potentially place the Project within the "normally incompatible' range of the City's Land Use Noise Compatibility standards. It should be noted that the modeled exterior noise levels in Draft EIR Table 4.10-11 conservatively use a 60 dBA noise level for aircraft noise even though the Project is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the John Wayne Airport under existing and all future airport growth scenarios. As indicated in Draft EIR Table 4.10-1, under normally incompatible conditions, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with MMs 4.10-5 and 4.10-6, which require all residential units to be designed to include noise insulation features to meet applicable standards and require a detailed acoustical study based on detailed architectural plans. Response 9 The comment incorrectly states that the construction noise analysis is not based on a "worst case scenario". In fact, the Draft EIR modeled construction noise levels based on a conservative, worst case assumptions and equipment list anticipated forthe Proposed Project. The construction modeling assumed a conservative number of pieces of equipment and conservative distances to receptors to determine anticipated noise levels. Further, it should be noted that CEQA does not have a requirement to analyze the "worst case scenario", even though that is what was done for the Draft EIR. Instead, CEQA requires analysis of a project's reasonably foreseeable, most likely impacts. Response 10 The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR does not examine cumulative noise impacts from the John Wayne Airport. Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. As indicated in the topical response, the proposed Project is outside the John Wayne Airport 60 dBA CNEL contour for existing and future airport scenarios (including future airport expansion scenarios). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-260 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 31( Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The comment also takes statements from page 4.10-33 of the Draft EIR out of context. The full statement is: "Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and reduces as distance from the source increases." The intent of this statement is to set up the subsequent sentence that cumulative contributions to noise typically occur in the general Project area and Project -related noise attenuates further from the source. Furthermore, this discussion occurs in the cumulative operational noise section of Draft EIR Section 4.10, and focuses on cumulative traffic noise. Project exposure to airport noise is addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-11 and the associated discussion and combines the cumulative noise levels from various noise sources in the Project area and uses worst case future airport noise levels. The analysis fully complies with Section 21096 of the California Public Resources Code. Additionally, Section 21151.8 relatesto school sites and is not applicable to the Project. Response 11 The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-261 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 317 City of Newport Beach Letter C -8a Bitcentral, Inc. Fred Fourcher, CEO October 13, 2017 bitcentral efficient media workflows October 13, 2017 Via Email rung@newaortheachca.gov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Re: Request for a Minimum 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No.2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: Bitcentral, Inc. is headquartered at 4340 Von Kerman on the 4ch floor and employs over 50 people at that office. Our business is focused on software and services to the Broadcast Industry. The working environment is critical to the employees and we struggle to attract talented software developers in a competitive industry. Accordingly, we are just realizing the implications of the proposed residential towers on the Campus environment at Koll Center Newport. It is not only traffic and visual impacts but also other impacts to our company and employees that are of Concern. We had been looking forward to the Study Session so we could hear about the project and ask questions. As we received the notice of cancellation earlier this week we now feel at a disadvantage in the public process and respectfully request an extension of the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) comment period for the Koll Center Residences Projectto November 16th. The City's current 45 -day comment period will close on October 27, 2017. An additional 20-30 days of public comment would ensure the City Can satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) goal of ensuring public participation in the environmental review process. We are Concerned that late -submitted comments may not receive the good faith written responses required of comments submitted prior to the close of the formal comment period. In addition to the request for an extension in the comment period, we strongly suggest that the City reschedule a public Study Session since non -developer businesses in KIN are left to figure out the details of the project coley on the extensive amount of technical materials posted on the web. A public Study Session is needed to allow interested participants in the planning process the opportunity to hear about the project and hear the answers to each others questions. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Cc: City Council members via City Clerk Planning Commissioners City Manager Sincerely, Z�__ Fred Fourcher, CEO, Bitcentral 4340 Von Korman Ave. Sulie 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (9491 253-9000 I Info®bitcentral.com I bltcentml.com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-262 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 318 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The 45 -day public review period forth e Draft EIR was extended. Rather than ending on October 27, 2017, the review period was extended to November 13, 2017. With respect to the Study Session, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session has been rescheduled for January 18, 2018. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-263 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 319 City of Newport Beach Letter C -8b Bitcentral, Inc. Fred Fourcher, CEO November 13, 2017 bitcentral efficient media workflows November 13, 2017 Via Email runcOnewoortbeachi aov Rosalind Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No, 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung, Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Bitcentral, Inc. is headquartered at 4340 Von Karman on the 4" floor and employs over 50 people at that office. As described below in our initial comments on the Koll Center Residences Project (hereinafter Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter DEIR), the Project as proposed adversely impacts Bitcentral and its employees. We have done our best to review the proposed Project documents and related DEIR and to submit our full comments by the November 13th deadline, but due to the 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92M 1 (949) 253-9000 1 info@bitcenhaLcom I bitcenhal.com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-264 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 320 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral l efficient media workflows complexity of the planning context and level of interest by our employees and cont'd neighboring businesses — many of whom are just now becoming familiar with the t Project —we will be supplementing these comments with additional comments on the Project and both its direct and indirect impacts by the time of the Planning Commission Study Session in January 2018. Introductory Comments. The working environment Is critical to our employees and why we located in Kell Center Newport (hereinafter Koll Center). Koll Center attracted us due to its unmatched workplace experience, with open space areas to walk, lower rise buildings allowing abundant natural light, ease of secure and safe parking, tree lined pathways and lovely views, Understanding the positive effects natural light has on workplace productivity and quality of life, three years ago Bitcentral completely renovated its offices to take advantage of the open views and natural light by removing the window tints and installing automatic blinds that have pass thru visibility, so our employees could enjoy the views and light. The company put in an open lobby area that has expansive views towards the direction of the Project site. The 4th floor Conference Room would look into the proposed 5 story parking structure, The City of Newport Beach should value Koll Center, and protect it from diminution of these values as a business park. Instead, the City is considering a Project that would 4340 Von Karman Ave. Salta 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 1 (949) 253-5000 1 lnfo@blicenhbl.com 1 blicentral.com The Kell Center Residences Project 3-265 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 321 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .I: efficient art workflows destroy these attractive values and potentially strike a significant blow to the areas economic vitality as a business park. Currently there is abundant blue sky and natural light that can be seen from this side of the offices and open lobby. Many of our employees use the parking lot/landscaped common area for daily walking meetings as the common area provides sunlight and a break from computer screens. Productive workplaces offer not only functional indoor space but also landscaped outdoor spaces conducive for creative thinking and relaxion. It is this combination plus the proximity to business services and major transportation corridors that makes Koll Center attractive to the workforce. The proposed 5 story Parking Structure would completely block this view For example, the Project's parking structure will be massive in size (taller than our building) and obstruct our views to the east. Employees on the northeast side of the floor will have some of their skyline views taken away because of the Project. The Project will adversely impact Bitcentral, its employees and other occupants of the Koll Center in numerous potentially .significant ways including, but not limited to, the loss of the unique business environment, loss of natural light and increasing shadow, loss of views, reduced safety and public services, as well as increased noise and traffic. The Project provides no benefits to Koll Center Businesses or to Bitcental as the housing proposed will be unaffordable to our employees:' Due to the very small scale Based on Applicant's briefing on October 30, 2017, condominiums will sell in the millions. 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 1 (949) 253-5000 1 info@bitcenhol.com 1 blicentro.Gom The Koll Center Residences Project 3-266 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 2 322 City of Newport Beach bitcentral .I: efficient ri workflows Section 3.0 Responses to Comments of the retail element of the Project, it is unlikely to provide needed daily services to the residents e grocery, pharmacy, d cleaners, da care/schools, etc and will not confd (,9�, 9 rY, P Y rY Y �)� y result in trip capture on site as asserted by the DEIR. Moreover, there is no description of these services, The DEIR utterly falls to disclose and analyze many of the impacts of the Project, Our understanding is that the schools that will serve this development are in Santa Ana. At 5:00 PM, will residents be heading north on Jamboree, the 405 and the 55 freeways to pick up their kids after soccer practice? Because of the DEIR's lack of adequate analysis of these and other impacts; a revised DEIR is warranted. The Project DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Loss of Light. Research by the World Green Building Council, the International Well Building Institute and Human Spaces, among multiple academic institutions and architectural experts document that daylight has been found to be the number one desired feature in the workplace, httoWwww.eco-business, com/opinion/why-natural-light-matters-in-the- workplace/ See Attachment 1, hereto, In addition to work productivity and creativity, natural light has been scientifically shown to improve people's health. Why is the loss of natural light a CEQA matter? Economic and social impacts of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes (loss of natural light) caused by a project. Economic impacts associated with the loss or reduction of natural light include, but not limited to, lower property values, lower productivity, lower rents and potentially even an exodus of business from the Koll Center. Here the social and economic impacts associated with a physical environmental impact — loss or reduction of natural light — renders the physical impact potentially agniflcantand in need of further analysis. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address the Projects Impacts to Health. In addition to the loss of light described above, employees use the parking lot common area for daily walking meetings and to reduce stress and unwind, The common area including the parking lot serve as essentially a break area to employees to stretch their legs and extend their vision towards a horizon. Such spaces are highly sought after by businesses since they increase productivity, creativity and health. Increased traffic and congestion, along with loss of light will therefore impact the health of our employees. Arguably the scope of analysis for health effects under CEQA remains uncertain. However, in enacting CEQA, the Legislature found that "[Ijt is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man." Public Resources Code Section 21000(b). 4340 Von Kai Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 [ (949) 253-5000 [ info@bitcenhbl.com [ blicentra.Gom The Koll Center Residences Project 3-267 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 323 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .:*. efficient media workflows In addition, it is the policy of the state to "[e]ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." Public Resources Code Section 21001(b), (d). The CEQA Guidelines are required to define a "significant effect on the environment" as occurring where, among other things, "the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." Public Resources Code Section 21083(a)(3). EIR's must identify and focus on the significant effects of proposed projects including health and safety problems caused by the physical changes. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. Such impacts include, but are not limited to, consideration of impacts on people, including those already working in the area, and new residents, from increased noise, traffic hazards and poor air quality as well as loss of light (see above). In addition, the EIR must identify potentially significant health impacts to new residents, including but not limited to the psychological effect of low flying aircraft, noise, traffic and unhealthy air quality hot spots (e.g, due to increased congestion, queuing in the parking garage entrance, etc.). The DEIR fails to analyze the health-related impacts that will result from the physical change in the environment on existing employees and new residents. A revised DEIR must include analysis of these health risks and proposed mitigation measures where feasible. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Traffic and Pedestrian Safety. Developing a massive residential complex as an "island" in the middle of a commercial zone will significantly increase traffic congestion and result in significant new pedestrian safety hazards. Day trips to and from Kell Center will escalate and occur throughout the day and night as high end residential use generates a completely different traffic pattern than business uses. This difference in travel patterns, and in particular the likelihood of auto trips throughout the day by residents as well as services to those residents (maid, gardening, deliveries, etc.) has not been adequately acknowledged or analyzed. Among the reasons these trips are grossly underestimated is the trend in delivery of goods. See Attachment 2,. hereto. Employees attempting to enter and exit Kell Center in the morning and after work will have to contend with vehicles and pedestrians in opposing directions. Employees utilizing common areas forwalks, meetings and relaxation, will be disrupted by a steady stream of vehicle activity to and from the residential area. Both of these impacts increase the likelihood of traffic hazards. The City of Irvine commissioned a Traffic Study 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 ) (949) 253-5000 1 info@bttcenhbl.com ) bllcenhaLcom The Kell Center Residences Project 3-268 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation cont'd 4 3�1 City of Newport Beach bitcentral .I: efficient medlo workflows Section 3.0 Responses to Comments in 2015. The study highlighted Von Karman Avenue and Jamboree as having congestion issues and it recommended hundreds of thousands of dollars in street modifications, including tum signal modifications, and pedestrian medians on wide avenues. This is before Uptown or the proposed KolI Residences have been factored in. confd Additionally, the Traffic Study included a survey and of the 10 most frequent 5 suggestions for reducing traffic congestion, the survey respondents stated that developing less residential units as number one. The residents in Irvine understand the correlation between traffic and residential development. Three 13 story residential towers is almost three times as many units as was proposed for the Museum House. This is too dense in too tight of an area, too close to an established commercial zone and will completely alter the on and off site trip pattern resulting in significant impacts that are not adequately analyzed in the DEIR and must be in a revised and recirculated DEIR. The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Impact of the Traffic and Pedestrian Pattern as it relates to the proposed location of the 5 Story Panting Structure or to Identify Feasible Alternatives Kell Center Newport Association in its CC&R's provides occupants 3.15 surface parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of rentable square feet. The original parking layout was designed to be convenient for each building owner so that no one was expected to walk or be driven to a far side of the complex to get their vehicle. One significant Impact of the Project Is that it will shift traffic, parking and pedestrian patterns while creating bottlenecks and pedestrian hazards. The Project is not cohesive as it does not integrate the existing work habits and needs into a plan that is practical, convenient or safe. The DEIR fails to adequately analyse the traffic patterns and the significant impact of the proposed roadway and parking structure to Kell Center. Will a portion of the dislocated 5000 Birch tenants choose the more convenient and less expensive surface parking in front of 4340 Von Karman over multi-level covered parking? Will the dislocated tenants at 4440 and 4910 Von Karman shift some portion of their traffic, pedestrian and parking patterns in front of and around our neighbor to the north at 4350 Von Karman? Consequently, would the owner and tenants at 4350 Von Karman shift their traffic, pedestrian and parking patterns in front of our building? What hazards will be created and how will those be mitigated because of the increased congestion? 4340 Von Karman has no where to shift surface parking spaces without a significant impact. The neighboring property to the west, 4320 Von Kamian, has reserved surface parking spots (through a separate agreement when they purchased their parcel). This means that 4340 employees can not shift their parking patterns in proximity to 4320 Von Karman even if there appears to be ample open parking spaces. The Project 4340 Von Kai Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 1 (949) 253-5000 1 info@bitcenhol.com 1 bllcenha.Gom The Kell Center Residences Project 3-269 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 6 325 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .:*. efficient media workflows creates a bottleneck and a pedestrian hazard as employees will be driving further away from their respective job locations to find a parking space, According to the Applicant briefing on October 301" the parking structure is being built to "replace" the lost surface parking spots of both 4440 and 4910 Von Karman and 5000 Birch, The DEIR does not adequately analyse how the Applicant would mitigate for the shift effect of the loss in surface parking spaces, Building a large multi level parking structure at a far end of a development does not make up for loss of convenience, impact to aesthetics and views or address the economic Impact to business owners, It would be assumed that there would be a significant cost to park in covered parking since there are existing comps in the vicinity, not only in KCN but other Newport Beach office buildings. Currently, the 5000 Birch building has one 2 level parking structure located directly to the east of 4340 Von Kansan. It is partly below grade so that it doesn't substantially block views. That parking structure is only accessible by tenants of 5000 Birch, It is unknown how much they charge their tenants for covered parking. However, Bitcentral approached the property manager of 5000 Birch about "leasing" parking spaces in their covered structure. The 5000 Birch owner quoted a rate of $135 per month per space, but also said it is only short term and they can cancel at any time. As a business owner, that cost is prohibitive on a company wide basis ($135 x12 mos.x 50 employees =$81,000 annually) and does not provide a viable long term solution to the impacts of the parking pattern shift of the Project. The Project unneccesarily places an oversized parking structure in an inconvenient location and presumably will pass along the associated covered parking expenses to 4340-4910 and the 5000 Birch building owners. The potential shift in parking and traffic pattern is a significant impact and the DEIR does not adequately address the economic COST. The DEIR does not identify alternatives to these significant impacts. One alternative would be to replace all of the lost surface parking for the other office buildings within smaller parking structures and surface parking directly adjacent to the those office buildings. Another alternative would be to provide complimentary valet service. A third alternative to be analyzed would be to decrease the footprint of the Project to a level (less than 100 units) in order to reduce impacts including loss of surface parking spaces. However, it is still my opinion that residential development is an incompatible land use within Koll Center, specifically because of the existing noise and pollution issues associated with the airport corridor. The DEIR does not adequately analyze and quantify the economic impact to Koll Center Newport Association's dues and/or any parking fees to be passed through to businsses. 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 (949) 253-5000 1 info@bitcenhbl.com 1 blicentraLcom The Koll Center Residences Project 3-270 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation coned 8 320 City of Newport Beach bitcentral .I: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments efficient media workflows In fact, it is a reasonable legal question to evaluate if the Project violates the CC&R's of contd Koll Center and if it does what type of liability does that create? An owners association 9 has a fiduciary responsibility to its members however it appears that Kell Center Owners Association has not provided any representation of its members in the decision to remove common area and permit a development agreement to be negotiated on terms that are not disclosed. The DEIR should disclose the economic impact of, but not limited to, the parking structure, security gates, landscaping and lighting that would be passed through to the building owners by Koll Center Newport Association either in dues or in direct covered parking charges. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Visual/Aesthetic Impacts Koll Center was developed with generous view corridors to provide an attractive and healthy environment for businesses and employees, The existing tenants and owners currently park in uncovered parking which is accessible to Bitcentral via an attractive, safe and landscaped area. As described above, the Project proposes a massive parking structure. A detached multi-level parking structure will always be less convenient and safe than ground level parking that is directly in front of a property. The Project will crowd the entrance off of yon Kamran with additional landscaping (not to be confused with genuine recreational green space) and build three, massive uniform 13 -story towers in a manner that is neither integrated into the Center's design, nor aesthetically compatible with the existing buildings and grounds. The DEIR fails to call out these significant visual and aesthetic impacts and erroneously concludes the Project is consistent with City General Plan policy calling for articulation of buildings, integrated design and improved walkability. A revised DEIR must re -analyze these impacts and identify alternatives (non-residential uses) and mitigation. The DEIR Fails to Address the Economic Impacts/Consequences. The development will impair ingress and egress, increase traffic congestion and decrease Bitcentral's employee job satisfaction, quality of life and potentially reduce employee health. Offering a quality work environment Is important for retaining and recruiting top professionals in a competitive high tech industry. Similarly, all the business owners and their employees will be impacted by a development that takes over a. large portion of the common area parking lot with massivenew structures. These impacts individually and collectively will reduce the attractiveness of Bitcentral's headquarters as well as other existing buildings, lowering economic values, rental values and overall productivity by these businesses. As stated above, a revised DEIR must include an analysis of the economic impacts stemming from the physical changes to the environment resulting from the Project's residential towers, parking lots, increased congestion and loss of open space, views and light. There is no value add for 4340 Von Karman Ave. Salto 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 ) (949) 253-5000 l info@blicenhol.com ) bllcenhal.com The Kell Center Residences Project 3-271 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 9 10 S27 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral efficient media workflows existing businesses who invested in Kell Center by buying and/or leasing office space cont'd and coupled with the loss of light and views, the potential for businesses to leave the 10 area is high and the potential for vacancies must be evaluated in a revised and recirculated DEIR. Current view In the direction of the proposed Pa ,.ject from Bltcentral Moreover, the Project sets a dangerous precedent for "spot" zoned infill developments in Newport Beach that eliminate open areas and reduce natural light. If one developer is able to remove convenient parking spaces and existing view corridors from building owners in a planned community (without compensation), what is stopping other developers from following suit? We are fortunate that we are not directly in front of the residential towers but there are other businesses in our community that are heavily impacted and will most likely move. There is a risk that businesseswill leave Koll Center and the airport corridor because of the disruption to a commercial zone. Such a risk, and the potential for blight, must be analyzed in a revised and recirculated DEIR. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Likely Reduction in Public Services, Response Times and Potentially Increased Costs Associated with the Cost of Delivering Services. High rise residential towers will demand different types and levels of services. Everything from trash to police, fire and emergency services will be impacted, Likewise, 12 any consideration of residential development over eight stories, creates a fire/safety hazard for the residents in that property. Does the City have fire equipment and trained crew to deal with residential emergencies above eight stories 24/7? Who pays for the 4340 Von Kaman Ave. Sol to 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I (9491 253-9000 1 Info@bli enhal.com I brtcentral.com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-272 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 328 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .I: efficient medlo workflows increased public services required? Will costs of services increase as a result of added cord'd demand? How will schools be impacted? 12 The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose and Analyze Land Use Impacts. The Project would eliminate the existing use of the parking lot from servicing the businesses in Koll Center. By converting this user-friendly parking and common area to high density residential uses, the Project dramatically alters the commercial appeal of Koll Center, one of the few business centers in Newport Beach. The proposed land use is incompatible with the current land uses in the adjacent parcels, The design of the residential towers results in isolating future residents from the rest of the community; and eliminates from the business community the ambiance and amenities that make Koll Center an attractive and thriving business park. The City's General Plan calls for integrated design in Koll Center and this Project is just the opposite, creating. an isolated and uniform institutional looking trio of residential structures and parking structure. Other amenities in the Centeralso seem at risk. Forexample, will the pond in front of 4340 Von Karmen be modified to serve the residential use instead of the commercial zone as intended? Will access be restricted to residential open space areas and grounds by commercial uses? How are the three uniform, institutional residential buildings and massive garage consistent with General Plan design requirements for articulation of building heights and facades, and integration with existing structures? These and other land use impacts must be addressed in a revised and recirculated DEIR. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Address Noise/Safety Impacts. Current business owners in Koll Center operate during normal business hours, Business owners and their employees primarily work indoors, but utilize the common areas to walk or drive to lunch and forwalking meetings. Everyone accepts the airport noise as it is a business park. However, the rare office unit like ours that has a balcony provides an important data point for any potential residential use. Quite simply, I am unable to be on a phone call with the patio doors open because of the sound of airplanes. It is constant and yet our building is only four stories tall. Noise and perceived safety are going to be huge issues for any future residential uses this close to the airport. There is a practical and obvious reason why good design of office buildings in loud commercial zones do not feature functional balconies. There is a psychological impact from seeing and hearing airplane noise overhead on a constant basis. Businesses basically tune it out during the busy business day, but residential users expect quiet enjoyment and will inevitably refuse to coexist. Our balcony on the 4'" floor it is simply a design element of the building and was never intended as usable space. For the same reason, the proposed balconies and exterior living space of the Project are not practical because of the significant noise and perceived safety impacts related to the airport corridor. 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 1 (949) 253-5000 1 info@blicenhbl.com 1 blicer iraLcom The Koll Center Residences Project 3-273 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 13 14 329 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .i: efficient media workflows The Project Fails to Provide Needed Housing and Services; Pre -requisites to Sustainability and Reduced Traffic Trips. The proposed residential Project and structured parking offer no value to the employees of Bltcentral. None of Bltcentral's employees would be able to afford the Kell Residences at the paces described by applicants at the October 30� briefing, As a result, new residents are unlikely to live and work in Kell Center, and therefore likely to commute to work as well, adding commute traffic to the all -day traffic patterns typical of residential uses. Research shows that higher income households drive more, drive longer distances (vehicle miles traveled), own more cars and have a significantly larger impact on greenhouse gas and air emissions than lower income households. A revised DEIR must analyze the full traffic and related impacts (GHG, AQ) associated with luxury residences taking into consideration trends in trip generation and trip length and type (e.g., goods delivery, services, etc.). Trip generation is likely to be double that assumed in the DEIR trip analysis as a result of the high-end sales prices of the new units and the lack of onsite services, disconnect in unit pricing from employee salary, rendering trip capture on site an unlikely outcome. 4340 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 ) (949) 253-5000 1 Info@bitcenhbl.com ) thucentraLcom The Koll Center Residences Project 3-274 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 15 330 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments bitcentral .i: efficient media workflows Concluding Comments. For the above stated reasons, a revised and recirculated DEIR is required. Ultimately, we believe along with a .growing number of concerned residents that the City of Newport Beach is long overdue for an update to its General Plan that should include the Airport Area. This project is literally the cart before the horse and it is out of place. Moreover, the other ShopOff apartments called Uptown are not even completed so the "real` traffic and services impacts are not currently able to be assessed. The City has reason to deny this Project asproposed and move forward with the General Plan Update and community vision for the Airport Area. Thank you for keeping us apprised of any and all documents, meetings, Study Sessions, hearings and other matters related to this Project. Sincerely, Fred Fourcher, CEO Bitcentral, Inc. Fred@Bitcerrmf.com (949)417-4111 Attachments. No. 1 - Natural Light Matters in the Workplace No. 2 - How Cities are. Coping With the Delivery Truck Boom 4340 Von Kai Ave. Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92669 ) (949) 253-5000 1 info@bitcenhol.com I thucentral.com The Koll Center Residences Project 3-275 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 16 331 City of Newport Beach 11/7/2017 My natural light maters in the wodylace I opinion I Eco -Business I Asia Pacific 05 EW -Business News 0p; ':. Event Jose Preee releasee Nome � Gpea. > ene., -- p why natural IlghtnalUen in thewo fthtoe As newdayfight reaeemh emerges, a tlmalm workplace debase Mate up:wMgetetkewintosnaeatl Section 3.0 Responses to Comments OO a.�d, ew. mn ew.�. m oe�m sass InPe,s u...mm� a anv.en®e rens auew�e BYNtI RYe1M11NlIId JYIwIIHe)1/1 MorcYelaaPll'IDI6 them laAa, -?KI In ,, A—,) Over the pasttwoyasrs there hasheen a 9nrryofreportsfirn the Wald Green Brdlding Council, the Irtema sl Well Building Instituteand Hassan Spaces ezplodng the lmpott rcee ofmritmate eonnectionwith natuml eleri These,,pats bdtrg togethera wealth ofacadeemc research onhowthe presence of natural elements canpromoteheelth, wellbeing and productivity. Out of these elements, daylight, has beenfound to be the number one waxed naturelfeatme in the workplace. Wnenyou seethe research £endings, Ws essay to see wiry. The heneHb of neutral Ilglrt GREEN aNItaINGS htp:/Aw .eco-0usiness.com/opinionMhynatumklightmffitemir thewoMplamI The Koll Center Residences Project 3-276 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1/4 332 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 1122017 Why natural light mothers In the woftlew I opinion I Eco -Business I Asia Pacific Howgreen buildings can help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals > Mach. s.mmeaa. n.�re a uer stla ?seas ma.. One neuroscience studyfcund that pemlewho sit by the windowslept forgo minuteslonger. night on average compared with those who didnt Other studies have found that well illuminated spares with natural elements such es daylight and greenery can improve creativity and learning. These findings put 6dentice rigour behind our lntuitive desire for daylight. The business case clear. daylight promotes humanheatlh and potential. Work. wound the.1d are catcbing on, with many stetting to question bow thin valuable natural element should be shared between staff. The business case is clear: daylight promotes human health and potential. Whsrade You sltatvrmhY How were the window seats in yea workplace allocated? Wee it done on afiret come first served basis? Or have senior mansgaora ¢taken the best seats in the house mprivilege, leaving others to work in more artificial environments? These research based findings suggest that there is value in being more strategic about shating daylight amenity in the workplace. Not only for the performance benefits, but in ccrud deratian of the health and wellbeing of all staff M concepts of equity and justness became more prominent in business, will we start to see minimum standanda for daylight exposute in the workplace? Especially In those that have no access mmantal light doing wmking hDuns. pmmoftmp>ty http /hvww.emAeusinos s.ceii nionhvhy-naturaFlightmafters in-the-wmk pi am/ The Koll Center Residences Project 3-277 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation va 333 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 11/72017 Very natural light matters in the wo"low I Opinion I Eco -Business I Asia Pacific Regardless offitcau designorbuilding type, there are a number of practical things business can do to capitalise on the benefits ofnatuml light. From m operational perspective, atrahgies for rotating eeatinglmations o%re some mlue. Wallingmeetings am m thergreat wry for ell staffto get a healthy dose of daylight, along aith the numerous health and wellbeing benefits that come with amore active workforce. eringisng an architectural ]erre increases scope for improving daylight distnUmia, From optimised furniture layouts, to external light shelves and the careful positioning of shared breakout spaces, there is a Mde range of opportrnhies for increasing daylight mercurym the mwtfrequently oceumedwork areas. The case is clear. there is much more to a window seat thanjuet the view. Oben the demands ofmodem business, having environments destining out our bestir bemrmngincreasinglyimporthi Getting daylight distribution andjusmess rigbtroWd be thekeyto ereatingwo lq leres bumming with creativity, productivity and wellbeing Ash Bnrhananu thedfrecror afsystarrmble deign a»d wdlbeingat Cofiera JvNam Sayago B a cvmriwwriiwtiandesignermmplelinga bSas[er ofEnviromnenfar The Urdverrig, ofMdbowrna Thspan, was written avuwivdyforBm-Bwi. WntlhsEory L�J� i0 ���'® The Koll Center Residences Project 3-278 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 334 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11B12017 Now Cities Pre Coping VWh the Delivery Truck Boom - CityLeb CITY! A13 www.dtylab.com Thank you for printing content from www.citytab.com. If you enjoy this piece, then please check back soon for our latest in urban centric journalism. An hrim singly common sight on American dty streets: delivery vehicles//Mark Lenn ihan/AP Cities Seek Deliverance From the l: - Commerce Boom ANDREW IALESKI APR ED. 3011 It's the flip -side to the "retell apocalypse:" A slags of delivery trucks Is threatening to choke cities with traffic But not everyone agrees on whet to do about it. This post is part of a CityUb series on open senets—stories about what's hiding in plain sight. httpsthv citAeb.comttmnspodatioN2017104/cities-seek-deliverence-from{heacommerce-boom/523671/ 1110 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-279 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3315 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 Hm Cities Am Coping Vem the DeliveryTruck Boom - CityLeb Just before 3 in the afternoon on a rainy spring day, Keith Greenleaf busts out his "bricklaying" skills. That's delivery - driver parlance for balancing an inordinate amount of cardboard boxes on a metal handcart As high as his collarbone he stacks them, packages labeled HP, J. Crew, Amazon Prime. "This is probably one of the first days I dont have Pampers or dog food," he says. Greenleaf also doesn t have any 60 -pound boxes of copier paper, which is a welcome way to finish Ids daffy rounds.The veteran UPS driver is parked near 22nd and I St in Washington, D.C., having arrived there about six hours earlier in a truck loaded down with 320 boxes. In a few hours hell drive back to the distribution center in Landover, Maryland, several hours after that hell be at Outback Steakhouse downing beers with a few fellow drivers. OPEN SECRETS Revealing the invisible city O Right now, however, Greenlei in the thick of it For 15 of his 25 years driving for UPS, he has delivered along roughly a 10 -block route close to 22nd and I. Several years ago, to meet the demand, UPS shortened Greenleaf's route by two blocks and gave them to a new driver on a new route. When I meet up with him mid-afternoon one Friday (per UPS media ride -along convention, I've been given my own iconic brown uniform, including pants so baggy MC Hammer would cringe), hes unloading boxes from his parked truck onto a loading dock underneath the Residences on the Avenue, an apartment building with a Whole Foods doht next dnnr. As I get ready to climb aboard, he tells me we won't be making any deliveries in the truck Several years ago, the 56 -year-old was delivering mainly to commercial locations. Now half his droproffs are residential- The traffic congestion and lack of available parking has become so unworkable that Greenleaf would rather walk the remainder of his route, delivering packages by handcart which is what hes done every afternoon for the last three years. Pick arty other major city or metropolitan area in the U.S., and the situations probably the same: a massive surge in deliveries to residential dwellings, one that's outstripping deliveries to commercial establishments and creating a traffic nightmare. hi th�.cityfeb. comttmnsportatioN2017/04/cities-seek-deliverence-from{heacommerce-boom/523671/ 2/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-280 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 33 (o Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 Now Cities Pre Coping With the DelNeryTruck Boom - CityLeb Consumers today are spending less time in local stores and more time online, buying not only retail items but also such goods as groceries from Peapod, office supplies from Postmates, and whatever the bell they want from Amazon It's estimated that, on average, every person in the U.S. generates demand for roughly 60 tons of freight each year, according to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. In 2010, the United States Post Office— which has overtaken both FedEx and UPS as the largest parcel -delivery service in the country—delivered 3.1 billion packages nationwide, last year, the USPS delivered more than 5.1 billion packages. The growth in e-commerce is fueling a commensurate rise in the number of delivery vehicles—box trucks, smaller vans, and cars alike—on city streets. While truck traffic currently represents about 7 percent of urban traffic in American cities, it bears a disproportionate mnge�on cost of $28 billion, or about 17 percent of the total U.S. congestion costs, in wasted hours and gas. Cities, struggling to keep up with the deluge of delivery drivers, are seeing their curb space and streets overtaken by double- parked vehicles, to say nothing of the bonus pollution and roadwear produced thanks to a surfeit of Aatazon Prime orders. A humongous amount of externalities are being produced," says Jose Holguin-Veras, director of the Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Freight 43stems at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "Every 25 people produce one Internet delivery.... So imagine any congested city you know of. Imagine that you were to increase freight traffic by a factor of three. Thus is what's happening now." UPS driver Keith Greenleaf is doing less driving in the city these days: Most of bis urban drop- offs need to be done via handcart, because of traffic congestion. (Andrew Zaleski/CStyl,ab) It didn't used to be like this. https'.thvenv cityfeb. comttmnspodatioN2017/04/cities-seek-deliverence-from{heacommerce-boom/523671/ 3110 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-281 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 337 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 How Cities Ne Copmq NMh the Deli, eryTrudy Boom - C,eLeb The urban home -delivery ecosystem of yore evokes images of icemen making their rounds or kindly white -capped milk men stopping by with a new glass bottle. City dwellers, with their density of retail options within close walking distance, often had newspapers and perishables delivered daily, but in the earlier decades of the 20th century, home delivery of purchased goods was typically something arranged after a trip to the store, cohere shoppers tried on or tested out the clothes and furniture they wanted, and then scheduled what they couldn't carry bade by hand or in taxis or streetcars to be dropped off later. It was for this very purpose that UPS was founded in 1907 in Seattle. Overall, though, bulk deliveries predominated. These were deliveries of large retail goods to stores in shopping districts, where some thought had been given to how streets would accommodate trucks. In recent years, urban dwellers have managed to flip the script. Since the beginning of this decade, online retail sales in the U.S. have growrn by about 15 percent every year. So consider a UPS driver like Greenleaf 110 years later: On any given weekday, he's one of an average of 241 drivers making deliveries on D.C.'s streets, delivering products like clothes, books, food, and household goods—stuff that shoppers could easily pick up on their own at area stores. (Often, hes dropping off boxes of toiletries to residents in an apartment building with a pharmacy or a grocery store on the same block.) In 2010, UPS delivered 1.1 million packages around D.C. in the month of March It's now dropping off 6,500 more packages each day than it did then. The demand is so great that this year, for the first time in its history, UPS will begin delivering packages by truck on Saturdays. "A lot of people see our brown trucks parked on streets with tickets on the window and say were causing all this backup,- says Jim Bruce, senior VP of corporate public affairs with UPS. "People may think of us as the cause of congestion, but you've got to have some way to get those packages delivered." Sending fleets of hoz trucks through the streets of Moulthatttn is transplanting a suburban model of e-commerce deliven'to awalkable, urban em'ironment. The problem, really, is that we now live in a world where the brick -and -mortar stores are only one part of the retail equation—and, as many a "retail agncalupspstory is warning, they are a shrinking part. Demand is being driven by people in their individual homes and apartments ordering smaller amounts of goods with higher frequency: groceries one day, several items from Amazon the next. "Instant" deliveries are now in vogue. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, a global studies and geography professor at Hofstra University, recently completed his own delivery sure leo of a 300 -unit apartment building in northern New Jersey. Over the course of 2016, more than 23,000 packages were delivered, which breaks down to about 65 packages per day. But as more goods are ordered, more delivery trucks are dispatched on narrow city streets. Often, the box trucks will double-park in a two-lane street if there's no loading zone to pull into, snarling traffic behind them. "we're taking that demand that used to be concentrated and we're spreading it throughout the city throughout all times of day. The streets were not designed for that kind of activity," says Alison Conway, an assistant professor of civil engineering at the City College of New York. She's conducted several pilot studies over the last year estimating the number of packages arriving at residential buildings and the related vehicle trips and parking patterns. hltps:/Mw citAab. comRrenspoaation/2017N4/cities-seek-deliverance-from4he-e-commerce-boom/523671/ 4/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-252 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 118/2017 Now Cities Am Coping N4tn the Delivery Truck Boom - CityLeb Studies of the locations of residential buildings revealed the problems that leave delivery trucks idling in the street m storage space for parcels, no freight elevators for deliveries, and no loading docks to park trucks. In a place like New York City, where more than 120,000 packages are delivered daily in Manhattan below 60th Street, according to the city's department of transportation, these missing accommodations compound the congestion problem- Christopher roblem Christopher Lemberger, chair of the nt r for Real Estate and Urban Analytijat George Washington University, argues there's no way this current model of urban freight can continue to work, given the increasing demand for online goods. Sending fleets of box trucks daily through the crowded streets of Manhattan or down M Street in Georgetown is merely transplanting a suburban model of e-commerce delivery to a walkable, urban environment. "Urban freight trips are basically fitting a square peg into a round hole;' he says. "It's more trucks and more routes jammed onto city streets, which is trying to address a challenge with obsolete thinking." Rale this packaging: .w/w.amassn cnMPsod n8 With a growing number of urban residents picking up daily necessities from regular Amann deliveries, the Este of bvidc,and-mortav retailers in increasingly cloudy. (Paul Sakuma/AP) Not all urban traffic sages, however, are convinced that the delivery -fueled congestion woes cities are currently facing are here for the long haul. "If over the next 20 years we slowly increase freight share, ifs fine. Ifs offset by fewer private vehicle tripsi says David Levinson, a professor at the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney and co-author of The.Ensi of Traffic nd the Future of Tr namort "We might consume more [goods] in total, but the vast majority of this is substitution. And there's a lot of evidence that people are shopping less." The thinking here goes that if online shopping is increasing, and there are more delivery vehicles on the roads, home deliveries will offset personal shopping trips, reducing the total number of cars on the mad and ultimately reducing congestion Cities will struggle in the short-term while this cultural transformation is happening. But eventually, you wont even be on the road to notice that FedEx van double-parked by your favorite parallel parking spot. You won t be parking at alL "E-commerce delivery in the U.S. is currently a bloodbath... But the number of passenger vehicles on the street is likely going to drop. Congestion, I suspect, will be less of an issue," says Rodrigue, who also thinks the advent of self - driving vehicles will be a boon for the freight industry. https'.thnevv cityfeb. comttmnsponatioN2017/04/cities-seek-deliverence-from{heacommerce-boom/523671/ 5/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-283 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 339 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 Hm Cities Am Coping N4tn the DeliveryTruck Boom - CityLeb Others, like RPI's Holguin-Veras, areri t so optimistic. He says the data he's been studying shows there s a net increase in the number of vehicle trips. To take one example from UPS' hometown of Seattle Data from the pyyget amend Regional Council shows that non -work trips increased from 10.3 million trips per day in 2006 to 12.6 million trips per day in 2014. Internet deliveries are not substitutes for trips to stores: We're just adding them on. "When you're sitting in your house, you dont give a damn if all you're ordering is a book or a watch You're not internalizing those costs. And if you get free deliveries, you have the illusion that this is easy;' he says. 'And we are ordering a lot" Addressing consumer behavior directly is perhaps the most difficult part of this. How do you ask urbanites to stop buying stuff online and getting it delivered to their homes when it could easily be purchased at a local store conveniently situated in their dense urban environment? Indeed, what's the point of having a city if your retail habits are shaped entirely by your online existence? During a recent visit to Amazon.comr. I was told via pop-up that my online shopping at the Bezos Emporium—books, board games, toiletries, two Tweety Bird dish towels for my Looney Tunes -obsessed grandmother—had saved me 15 shopping trips over the last year. I dont remember exactly, but by counting when packages were delivered, I figured about 17 truck drop-offs were needed to get those items to my door. "People like you and me are the ones creating the problem," says Holguin-Veras. A Ped Ex truck on the streets of the San Prencism (Jeff Chiu/AP) By and large, many American cities are also playing catch-up as they try to understand these new urban delivery challenges and systems. That's due in part to the failures of urban planning and the nature of the truddng business. While matters of public policy like public transit, bike lanes, and walkability fall within the purview of planning boards and municipal departments of transportation, freight has always been a purely private -sector enterprise. That means cities dont even have reliable data on the number of delivery trucks coursing through their streets. "Metro planning organizations do regular data collection on personal travel. We dont have that equivalent for freight, and we don't have good, metropolitan -scale data about goods movement. Surprise surprise, we dont understand it very well," says Anne Goodchild, director of the Supply Chain Transportation and T ne stirs Center at the University of Washington in Seattle. https th�.cityfeb. comttmnspodatioN2017/04/cities-seek-deliverence-from{heacommerce-boom/523671/ 6/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-284 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 340 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 How Cities Fre Coping NMh Me DeliveryTrudy Boom - CtyLab Recently, the center launched UWs Urban Freight I aba new partnership between the university, the Seattle Department of Transportation, and private -sector delivery companies (including UPS). Founded in the fall, the lab's job is to begin collecting some of that data. So far, Goodduld and a team of students are measuring dwell time (how long a delivery vehicle has to remain on the street) and failed deliveries (when a driver shows up somewhere to deliver a package but cant because the recipient isn t home and a signature is required). If the sort of data Seattle hopes to incorporate into an urban goods delivery strategy, one of the cornerstones of a "freight master plan' the city adopted last year. "IYs going to lead to a whole bunch of policy questions," says Scott Kubly, director of the Seattle DOT. "For instance, how do you getaway from an enforcement regime? With the volume of deliveries, ticketing isrit effective for us in terms of managing the street. UPS and FedEx will just negotiate a lump sum payment for all the tickets they get instead of fighting every ticket." One thing is clear: Cities cant just ticket their way out of the delivery -truck problem. For big commercial delivery companies, parking fines are just part of the cost of doing business. UPS paid New York City $18.7 million in parking fines in 2006; in 2011 in Washington, D.C., UPS alone received just shy of 32,000 tickets. Instead of adjudicating each ticket, many large cities will strike agreements or introduce programs through which delivery companies can pay off all tickets in one swoop. New York CiWs annulated fine l2rogram is one example; by waiving their right to challenge parking tickets, delivery companies pay a pre-set reduced fine for each parking violation. Recommended What's Can We How t0 Causing Just Call Pedesl the Retail This a a Vital Meltdown Bus? Street of 2617? LAURA BLISS FEAROUS DEREK 6:11 PM ET O'SULLIV THOMPSON 11:25 AM APR 10, 2017 If enhanced enforcement isnt the answer, diverting delivery traffic might be. Kubly says that Seattle is taking an inventory of all the remaining alley space in the city. Instead of letting developers extend housing lots into the alleys, they might be used to accommodate some of the incoming delivery traffic. In New York City, where deliveries to residential areas have gone up 30 percent over the last five years, the department of transportations Office of Freight Mobilih, is currently assembling its own freight master plan IYs also working with RPVs HolguhrVeras to obtain delivery data from several private companies. By signing a non -disclosure agreement with the university, the office is able to gain access to summary delivery data—on metrics like dwell time—which she says makes private companies, leery of competitors, more willing to share their own numbers. "If von get free deliveries, von have the illusion that this is easv." hltps:// wocitAab. comRrenspoaetion/2017N4/cities-seek-deliverance-from4he-e-commerce-boom/523671/ 7/10 The Kell Center Residences Project 3-255 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation .3'4'1 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 How Cues Are Cooing \AAm the Delivery Trudy Boom - OtyLab "We need them to share data with us in order to understand what's really happening and advance policy," says Stacey Hodge, director of the Office of Freight Mobility. "Since we started the office in 2007, we've built a very good trust with flue private sector. They understand the purpose of sharing data." Even Uber, notorious) r fi Ig nt-lipped about its data, has extended an olive branch As part of its new Movement initiative, it's making aggregated driver data available to city planners so they can get abetter understanding of traffic and commuter behaviors. Washington, D.C., was one of the three pilot cities that launched the initiative earlier this year. To ease the squeeze they're feeling with more delivery trucks on the road, cities have begun considering different concepts to make urban spaces more e-commerce friendly. That might mean modifying zoning codes so that new residential buildings are approved for construction only if they accommodate a loading dock, or extending the amount of time a truck can be parked in an on street delivery zone, or making sure that the corners of sidewalks slope down to meet the street to make it easier for a delivery person with a handcart. Existing apartment buildings could dedicate some of their ground floor space as an incoming deliveries room, which would enable drivers to make one stop instead of needing to go door to door. Some apartment buildings have installed package lockers, a series of closed -door cabbies that delivery drivers can access to drop off packages. A UPS bike/trod: plies the streets of Portland. (UPS) Delivery companies are also experimenting with ways to reduce their impact. Late last year, UPS introduced its first "eBike" deliveries in (of course) Portland, Oregon. The aim is twofold: Reduce carbon emissions while putting a delivery vehicle on the road small enough to take advantage of nub space. UPS is also integrating across its U.S. routes its new Ng -data tool Orion, or On -Road Integrated Optimization and Navigation Asa UPS driver travels their route, Orion works in the background considering up to 200,000 possible routes before picking the most optimal route for a driver to take to reduce the overall time spent driving around from delivery to delivery. '"The next generation of that is going to be a real -tune tool taking traffic into account," says UPS's Bruce. Some cites have also begun taking concrete steps to address the issue—sometimes on their own, and sometimes in partnership with private companies. to New York City, a slow shift to off -hour deliveries is taking place. Of the Big Apples roughly 18,000 restaurants, about400 restaurants now take deliveries between the off-peak hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. Holguin-Veras led a study of the change in delivery time, and demonstrated that a truck traveling at night produced 60 percent less pollution, or a greenhouse -gas reduction of more than 6,000 tons a year, than a truck traveling in the morning. "Cities are congested now, and without changing behavior, there is no way out," he says. "We need to somehow find solutions." hltps:/Mw citAab. comRrensporfation/2017N4/cities-seek-deliverance-from4he-e-commerce-boom/523671/ 8/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-256 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 342 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments 11/8/2017 How Cities Are Coping with the DeliveryTmck Boom- CityLab TWre the sorts of challenges that guys like Keith Greenleaf know well, and his solution, at least for the time being, is to complete his daily route on foot pushing and pulling a handcart weighed down with brown boxes. For nearly two hours I trudge along with him, playing the part of LIPS delivery man in training. Some parts of his job are getting easier. When we make our way inside the Residences on the Avenue apartment building, he tells me it used to take him almost an hour to deliver about 60 packages door to door. Now he handles it in 20 minutes by using a new package locker, where he's able to drop boxes off at individual storage units accessible to residents who receive text messages when their packages have arrived. Five minutes before 5 pm., a happy Greenleaf has completed his day. As he takes his seat, he motions to the back of his box truck. For motivation, Greenleaf keeps a Christmas tree stand hanging to remind him that, no matter how much of a slog it is, people are counting on him to get their packages on time. "Every days Christmas, and every day's game day;' he says. With that, he hits the ignition and heads out into the rush-hour streets. About the Author Andriem-%alesM V ®euattssi / • EW DC -based freelance writer Andrew Zaleski has written for Wired, The Washington Post Magazine, Backchannel, The Atlantic, Politico Magazine, The Guardian, and many other Publications. v Citylab is mmrttltted to mLing the story of the world's dties: how theyw k, the hAl—g. h,fe-,aMdie wlutloes they need. Cityladmrn® an)The Atlantic Wnthiy Group https:It r cttAab.comttmnsportetion/2017/04/cities-seek-deliverence-from4he-e-commer -boom/5236711 9/10 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-287 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Response 1 The subsequent responses address the specific issues raised by this commenter. Response 2 The opinions of the commenter regarding the working environment for Bitcentral are noted. With respect to the commenter's employees use of parking lots and landscaped common areas for "walking meetings", the Project would be constructed on existing surface parking, and would provide a 1.17 -acre public park and landscaping. The Project maintains the existing spine street through the property between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue and provides for pedestrian walkways on both sides of the spine street (see Figure 3-8). The locations of existing sidewalks, and proposed walkways/pedestrian connections are shown on Figure 3-12. With respect to view protection, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.100: ...provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from private property, to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code .... The provisions of this section shall apply only to discretionary applications where a project has the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space.... It is not the intent of the Zoning Code to protect views from private property. Further, the City's General Plan goals and policies provide directives in its consideration of aesthetic compatibility. While Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20 is the "Preservation of significant visual resources", the policies of the Natural Resources Element are applicable to public views and public resources not private views or private resources. With respect to shading, a shade/shadow analysis was prepared as a part of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1-2h. The analysis identifies both shadows cast by existing buildings including the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building, as well as shadows that would be cast by the Proposed Project. The 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building would not be shaded by Buildings 1, 2 or 3 or the free-standing parking structure. No impact would occur. With respect to school transportation, the Santa Ana Unified School District provides transportation to special education students and on a limited basis due to distance to a school. Whether students would be transported by private vehicle and when students would be picked up should they participate in after school activities is unknown. Using the school district's student generation rates, the Project could have 29 students. The transport of 29 students would not change the findings to the traffic study prepared for the Draft EIR or cause a significant impact. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-288 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments The commenter has not provided any evidence to suggest that the Project would reduce safety and public services. Please refer to Section 4.12, Public Services, of the Draft EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.411 556, 580.) Please refer to Section 4.10, Noise, and Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation, of the Draft EIR which evaluates potential noise and traffic impacts, respectively. The affordability of the proposed condominiums to the commenter's employees does not identify an environmental issue and is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis. No further response is required. The traffic analysis applied a ten percent internal trip capture factor to the retail component of the Project to account for the potential for internal interactions that may occur between the future retail use and the existing offices and proposed residential uses. The ten percent factor was applied only to the small retail component, and represents a trip reduction of 13 trips over the course of any entire day, 0 trips in the morning peak hour, and 1 trip in the evening peak hour. This reduction in external trips is inconsequential to the Project traffic impacts on the surrounding street system. Although the potential is much greater for there to be a substantial internal trip capture between the proposed residential uses and the existing offices, for a conservative analysis, no internal trip reduction was assumed between the residential and office uses. The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient. Response 3 Please refer to the response to Comment 2. The Project would not significantly shade the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building. Response 4 The commenter notes that employees use the parking lots for "walking meetings' and "to reduce stress and unwind" and implies that the Project would impact the physically and psychologically health of employees in the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building. The commenter states "the scope of analysis for health effects under CEQA remains uncertain." Please refer to the response to Comment 2. The Project would not preclude employees from walking through the parking lots but would also provide addition open space amenities including but not limited to a new public park. Other environmental issues raised by the commenter — noise, air quality, safety —are already evaluated in the Draft EIR. "Psychological effects" are not CEQA environmental issues. In Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016), held that psychological, social and economic impacts are not cognizable under CEQA. The case references City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810, 829 stating "More to the point, CEQA does not require an analysis of subjective psychological feelings or social impacts" .... "Rather, CEQA's overriding and primary goal is to protect the physical environment." The Koll Center Residences Project 3-289 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3-415 City of Newport Beach Response 5 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The residential traffic would have opposite flow patterns compared to the existing traffic patterns for the Koll Center Newport office uses. This is typical of mixed-use developments that contain both residential and employment uses. The site driveways for the Koll Center Newport development would accommodate the additional opposite -flow traffic volumes. The internal entries to the residential areas of the parking structures have been designed to be separate from the main drives and entries for the office parking. As conceptually depicted on Figure 3-12 of the Draft EIR, walkways would be provided within the site, and would connect with the existing sidewalk system along the streets surrounding the site. The increase in online shopping and the associated increase in package deliveries to residential developments would have the related effect of reduced resident trips to and from stores. Since a package delivery company such as UPS or FedEx can deliver multiple packages to a neighborhood or residential development with a single trip in and a single trip out, a delivery trip has the potential to replace multiple resident trips. The traffic analysis was conducted without taking the improvements identified for Jamboree Road and Von Karman Avenue into account. When those improvements implemented, traffic conditions would be improved compared to the conditions reported in the Draft EIR. Response 6 The parking areas in front of and to the sides of the 4340 Von Karman Avenue and the 4350 Von Karman Avenue buildings would be reduced slightly by the final phase of the Project. The 492 parking spaces in the new free-standing parking structure would more than offset the change in parking in that area. The walk from the parking structure to the 4340 building would be approximately 200 to 300 feet, and approximately 400 feet to the 4350 building. There will be no cost to park in the new parking structure. The new free-standing parking structure, at the southeast corner of the project site, would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the southeast side of the spine street — 5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue and 4350 Von Karman Avenue — which would be the buildings closest to the structure. The remaining surface parking on the northwest side of the spine street road and the new structured office parking in Building 1 would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the northwest side of the main spine road —4910 Birch Street, 4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4440 Von Karman Avenue. The attached diagram shows the locations of each of the parking areas throughout the site as they correlate to the locations of the various office buildings. The purpose of this this diagram is to demonstrate that the parking areas closest to each building will provide adequate parking. Response 7 The opinion of the commenter is noted. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-290 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 340 City of Newport Beach Response 8 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Compliance with CC&Rs is not a CEQA issue. The City has no comments on restrictions placed in the CC&Rs. CC&Rs are voluntary covenants and may be more restrictive than zoning. They are between private parties rather than between a governmental agency and a private party. No further response is required. Response 9 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Please also refer to the response to Comment 2. Response 10 The commenter identifies potential circulation, traffic congestion, and shading issues which, as noted in the responses, are evaluated in the Draft EIR. The commenter provides no evidence to assert that the Proposed Project will result in lost tenancies and vacancies, and a "lowering of economic values". These are not reasonably foreseeable outcomes associated with the implementation of an infill mixed development adjacent to an approved, under construction mixed use development within the Airport Area. As stated in Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of Colifornio_(2017) _Cal.App.4th_ (Case No. A149501), "there is no reason to presume that urban decay would be a consequence of the project. As defined by CEQA, urban decay is a relatively extreme economic condition. In a dynamic urban environment, including that of a small city such as Placerville, change is commonplace. In the absence of larger economic forces, urban decay is not the ordinary result. On the contrary, businesses and other activities come and go for reasons of their own, without necessarily affecting the overall health of the economy." Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) Response 11 The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICRP). The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) contemplates up to 1,504 new residential units, 11,500 sf of ground -level retail and commercial uses for Uptown Newport and 3,400 sf of commercial uses for the project site, as well as neighborhood park areas. Of the 1,504 dwelling units, 1,244 units are on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Koll Center Residences Project is proposed. These residential units were contemplated for the project site. The commenter alleges that the Proposed Project could result in blight. However, the commenter presents no evidence to support the assertion that the introduction of a mixed-use development that is consistent with the General Plan and Airport Business Area ICDP would cause this outcome. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-291 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S47 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Bakersfield), the courts defined urban decay as follows: "[N]ot simply a condition in which buildings become vacant as businesses compete with each other in the normal course of the market-based economy, nor is it a condition where a building may be vacated by one business or use and reused by a different business or for alternative purposes. Rather, under CEQA 'urban decay' is defined as physical deterioration of properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of the properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery, and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments." Blight in Koll Center Newport is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome associated with the implementation of an infill mixed development adjacent to existing and approved mixed use development within the Airport Area. Response 12 The questions asked by the commenter are addressed in Section 4.12, Public Services, of the Draft EIR. Response 13 The commenter's opinions regarding the Project architecture and "ambiance" of Koll Center Newport are noted. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, which describes the replacement plan for surface parking spaces removed as a part of the Project. With respect to the man-made pond adjacent to the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building, it is not a part of the Project and would not be changed by the Project. Response 14 Please refer to Topical Response: Airport Noise. The comment provides an anecdotal discussion of airplane noise in the area and states that proposed balconies and exterior living spaces are not practical because of significant airport noise. The commenter does not specifically challenge the data or analysis within the Draft EIR. However, as discussed in the topical response, the project site is located outside the John Wayne Airport's 60 dBA CNEL contour. As described in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.10-5 and 4.10-6 to reduce on-site noise impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.10-6 requires a detailed acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Response 15 The commenter's opinion that trip generation is understated, with respect to trip generation rates, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (91' Edition), the Luxury The Koll Center Residences Project 3-292 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 348 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Condominium (Land Use 233) generates more trips per unit in both the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour than either Residential Condominium (Land Use 230) or High -Rise Condominium (Land Use 232). See chart below. Land Use ITE Code Trips Per Dwelling Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Residential Condominium 230 0.44 0.52 High -Rise Condominium 232 0.34 0.38 Luxury Condominium 233 0.56 0.55 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9'^ Edition By choosing to use the higher Luxury Condominium trip rates, the trip estimates forthe Project were more conservative. The Project could develop as either standard Residential Condominium or Luxury Condominium; the analysis results would cover either product type. Response 16 The City has not initiated a process to update its General Plan. It is speculative to determine what changes will occur to the General Plan during its update process. As currently proposed, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, it is appropriate to utilize the General Plan approved at the time the Project is being considered for approval. The opinion of the commenter is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-293 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 349 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-294 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 350 Section 3.0 to Comments The Koll Center Residences Project 3-295 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation ©I. �\ • , NW �'® lt.'s tl� �\. \�� /—� � � \ - L.J11J Lr � MIO „J� (J) Y u rL ®. b j -r. I n u n nn fill 11111 '��_ • q�1Tj ".� 4WNIIII�IIFIIIWBIFINI'•L rl I• -rIT, rRs+nrmrr•w —�m-"tlLimuus� � g j I �_ II, N 4r•.-. r ,.- a '1 :. III YMMIMOOiIMl tl.T . ..T0, 4.EN/.LL .IT 0 U 1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-295 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-296 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 352 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C -9a Von Karman Corporate Owners Association Dana Haynes, President October 16, 2017 Von Karman Corporate Owners Association 4340 Von Karman, Suite ito Newport Beach, California 9266o October i6, 2o17 Semviaemail: runuonewoortbeachca.gov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division i.00 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Request for a Minimum 20 -Day Extension of the Public Comment Period forthe Draft Environmental Impact forthe Kell Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017MI002 Dear Ms. Ung: I am the President of the Von Karman Corporate Owners Association (VKCOA), which represents the owners of the building located at 4340 Von Karmen. Von Karman Corporate Owners Association is a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation established in 2015. It was formed to provide for the management, maintenance and care of the real and personal property located at 434o Von Karman, directly impacted by the proposed development. Our building is 4 stories tall and contains approximately 68,000 rentable square feet. VKCOA requests an extension of the draft environment impact report (DEIR) comment perlod for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 16, 2017. The City's current 45 -day comment period will close on October 27, 2.017. Moreover, we request the rescheduling of the Study Session, which was canceled. The cancellation does not provide an opportunity for the members of VKCOA to participate in the process and obtain a full understanding of how the proposed project will impact their views, parking and access. Thank you for your consideration of this request to extend the dose of the comment period for the Koll Center Residences Project to November 26, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. arely, Dana Haynes, esid"t Von Karman Corporate Owners Association dhaynes ca cltivest!nc.com (949) The Koll Center Residences Project 3-297 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The 45 -day public review period forth e Draft EIR was extended. Rather than ending on October 27, 2017, the review period was extended to November 13, 2017. With respect to the Study Session, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Study Session has been rescheduled for January 18, 2018. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-298 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 354 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C -91b Von Karman Corporate Owners Association Dana Haynes, President November 6, 2017 Von Karman Corporate Owners Association 4340 Von Karmar, Suite iso Newport Beach, California 9266o November 6, 2017 Sent via email: rungMnewportbeachca.gov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 10o Civic Center Ddve Newport Beach, CA 9266o Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2o17onoo2 Dear Ms. Ung: 1 am the President of the Von Karman Corporate Owners Association (VKCOA), which represents the owners of the building locatedat4340 Von Karman. Von Kansan Corporate Owners Association is a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation established in 2o1S and was formed to provide for the management, maintenance and care of the real and personal property located at 4340 Von Karman, directly impacted by the proposed development. The building is 4 stones tall and contains approximately 66,000 rentable square feet. On behalf of VKCOA, we have the following comments on the Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR) for the Koll Center Residences Project: 1. The proposed project eliminates existing and convenient parking for the three office buildings located at the corner of Von Karman and Birch and fails to replace the lost parking in a convenient location. Instead of replacing the parking within the proposed new parking structures located adjacent to the office buildings, the Project proposes to replace a significant portion of the lost parting spaces with parking spaces located in a new parking structure in front of 4340 Von Karman, over loco feet away from the th ree office buildings. Empirical evidence and research indicates this distance is too faraway for the dislocated occupants of the three buildings to use, and instead, employees and visitors will park in front of and around our neighbor, 435o Von Karman. In -turn, our neighbors occupants will be forced to park in front of our building. The DEIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze this significant impact and to identify feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to: a) all free day valet service at entrances to existing buildings, and/or b) replacement of all of the lost parking for the three office buildings within smaller parking structures and surface parking located directly adjacent to the three office buildings, among other alternatives and mitigation measures. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-299 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 355 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Von Karman Corporate Owners Association 4340 Von Karman, Suite zzo Newport Beach, California 9266o z. The proposed parking structure will impairexisting views and reduce natural lightfrom 4340 Von Karman and will bring more traffic directly in front of our office building. As discussed in Item i above, these impacts are not adequately disclosed or analyzed and must be addressed in a revised DEIR. As part of that revised analysis, alternatives and mitigation such as but not limited to, reducing the size and height of the parking structure to eliminate significant Impacts associated with diminution of views, reduced natural light and increased traffic and congestion, must be considered. This modification should be paired with a significant reduction in the scale of the Project (beyond that analyzed in the reduced density alternative). 3. If a new parking structure is built in front of 4340 Von Karman, the City needs to condition that the Developer and the Koll Company cannot add any additional parking charges to the 4340 Von Karman and that Von Karman be allocated 272 parking spaces in the parking lot and structure (4 parking spaces per t,000 sf1. The existing parking allocation of 3.i51t,000 sf is inadequate and the proposed Project will only exasperate the problem. The revised discussion of parking impacts must acknowledge existing parking deficits even if not directly caused by the Project. SioFerely, Dana/Haynes, esident Von Karman Corporate Owners Association d h aynes0ativest i nc.com (949)705-0408 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-300 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 350 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The parking areas in front of and to the sides of the 4350 Von Karman Avenue buildings would be reduced at the completion of Phase 3 associated with the reconfiguration of parking in this area; see Figure 3-19, Parking Use Allocation, in the Draft EIR. In addition to the 492 parking spaces in the new free-standing parking structure, as addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, 238 parking spaces would be provided for existing office tenants in the Building 1 Parking Structure. This additional parking would more than offset the change in parking in that area. The walk from the free-standing parking structure to the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building would be approximately 200 to 300 feet, and approximately 400 feet to the 4350 Von Karman Avenue office building. There will be no cost to park in the new parking structure. The new free-standing parking structure, at the southeast corner of the project site, would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the southeast side of the spine street -5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue and 4350 Von Karman Avenue — which would be the buildings closest to the structure. The remaining surface parking on the northwest side of the spine street road and the new structured office parking in Building 1 would most logically be used by the employees of the buildings on the northwest side of the main spine road — 4910 Birch Street, 4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4440 Von Karman Avenue. The attached diagram shows the locations of each of the parking areas throughout the site as they correlate to the locations of the various office buildings. The purpose of this this diagram is to demonstrate that the parking areas closest to each building will provide adequate parking. Response 2 A thorough analysis of visual resource impacts and shade/shadow impacts associated with both the parking structures and the residential buildings is provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Draft EIR. Additionally, Section 15126.6(a) and (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The EIR concluded that no significant and unavoidable aesthetics impacts would occur with Project implementation. Thus, the need to further analyze a reduction in aesthetics impacts is not warranted. Additionally, a Reduced Density Alternative was chosen to be analyzed. Refer to Section 6 of the Draft EIR. Response 3 There will be no cost to park in the new parking structure. The structure is a part of the common parking area. There is no allocation of parking spaces by office building, based on the existing parking arrangement, unless these spaces are located within the individual property. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-301 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S5 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-302 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 3158 Section 3.0 to Comments The Koll Center Residences Project 3-303 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation ©I. �\ • , NW �'® lt.'s tl� �\. \�� /—� � � \ - L.J11J Lr � MIO „J� (J) Y u rL ®. b j -r. I n u n nn fill 11111 '��_ • q�1Tj ".� 4WNIIII�IIFIIIWBIFINI'•L rl I• -rIT, rRs+nrmrr•w —�m-"tlLimuus� � g j I �_ II, N 4r•.-. r ,.- a '1 :. III YMMIMOOiIMl tl.T . ..T0, 4.EN/.LL .IT 0 U 1 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-303 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-304 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Soo City of Newport Beach Letter C-10 Rick Westberg October 26, 2017 October 26,2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL — 260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of and have also located my business in Newport Beach. I have lived here with my family for over 10 years and love our great city. I have reviewed the proposed mixed-use plan for Koll Center Newport and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed-use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. Newport Beach has an enormous competitive advantage of bringing high paying jobs to our City. We need to provide the kind of housing options that appeal to the workforce associated with these new jobs to ensure the growth of our local economy and the sustainability of our City. I believe that providing this housing product type in this area will not only do that, but will also reduce traffic over the long-term much to the chagrin of the usual NIMBYs. I understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support it. Regar , Rick e,tberg 304 Colton Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-305 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Sol City of Newport Beach Letter C-11 Gregory Puccinelli October 25, 2017 �cEty�ar Ottober 25, 20171,01401l 7EVELOPME:NT .. ou 3 9 ^ot7 Ivis. Rosallnn Ung CITYCF Asscc!ate Planner Planning Division "`PORT eePc�' City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drve Newport Beach, CA. 32658.89_5 RE: SUPPORT- YOLL RESIDENTIAL —260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015.001 Site Oeveiooment Review No. 3D2015-001 entative Tract INC. NT 2015-003 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a-esident of Newocrt Beach. ! lave lived here mth my family for nears and love our great city I have reviewed -he proposed plan ana feel that adding residential, .Ikely to be filled with people working in the ?Irport area, and retail will oe positive addition to that area. Additionally,' Feel .hat the mixed use nature of the proposed aevelopment will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding aroperties. I understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, Intl -hat the public hearings are in the Future, aut I feel this Is a goad project tar Newoort Beach and I support It. Regards, 1 iT€goryM �uccineili 3078 Corte Portofino Vewport Beach, :A 92560 Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-306 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 1 02 City of Newport Beach Letter C-12 Darrin Norton October 31, 2017 October 31st , 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT -KOLL RESIDENTIAL -260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. 5 0 2 015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of Newport Beach. I have lived herewith my family for years and love our great city. I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. I understand the city Is in the process of Its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support it. Regards, Dardn Norton 1325 Mariners Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-307 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 363 City of Newport Beach Letter C-13 Robert Anderson October 2017 October .2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL —260 Units Planned community Amendment No. PD203S-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of Newport Beach. I have lived herewith my family for years and love our great city. I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. I understand the city is in the process of Its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support it. Regards, -/-2 -"-� r'- " / Robert Anderson 611 Lido Park Drive, 68 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-308 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C-14 C. Jackson Investigations, Inc. Cameron Jackson November 1, 2017 From: Cameron Jackson[maiko:cameron@cjacksoninvestigations.comj Sent: Wednesday, November0l, 2017 6:32 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject Koll Center Condo Project Rosalinh, I am an owner here in the Koll Center. I was previously opposed to this project. However, since attending the community meeting on Monday night, I am now SUPPORTING the project. Please register my support to the appropriate officials. Thank you. Sincerely, Cameron Jackson Please be sure to CC my office manager Cynthia Plaston on all entails. Thank you! cvnthiaiaciacksoninvestieationscom Best Private Investigator- 2017, OC Weekly Certified Professional Investigator Certified Social Medialntelligence Expert CA Licensed Investigator and CALI Member Office: 949-892-5388 Cell: 949-892-0533 Fax: 949-207-6809 C. Jackson Investigations, hie. PI #25146 www. ciacksoninvestieations.com 4340 Von Karman Avenue Suite 370 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email message is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain information that is LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and/or Attorney --Client Privileged - Attomey Work Product. If you are not the intended recipietlt, any dissemination, distribution or copying this email or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email or by calling 949-892-5388 and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-309 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3015 City of Newport Beach Letter C-15 Madison Street Partners Paul Root, Partner November 1, 2017 vcvenber 1, 20:7 Ms. 3csaorh L'rg AsScclate Planner Piannme Civisicr City of Newper. Beach 1 --CC �Ivic Certer Crvc Newpor' Eeach,'A 9155E-85:3 RE: SL.PPOR-- KCL_ RESiCENT'A,-350 Lnits Planned Community Amendment No. PC201S-M'- Site Ceveicpmem Review Nc. SUC13-001 Tmilat:ve Tact NO. Y72015-OC1 Dear Ms. !rg: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I was ticrt at Hcag hespital it 1915 and have Ilved Ir Newper. Beach ever sirce. I am very pr i.d to be f -cm such a great oiace that oNrs semetiirg for everytccy While! believe it keeping tie citys culture, aisterr and integrity irtact. i aisc believe it's esertial tc be sole tc evcive with tie chargirg tames so that cur cffspr'ng and rew reslderts whcse values are ccrsisert with that cf the cfti of Newper. Beach may aisc nave an cpperunitr live here. That said, . have reviewed he pr:-ccsec plan and feel tiat adding much needed rsidertiai also retail wiil be benerit cLr arca. T -e mixes use retire or tie prrccsec neveicpment will only imprave the aualit'r and value si the si.r-cunding prroerties, nary of which are cid and have nefer-ad maintenance. I understand tie city is in the pr:ces5 cf its review of tie cmiect. aro fiat the pcblic hearngs are in the f4tLr?, but I feet this is a gced pr- -ject to Newpert Beach and I suppertd. appreciate tie hard_ wcrk that you also tie Planning C!wsior out fcrn tc keep cur city a dessired Icrat'cr tc be a par` cf for year, to ccme. Sincerely PaLI Rcct Partner Madiscr St.set Parser; 41CC MacAr.hcr EccievarC, Suite 15C NewpeC Beach, cA 9266C 4 --CC MALAR -'-LR EOLLEVARC SLI-- 35C NIW" R- EEACI-Ca 92E6C ly ADISijNS PEST )49.595-5865 r 949.585.9866 F P A R- N E R S Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-310 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Soo City of Newport Beach Letter C-16 Scott Watson November 1, 2017 November 1, 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL— 260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015.001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015.001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of Newport Beach. I have lived in Newport Beach for many years and I care deeply about our wonderful city. I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. 1 understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this Is a good project for Newport Beach and I support it. R rds, Scott Watson 20 Colonial Drive Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-311 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 307 City of Newport Beach Letter C-17 Mark E. Foster November 2, 2017 November 2, 2017 Mark E. Foster 1935 Port Cardiff Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714)427-7435 mfosterC&swlaw.com Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach (Planning Division) 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Support - Kell Residential - 260 Units Planned Community Amendcmom No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentantive Tract No. NT 2015-001 Door Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments My name is Mark Foster and I have been a resident of Newport Beach for the last 10 years, where I reside with my wife and two daughters. We love Newport Beach for the beautiful coastline, shopping restaurants and entertainment. I cannot imagine raising my family in any other city. As -the current population of Newport Beach ages and the city grows bigger every year, the areawill greatly benefit by the addition of a 260 residential unit project located near Jamboree and MacArthur. The City created the General Plan with a specific vision and this project is an important lacet ul the city's plan. It allows residents to live where they work mid shop and will reduce traffic levels. Moderately priced housing is gremlly needed and this area is perfect for Newport's aging population as well as making Newport affordable for our chi Idren. The project does not even require a variance because it is already a key component of the General Plan for the area. Given the numerous benefits this project will bring to the City of Newport Beach and its residents, ars well as its current inclusion in the General Plait, I strongly urge you to consider moving forward with the 260 residential unit development. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. ML'F Response 1 Very truly yours, Snell & 7 ilmer Mark E. Foster The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-312 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Letter C-18 Ryan Eastman November 4, 2017 November 4, 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT- KOLL RESIDENTIAL -260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of Newport Beach. Both my wife's family and my own have lived in Newport beach for more than three generations. As lifelong residents, we absolutely love Newport Beach and are very interested in the city's future. I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport. Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area- Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. I really like the idea of building affordable housing in this area giving people the opportunity to live near their work. It takes vehicles off the streets during heavy traffic times and promotes more spending in Newport Beach & surrounding cities. I understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support It. Regards, V Ryan Eastman 420 62ntl Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-313 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3 �9 City of Newport Beach Letter C-19 Coyne Development Corporation Steve Coyne, President November 6, 2017 November 6, 2011 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL —260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015001 Dear Ms. Ung: I am a lifelong resident of Newport Beach, and I have a family with three ldds that all attend Newport Harbor High School. My parents and siblings also live in our wonderful community, and enjoy many of the things that Newport Beach has to offer. Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As a real estate developer and a general contractor I understand the process of changing uses and analyzing the total impact of a development opportunity better than most people. That said, I feel that the mixed-use nature of the development that Kell Residential has proposed will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties, and add character to a somewhat underutilized area of Newport. As the development approvals approach their public review processes please know that many people in the Newport Beach area are very much in support of this proposal, and those who are not in support most likely don't understand traffic impacts, economic benefit and/or the necessary evolution of real estate. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Very may, Coyne Development Corporation Steve Coyne President 1501 Westcliff Drive Suite 300 * Newport Beach, CA 92660 * 949-300-9632 Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-314 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S7t) City of Newport Beach Letter C-20 Jack and Robyn Hamilton November 6, 2017 November 6, 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL -260 Units Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments I am a resident of Newport Beach. I have lived here with myfamily foryears and love our great city. I have reviewed the proposed plan and feel that adding residential, likely to be filled with people working in the Airport Area, and retail will be positive addition to that area. Additionally, I feel that the mixed use nature of the proposed development will only improve the quality and value of the surrounding properties. I understand the city is in the process of its review of the project, and that the public hearings are in the future, but I feel this is a good project for Newport Beach and I support it. Regards, Jack and Robyn Hamilton 339 Catalina Dr. Newport Beach, 92663 Response 1 The commenter's support of the Project is noted. No further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-315 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3�1 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C-21 Dean Laws November 8, 2017 From: Dean Laws Imaitwstelmosfire0cox. netl Sent: Wednesday, November08, 201711:14AM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUneCatnewoortbeachca.eov> Subject: Koll Center Residences Dear Ms. Ung, Combining this project with Uptown Newport would mean almost 2000 new residences in a very small area. I doubt those people who drafted and then voted on Greenlight measures ever envisioned that kind of densityl They certainly never tried to getup Jamboree in that area at 5pm now, let alone after a project like this might be built. No one envisioned the kind of density that The City of Irvine would allow along what I call Jamboree Canyon And to suggest that the project(s) would have no impact on traffic is absurd. 2000 new residents in an area that is already badly congested? Comparing it to the traffic generated by the semi- conductor manufacturer that was there seems, honestly, insulting to the people of Newport Beach. Please don't let Newport Beach become another Irvine, Pasadena or Los Angeles. All great cities destroyed by short sighted planning and too much influence from developers. Thank you. Dean Laws stelmosfireQ.cox. net Response 1 The Draft EIR evaluates traffic that would be generated bythe Proposed Project. Based on the significance criteria of the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, no significant traffic impacts would occur. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-316 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S72 City of Newport Beach Letter C -22a Susan Skinner November 8, 2017 November 8, 2017 Comments on the Koll Residences project EIR. Dear Ms. Ung, The following are my comments on the Koll Residences EIR: Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 1) The height of the proposed developments exceeds the allowable heights in the Planned Community text for the Koll Center, which t is currently 12 stories tall. 2) The General Plan allows a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, but this project exceeds that. The project calculates the location as 13.16 acres, but it is not. That calculation includes all the property within the Koll complex that does not currently have a building on it, but this is an erroneous calculation. The acreage included is primarily surface parking for the surrounding buildings. Since the actual residencies will have parking as part of the buildings, the inclusion of this land is most appropriately excluded. Even the parking garage that is gerrymandered into the acreage is designed (by the applicants own description) to provide parking for the commercial buildings and to replace the parking displaced by the residential units. The actual area of the project is much smaller. Per the applicant's description, the acreage used for the buildings is 3.74 acres. If the park acreage is included, the total is 4.9 acres or enough to allow 245 residential units, but not 260. Thus, a General Plan amendment will be required if the current dwelling units/acre ratio remains. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-317 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation .a 373 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Also, because the actual acreage is not 13.16, but 4.9 acres, it T Coned does not meet the 10 -acre minimum required for a residential 1 Z village. 3) The Planned Community requires a specified acreage of landscaping based on the intensity of the buildings within section 3 B, and the current project does not meet those requirements. 4) The General Plan allows 1,052,880 sq ft of development in T Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. This location is already at its development limit for sq footage. The project describes 691,162 sq ft of residential space, but according to table 3.2 and 3.3 in the EI R, only 483,295 of this actually is contained within the 260 dwelling units. The remaining 207,867 sq ft are NOT part of the dwelling units. The EIR does not break out the sq footage of enclosed nonresidential space such as hallways and elevator shafts, but it does describe residential amenities on the third floor. These residential amenities certainly exceed 40,000 sq ft based on the fact that 207,867 sq ft of the building are not dwelling units. Greenlight requires a vote for additional entitlements over 40,000 sq ft. While the dwelling units themselves are included in the General Plan, the additional sq footage for amenities is not and clearly exceeds that 40,000 sq ft limit. Thus, a Greenlight vote is needed to approve this project in its current iteration. 5) While the General Plan allows dwelling units, it does not specify the size of those dwelling units. Although the developer clearly would like to make as much money as possible, the density of the buildings squeezed in the surface parking lot of the Koll Center represents an unacceptable increase in density. The city Planning Commission should take into account the political environment of The Koll Center Residences Project 3-318 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation s74 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Newport Beach, which is clearly one in which high density, high rise development is not acceptable. Because the entitlement of the dwelling units is baked into the General Plan, the building of the units cannot be denied, but the size and density of them can cont'd s be. The location of these buildings (on a parking lot in the Koll Center) is not a particularly desirable location and it would be a much better use to have low intensity, affordable housing in this location instead. I herein include the comments submitted by or on behalf of of Jim Mosher, Chatten-Brown and Carstens (SPON law firm), s Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger (Olen), Buchalter (Olen), Olen Properties (Julie Ault, Olen General Counsel), Meyer Properties and Bruce Bartram Thank you, Susan Skinner 2042 Port Provence Place Newport Beach The Koll Center Residences Project 3-319 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 375 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As addressed in the Draft EIR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted an aeronautical study (pursuant to FAA Part 77 regulations) and has ruled that Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The parking structure would not exceed 56 feet above ground level. As noted by the commenter and addressed in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would require an amendment to the zoning text; please see Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. PC -15 Koll Center is separate from, and not a part of, the General Plan. The Proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The 12 -story building height requirement applies to professional and business office developments within PC -15 Koll Center. The proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, the latter which identifies building height rather than the number of stories associated with site-specific development. With respect to building height, it states: Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by an approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project with 13 -story buildings up to 160 feet above the ground level are evaluated in the Draft EIR. Response 2 The Project development area is 12.56 acres which is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.6 (Size of Residential Village) which allows a project area to include multiple parcels that are contiguous to or that face one another across the street in a different land use category. For density qualification, the Project has a total of 8.46 acres of net land area (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the proposed tentative tract map), The Koll Center Residences Project 3-320 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S70 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments exclusive of existing and new right-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood park for a Project density of 30.7 dwelling units per acre. Response 3 The commenter references landscape requirements for office uses associated with PC -15 Koll Center. The Please refer to Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, in the Draft EIR. The landscape plan will be subject to City approval as a part of Site Development review process. Response 4 As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the Project requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC 15) Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Site B (Anomaly Location 2) within Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area). The anomaly locations for the Airport Area are shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR. Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. Residential amenities do not count towards development limits; they area part of the dwelling unit count. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area L4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-321 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Response 5 The opinions of the commenter are noted. Response 6 Please refer to the responses to the respective comment letters noted. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-322 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 Responses to Comments 372 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Letter C -22b Susan Skinner November 13, 2017 -----Original Message ----- From: Susan Skinner [maiito:seskinner@me.coml Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 10:29 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.Roy> Subject: One additional comment forthe Koll EIR Rosalinh, I would appreciate having you affirm that you received my letter sent via Email last Friday regarding the Koll Residences EIR. I have one more comment to add to that, which is that I believe thatthe city's decision not to include parking garages in the sq footage calculated for Greenlight is an error. Based on my reading of the original Greenlight, intensity of development is one of three primary concerns of the initiative (which addressed traffic, density and intensity). The addition of parking garages to these buildings clearly adds intensity, but has not been counted for Greenlight and I consider this to be not in keeping with the intent of Greenlight. Additionally, part of the parking garage will be used for parking of the other developments already on site and thus cannot be considered to be part of the necessary parking for the dwelling units. Thank you, Susan Skinner The Koll Center Residences Project 3-323 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 379 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments As noted in the General Plan Housing Element, all housing opportunity sites, including the project site, are not subject to City Charter Section 423 as a result of voter approval of Measure V in November 2006. Section 423 of the City Charter (Measure S) requires voter approval of a project that increases density, intensity, or peak hour trip, above that provided for in the General Plan. Significance is quantified as 100 or more dwelling units, over 100 peak hour trips, or 40,000 or more square feet of nonresidential floor area. Charter Section 423 applies exclusively to General Plan amendments. Therefore, the square footage of the parking structures is not recognized as floor area per the General Plan Land Use Element. The opinion of the commenter is noted. The proposed Project is considered consistent with applicable transportation policies of SLAG, the City's General Plan, and the California Coastal Act. A project can have environmental impacts while being consistent with planning policies. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-324 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :M City of Newport Beach Letter C-23 Jim Mosher November 13, 2017 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments November 13, 2017 Rosalmh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department, Planning Division 10o Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (via RungOnewoortbeachca.aov) Re: Comments on Koll Center Residences Draft EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung, In the several weeks it has been available for public review, I have not had time to thoughtfully review the above -referenced document and hence hope to be able to do so, and submit additional comments, prior to the public hearings on the project. In the meantime, among my many initial concerns, some major ones are these: 1. From the publics perception, release of the DEIR was long delayed. The contract with ICimley Hom (C-7030-1) was awarded on February 23, 2016, with a Scoping Meeting expected in near the end of April and DEIR expected for public review by mid- September, 2016. For reasons that have not been publicly explained, the Scoping Meeting was delayed to January 18, 2017, and the DEIR was not available until September 13, 2017 (a year later than planned and taking 8 months from scoping to completion, instead of the anticipated 5 months). One assumes this means there were problems or concerns about the proposal, and unanticipated complications in preparing the DEI R. If that is true, it would have seemed helpful to disclose what those were so the public could consider whether they have been adequately addressed. 2. In 2006, Newport Beach voters were asked to approve certain Land Use Tables in the Land Use Element of a General Plan tentatively adopted by the Council pending that approval. In addition to setting general land use limits, those tables set specific development limits for a number of "Anomalies." The present proposal appears to require the transfer of 3,019 sf of that voter -approved development limit from one Anomaly to another. I have not been able to find any explanation of why that change is necessary (is there no unbuilt development left in the present Anomaly?). Nor, if it is necessary, have I found any explanation of why that change in allowances would not trigger the need for a General Plan Amendment. While it is true that in General Plan Policy LU 4.3 (which was never presented to or approved by voters) the City Council foresees that future transfers may occur, and even be appropriate under certain circumstances (including that it benefit the City with a better result), nothing in the General Plan says that as part of the granting of a transfer the Land Use Tables don't have to be amended to reflect the resulting allocations (including the creation of new Anomalies if the transfers involve moving allocations from or to areas The Koll Center Residences Project 3-325 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation RM Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Comments on Koll Center Residences DEIR- Jim Mosher (11/13/2017) Page 2 of 4 not currently covered by an Anomaly). Indeed, to not amend the tables would createcont'd T confusing inconsistencies in land use regulations. 1 2 In addition to potential impacts on traffic, as I stated at. the Scoping Meeting, it should be obvious one of the major concerns about this proposal should be how it will affect the aesthetics of what is arguably one of the more beautiful and aesthetically -planned, "low density" open -space office parks in Orange County. I am at aloss as to how the public is expected to assess the adequacy with that has been addressed in the absence of anything showing us what the project, if built, including its parking garage, would actually look like in the context of the existing office park (including the adjacent Uptown Newport 3 as proposed to be built out by the same developer). Aside from Figure 3-9 (apparently "taken" from an unidentified vantage point on the spine street, but sans parking structure, and from all one can tell as likely at an oasis in the Sahara sands of North Africa), I am unable to find anything at all showing how the new project would from ground level appear in the business park context, let alone from a variety of vantage points, including the adjacent streets and the proposed new public road through the site. The remainder of this is basically a set of random comments based on a very quick review of a rather arbitrary sampling of pages in the DEIR copies available in the public libraries (as well as online, since, as explained below, the library copies did not appear to contain the complete DEIR). To my mind, the number of errors and inconsistencies encountered in those few pages creates serious doubts about the adequacy of the internal review, and therefore about the conclusions reached. 4. The DEIR copies available in the public libraries have a rear cover pocket containing a CD-ROM, enticingly labeled "Koll Center Residences - Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices —September 2017' [emphasis added]. As best I and the librarians have been able to tell, the CD-ROM contains nothing but a single file reproducing the 582 pages of the printed "Volume 1" (from the cover to page 9-12), with no appendices. While it's truethe appendices can be downloaded from the City website, only after doing so was I able to decipher the meaning of the mysterious titles found in "Volume 11 LIST OF APPENDICES" on page x of the print edition (for example, that "Appendix G Phase P' is actually the "Environmental Site Assessment," and 'Appendix K Sub -Area MasterPlan Addendum" is the "IRWD Preliminary Sub -Area Master Plan Addendum," which, knowing the true title, I would assume has something to do with water supply, since I believe Airport Area wastewater disposal is handled by the City of Newport Beach). This might make one think the authors were trying to obscure access to information, rather than facilitate it 5. My confidence in what I was reading was further shaken when I looked at the Project Description, and discovered it differed from that I saw in the Notice of Preparation —the 6 12.56 acre site of the NOP having grown to 13.16 acres with readers seemingly left to guess for themselves what happened. My theory (and it's only a theory) is this The Koll Center Residences Project 3-326 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 322 Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments Comments on Koll Center Residences DEIR- Jim Mosher (11/13/2017) Page 3 of 4 happened because "The 4440 Von Kamran Avenue office building is a part of the Project" in the DEIR (per page 1-1 of the DEIR), and it was not in the NOP (per the paragraph starling at the bottom of pagel of the NOP). However, the exact boundaries of the development project are hard to guess from the DEIR since many of the diagrams cont'd (such as Figure 3-13) show much of the area (including the 4440 Von Karmen building 5 itself, and the parking lots to the north of it, unchanged. All of this is further confused by Figure 3-6, which appears to depict the in -fill project as consisting only of a 3.98 acre "Mixed -Use Residential Overlay" plus a 1.26 acre "Park Overlay" — much smaller than the newly claimed 13.16 acres. 6. If seems incredible the "Elevations" of Figure 3-10 and "Building Sections" of Figure 3-116 I have no indication of height. 1 7. In that same vein, why do so many of the figures in the DEIR say they are "not to scale." T "Not to scale" generally means the proportions can't be trusted. If so, what evidentiary 7 value do they have. Do the DEI R authors mean they are drawn accurately to scale, but the scale is not specified? And if not, why is it not specified? 1111 8. I share the puzzlement expressed by Allan Beek at the applicant's sumptuously catered October 30 public presentation in the Central Library Friends Room about the "yellow brick roads" — by which I believe he was referring to the pedestrian pathways of, for 8 example, Figures 3-13 and 3-14, which appear to meander across and along the vehicular through -lanes. Without further explanation, are pedestrians expected to similarly meander down these streets and scurry out of the way when they see cars coming? 9. Figure 4-1 has numbered circles that presumably are intended to identify the locations of the projects listed in Table 4-1. But everything from "4" on appears to be one off, leading to great confusion. For example, "ExplorOcean" is shown in the Airport Area, a little 9 northwest of the proposed project, when it is actually along the harbor, adjacent to the Balboa Pavilion. 10. The "Determination/Status" in Table 4-1 is frequently and confusingly out of date. I 10 11. Figure 4.1-1 puzzlingly has what I believe to be the border between Newport Beach and Irvine (Campus Drive) mislabeled as "Birch St," making the proposed project appear a 11 smaller entity in a larger context than it really is. 12. Figure 4.1-1 further diminished my confidence in the adequacy of the DEIR by labeling numerous measurements as "Height to Sea. Level (NAVD 88)." Since building heights are a recurrent issue discussed in numerous places, the authors of the DEIR may wish to know that heights in the NAVD 88 system are not at all the same as the (constantly changing) "height to [mean] sea level." In fact, the zero point of NAVD 88 is currently 12 much closer to Mean Lower Low Water than to Mean Sea Level in the vicinity of Newport Beach. On further examination, a large amount of text and exhibits in the DEIR needs to be revised to clarify if the elevations listed are NAVD 88 or relative to sea level (and if sea level, what kind and epoch). The Koll Center Residences Project 3-327 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3 es City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Comments on Koll Center Residences DEIR- Jim Mosher (11/13/2017) Page 4 of 4 13. The DEIR refers in some places to the "Transfer of up to 3,000 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Site A to Site B" (for example, on pages 1-2 and 3-19) and in others to the "transfer of up to 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Kell Center Site A to Site B (for 13 example, page 3-5). Why the discrepancy? Which is correct? How is one expected to believe an ElRthat can't keep its numbers straight? 14. As I understand it, the 2010 Integrated Conceptual Development Plan envisions T residential villages built around community parks. This proposal is clearly not for 1 h residences around a park but rather with residences having a park nearby, to thei r side. Where is that addressed, and why is that not a problem? 15. The proposed parking concept does not appear to be environmentally friendly. The construction of the parking structure seems designed to make parking convenient for future residential tenants while making it more difficult for the existing office workers. But the office workers will need to arrive and leave each day wherever they park. Whereas trips by the residential tenants will likely be more discretionary. Residents would seem incentivized to avoid unnecessary trips by car if the parking for them was the one made less convenient. 16. Finally, I wonder if the applicant will given an opportunity to the review the comments received on the DEIR and suggest responses to them before the public and decision 16 makers see the Final EI R? Again, the errors and discrepancies noted in this tiny sampling of pages makes me doubt theT 17 adequacy of the DEI R as a whole. 1 Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher( iimmosherOvahoo.com ) 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach CA 92660 The Koll Center Residences Project 3-328 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 324 City of Newport Beach Response 1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter's opinions are not based in fact and no not raise a CEQA issue. No further response is required. Response 2 Per the 2006 General Plan, Anomaly Location 1 allows for 460,095 sf of development. There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1, with 3,019 sf of remaining unbuilt square footage under the control of Koll Center Newport. Should the City approve the transfer as a part of the Proposed Project, Anomaly Location 1 would be capped at 457,076 sf. Anomaly Location 2 would increase from 1,052,880 to 1,055,899 sf, a net increase of 3,019 sf. No other changes to Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, would occur. As a part of the Proposed Project, the City will consider an amendment to the Koll Center Planned Community Text to allow for the transfer of 3,019 gross sf of unused office/retail square footage from Office Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Office Site B (Anomaly Location 2) of Koll Center Newport. The transfer of 3,019 sf of unused development rights between Anomaly Location 1 and Location 2 does not require a General Plan Amendment. The transfer between the two areas does not cause a change in land use or trigger the voter approval requirements set forth in City Charter Section 423. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.3 allows for transfers of development rights and is implemented by Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.46.030 which permits transfers of development rights where the donor and receiver sites are located within the same General Plan Statistical Area. Both sites are located within the Koll Center Newport Planned Development Plan and General Plan Land Use Statistical Area L4. Both Anomaly Locations 1 and 2 are in Statistical Area L4 (see attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU3). There is available remaining square footage within Statistic Area L4 to accommodate the transfer. The City tracks and updates the Anomaly tables as applicable. Response 3 The commenter's opinions regarding Koll Center Newport and other office parks are noted. Figure 3-8 depicts the three buildings looking northwest. The Duke Hotel, Atrium Building and the Airport Tower on Von Karman Avenue, and one of the office buildings in MacArthur Court on Birch Street are visible in the background. Figure 3-9 also depicts the three buildings at the ground level looking northwest. The Project plans have been available on the City's website (http://www.newportbeachca.gov/trending/projects-issues/the-koll-residences). Included are conceptual plans for the free-standing parking structure which would be located between the existing 5000 Birch Street parking structure, the 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building, and the Uptown Newport site. Response 4 All copies of the CDs should have included the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR appendices. The commenter can obtain a copy of the CD at the City of Newport Beach. The titles of the appendices do not raise a CEQA issue; no further response is required. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-329 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3215 City of Newport Beach Response 5 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The commenter is correct that the project site acreage increased to reflect the inclusion of the 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building. As addressed in Section 3.0, Project Description, "...the 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building is a three-story (62 feet) structure located south of the 4490 Von Karman Avenue office building. The 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building is a part of the Project to allow for the inclusion of the property into the landscape plan including the provision of non -potable irrigation, as well as sidewalk improvements and the reconfiguration of accessible parking. No change in the square footage of the building is proposed as a part of the Project." This change, per CEQA, is not considered significant new information and, therefore, recirculation of the NOP was not deemed necessary. With respect to Figure 3-13, this exhibit shows existing and proposed vehicular gates. Figure 3-6 depicts the proposed changes to PC -15 Koll Center to include a Public Park Overlay and a Mixed -Use Residential Overlay. Exhibits have different purposes. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.6 requires that the overall mixed-use project site acreage must be a minimum of ten gross acres. This acreage may include multiple parcels if they are continuous or face one another across an existing street. The policy also allows staff to include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category (office, retail, etc.) to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity (to create the mixed-use environment). The Proposed Project meets these requirements by having a site area of 12.56 acres as original proposed. This was changed from 12.56 to 13.16 with the inclusion of 4440 Von Karman Avenue property. Figure 3-13 shows the overall parking and access for the entire Koll Newport Center, including the proposed development. Figure 3-6 show the proposed overlay zone where the residential buildings and public park to be placed (as we do not want the residential units and park anywhere on Office Site B). Each of these figures are being used to illustrate certain information. The density required by LU6.15.7 is calculated based on the net area of the parcels (Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Tract Map) which is 8.46/260= 30.7 du/ac. Response 6 As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, "The 260 dwelling units would be in three, 13 -story buildings with a maximum building height of 160 feet in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77." Response 7 The commenter has identified which exhibits. The scale is not relevant to many of the exhibits. For example, Figure 3-13, shows existing and proposed vehicular gates; the location of the gates is the relevant information. In their original format, scaled exhibits have been prepared and are accurate; see the response to Comment 3. However, when reduced, the scale is modified. Figures 4.1-2a through 4.1- 2h mistakenly reference that the images are not to scale; the images are to scale. Response 8 The Project Applicant's presentation on October 30, 2017 was not sponsored by the City of Newport Beach. As previously addressed, Figure 3-13 shows existing and proposed vehicular gates. Figure 3-12 conceptually depicts existing and proposed pedestrian pathways and crosswalks within the project site The Koll Center Residences Project 3-330 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation RM Section 3.0 City of Newport Beach Responses to Comments and connections to off-site locations. Figure 3-14 conceptually depicts the landscape plan which also shows walkways and crosswalks. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, "There are existing sidewalks along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Additionally, there is a sidewalk along one side of Driveways 2, 3, and 4. The sidewalk at Driveway 4 extends to and fronts the 5000 Birch Street office building. Asa part of the Project, walkways would be provided within the site and connect to these existing sidewalks along the streets (Figure 3-12). Walkways would be provided along the Project frontage to the spine street and into Buildings 1, 2, and 3; along a portion of the west side of Driveway 2; between Buildings 1 and 2 and the 4910 Birch Street office building; between Buildings 2 and 3 and the 4440 Von Karman Avenue office building; and on the west side of the free-standing parking structure." Response 9 The commenter has noted an inconsistency between Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1 has been revised to delete project location 3, and to renumber the subsequent cumulative project locations. The cumulative analysis provided in the EIR was based on the callouts of the figure and does not cause the analysis to be flawed. Response 10 The information is current as of preparation of the Draft EIR. Response 11 Figure 4.1-1 has been corrected and incorporated into the Final EIR. The mislabeling of Campus Drive as Birch Street does not affect the analysis contained in the EIR. Response 12 Unless otherwise stated in the EIR, references are to height to grade. No revisions are required. Response 13 The proposed revisions to the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) would allow for a maximum of 3,019 gross square feet of commercial uses. The Project proposes 3,000 square feet (sf) of retail uses. Page 1-2 has been revised as follows: The Project also requires the approval of a transfer of development rights to transfer up to 3989 3,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail space from Koll Center Site A to Koll Center Site B. Page 3-19 has been revised as follows: Transfer of Development Rights: Transfer of up to 37989 33,019 sf of unbuilt office/retail from Koll Center Site A to Site B. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-331 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation S2 City of Newport Beach Response 14 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) is not a regulatory document. The ICDP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Uptown Newport site, and for the redevelopment of subject portion of the Koll Center Newport office park with new residential development and open space. The locations of residential villages and parks — are approximate, not at the exact locations. GP Policy LU6.15.15 specified the location of neighborhood park as follow: LU 6.15.14 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. As it applies to the Proposed Project, the location of the park cannot be moved because it needs to be surrounded by public accessible streets (i.e., not gated) on at least two sides, in this case Birch Street and Spine Street as these are open and accessible to the general public at all time. Response 15 The opinion of the commenter is noted; no further response is required. Response 16 The question does not raise a CECA issue; no further response is required. Response 17 The City disagrees with the opinion of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-332 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 to Comments FIGURE 41: Development Activity in the City of Newport Beach Kimle »Horn ces The Koll Center ResidenProject Not to sc,lo �l The Koll Center Residences Project 3-333 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 2Gq Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-334 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3J° O Section 3.0 to Comments Soume. AVE +Partnem, 2011 FIGURE 4.1-1: Contextual Building Heights ® Not tousle Kimley»i Horn The Koll Center Residences Project The Koll Center Residences Project 3-335 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 to Comments This page intentionally left blank. The Koll Center Residences Project 3-336 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 3� 2 Section 4.0 City of Newport Beach Native American Tribal Consultation 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION At the request of Andrew Salas, Chairman, of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, the City of Newport Beach entered into consultation consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d), Assembly Bill 52. A meeting was held on December 12, 2017 at the City of Newport Beach City Hall. In attendance were: Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation Matt Teutimez, Tribal Biologist, Gabriele"no Band of Mission Indians —Kizh Nation Gary Stickel, Tribal Archaeologist, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates Mr. Salas and Mr. Teutimez noted that it is important to recognize that even development sites that have been disturbed can have resources, including fill material. Fill can be brought in from other areas. Another example is obsidian (volcanic) was used as arrowheads for hunting larger animals. Obsidian brought in; there are no local sources. Mr. Salas provided some familial background. It was noted thatthere is a need for archaeologist and a Native American monitorto understand the tribal resources. The representatives requested that EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.4-1 be revised to require that the Native American monitor be selected by the Lead Agency rather than the archaeologist. In response to this request, the City has proposed a modification to MM 4.4-1. The City does not have the expertise to select the most appropriate Native American monitor. However, the modifications to the measure reflect that the monitor is not under contract to the archaeologist and the selection of a Native American monitor requires input from the City. MM 4.4-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][31) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEOA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or action that would permit project site disturbance (whichever occurs first), the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that the Applicant has separately retained a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to observe grading activities and if preservation in place is not feasible, to salvage and catalogue historic and archaeological resources, as necessary. The selection of a qualified Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor shall be made with input from the archaeologist subject to the approval of the City. The The Koll Center Residences Project 4-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation SJs City of Newport Beach Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be present at the pre -grade conference; the archaeologist shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. Because of the disturbed condition of the project site, the duration of monitoring by both the archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be determined by the archaeologist and the Native American monitor. If the archaeologist, with the A and the Native American monitor, determines that they are unique historic or archaeological resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2 or a tribal cultural resource as defined by PRC Section 21074, then the archaeologist and Native American monitor shall conduct additional excavations as determined to be necessary to avoid impacts to these resources by the development. If they are not "unique" then no further mitigation would be required. Unique cultural resources shall be determined based on the criteria set forth in Section 21083.2 of CECA. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The Kell Center Residences Project 4-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 394 City of Newport Beach 5 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined. Revised figures are provided at the end of Section 4.0. Section 1.0, Executive Summary Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program, has been revised and incorporated into the Final EIR to clarify and provide consistency with Section 4.10, Noise. Table 1-1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Program Environmental Impacts/ Level Summary of Mitigation Program: Level of of Significance Before Project Design Features, Standard Significance Thresholds Applied Mitigation Conditions, and Mitigation Measures After Mitigation. Noise Construction Noise... Construction P-.�.e:.wa"y Significant Impact. Noise: Operational Noise; ... Significant and Potentially Significant. Unavoidable. Stationary Noise:... Operational Potentially Significant. Noise: Less than Significant Stationary Noise: Less than Significant The Koll Center Residences Project 5-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 39'5 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0, Project Description Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation With respect to the total required parking spaces, Table 3-4. Parking Summary, has been revised to 555 and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Table 3-4. Parking Summary Dwelling Units Proposed Parking Ratio Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Total Total (du) Required Spaces' Total (du) Required Spaces' Total (du) Required Spaces'' Total (du) Required Spaces'' Provided Spaces 1 Bedroom 1.8 17 31 16 29 17 30 50 90 - 2 Bedrooms 1.8 60 108 60 108 60 108 180 324 - 3 Bedrooms 2.0 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 60 - Total Resident Parking 87 159 86 157 87 158 260 474 477 Guest 0.3 27 26 87 27 79 80 Required 186 183 186 � 555 557 Provided in Buildings 1, 2, 3 426 369 795 Free -Standing Parking Structure (office use)` 492 Total: New Structured Parking 1,287 Surface Parking: Retail, Public Park 21 Surface Parking: Office 97 Total: Surface Parking 118 Total New Parking: Structured and Surface 1,405 Total Existing Parking 1,651 Total Demolished Parking -819 Total New Parking 1,405 Net Change 586 Note: Parking Ratio = number of spaces per bedroom; du = dwelling unit b. "Required" parking ratios are in accordance with the standards adopted for Uptown Newport, Source: Uptown Newport Village Parking Study Guidelines, DKS, 2012, and as proposed for the Project as part of the PC -15 amendment. C. Any differences due to rounding d. Nine levels: three levels of below -ground parking and six levels of above -ground parking including rooftop parking. Source: MVE+Partners, 2017. With respect to the Plaza Gardens, page 3-13 has been modified to cross-reference the callouts on Figure 3-14: Plaza Gardens. The Plaza Gardens would include four components: Entry Gardens C1 Stars of the Bay Plaza L(L2b The Marsh 0and Von Karman Plaza C4 (Figure 3-14; the references to C1 through C4 are shown on the figure). The Kell Center Residences Project 5-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation SJO Section 4.0 City of Newport Beach Native American Tribal Consultation Figure 3-12, Circulation Plan, identifies the locations of the driveways. As requested, this information has been added to Figure 3-14. Section 4.0, Environmental Setting With respect to potential modifications or substitutions to the Mitigation Program, Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, has been clarified and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "modification' and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for review and approval consistent with Municipal Code Section 20.54.070: Changes to an Approved Proiect. Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to any PDF, SC, and/or MM shall be maintained in the Project file with the MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request. Figure 4-1 has been revised to delete project location 3, and to renumber the subsequent cumulative project locations. Section 4.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources Section 4.1 incorrectly identifies the measure as MM 4.10-6. Page 4.1-13 has been revised and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is in an urbanized area with existing sources of lighting. The site currently contains light standards within the surface parking areas. Additional lighting in the area includes vehicle headlights, traffic signals, illuminated signage, and lighting associated with office and commercial uses. The introduction of additional light sources would not be a significant impact. Building materials would minimize the potential for glare. MM 4.10-97 in Section 4.10, Noise, would mitigate potential lighting impacts associated with the free-standing parking structure to a less than significant level. Section 4.2, Air Quality The CaIEEMod run has been revised to incorporate the parking structures for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 and to incorporate the residential square footage. Additionally, refinements were made to the construction acreage assumptions. Refinements to operational assumptions also included incorporating improvements from regulatory requirements such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards, and accounting forthe Project's density and proximity to jobs. These model updates and refinements would not change the magnitude of impacts or the conclusions and mitigation in the Draft EIR. The Koll Center Residences Project 5-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation SJ 7 City of Newport Beach Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation Table 4.2-6. Unmitigated Construction -Related Emissions Pollutant (pounds per day)2a, b Coarse Fine Reactive Carbon Sulfur Particulate Particulate Organic Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide Matter Matter Construction Year Gases (ROG) Oxide (NOx) Monoxide (CO) (SO2) (PM20) (PM2.5) 2018 S-.2-26.69 47..1365_90 355..14 44.03 0440.17 4:02-8.67 2-.7-33.46 2019 19.9-510.10 66.4466_41 71:-2-3-71_55 0.24 16.9316.92 5.83 2020 94-79.23 74 82 72_68 66.72 67_06 0.24 16.66 5.57 2021 17:9917_65 142,43135.08 136.81129.05 9,41-0_40 33:6530.61 133612_86 2022 9-.839.89 73.69 79_68 768-1-77_61 0.27 26:6323.45 9-.67-9.42 Highest of all Years 47-9917.65 14283-135.08 136.81-129.05 0 410.40 33.65-30.61 434612.86 SCAQMD Potentially 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold No Yes No No No No Exceed SCAQMDr a. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. No Yes I No No No No Threshold? a. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. b. Construction emission incorporate reductions/credits in CaIEEMod that are required by the SCAQMD. The credits include the following: replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces two times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a Table 4.2-7. Mitigated Construction -Related Emissions Pollutant (pounds per day)",' Coarse Fine Reactive Carbon Sulfur Particulate Particulate Organic Nitrogen Monoxide Dioxide Matter Matter Construction Year Gases (ROG) Oxide (NOx) (CO) (SO2) (PM20) (PM2.$) 2018 3.994.33 44..2457_87 49:99-52_59 9440.17 6.29 6.57 2.242.80 2019 7677.61 606959.72 718971.59 0.24 13.3113.30 4-7-5-4.74 2020 7E&7.06 62.86-62.17 67.8367.44 0.24 133313.32 4:674.66 2021 1i.17-11_06 118.47-113.15 145-29135.09 9.440.40 23.64 22.11 19.839.50 2022 7-2-5-7.28 638870.50 8989 85.93 0.27 17 4716.35 6-.64-6.57 Highest of all Years 14,1711.06 149A.7-113.15 146.2x9135.09 0,43-0.40 23.6422.11 19.039.50 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD No Yes No No No No Threshold? a. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. b. Construction emission incorporate reductions/credits in CaIEEMod that are required by the SCAQMD. The credits include the following: replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces two times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. c. Mitigation includes the use of CARB certified Tier 3 engines. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a The Kell Center Residences Project 5-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Newport Beach Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation Table 4.2-9. Operational Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds per day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coarse Particulate Matter (PMio) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Summer Emissions Area 6-.89-16.31 4.13 X9 23.40 0.03 0.43 0.43 Energy 9.09 .08 0.77 0.71 0.330.30 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 1.661.97 6.4 6.72 29.6920.50 0.090.06 7.94.77 1.961.32 Total Summer Emissions X64-18.37 41-.3-1-11.56 4433 44.20 941-0.09 7-.69-5.26 2-.45-1.81 Winter Emissions Area 6.5316_31 4.13 23.1 923.40 23_40 0.03 0.43 0.43 Energy 8:830.11 90.71 0.330.30 0.00 0.06 0.06 Mobile 1.631.95 6.57 6.89 199920.21 8 &0.06 7:294.77 1.961.32 Total Winter Emissions S.61-18.35 41.47-11.73 43.42-43.91 841-0.09 7.69-5.26 245-1.81 SCAQM D Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No Note: emissions rates differ from summer to winter because weather factors are dependent on the season, and these factors affect pollutant mixing/dispersion, ozone formation, etc. Source: Michael Baker International, 2017a Section 4.4, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.4-1 has been expanded to reflect the directives of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources, and is incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM4.4-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4ib1131) direct public agencies wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested bythe State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space: (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil: and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Priorto the issuance of a grading permit and/or action that would permit project site disturbance (whichever occurs first), the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that the Applicant has retained a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to observe grading activities and if preservation in place is not feasible, to salvage and catalogue historic and archaeological resources, as necessary. The selection of a qualified Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians Native American monitor shall be made by the archaeologist subject to the approval of the City.... The Kell Center Residences Project 5-5 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 399 City of Newport Beach Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation The CalEEMod run has been revised to incorporate the parking structures for Buildingsl, 2, and 3 and to incorporate the residential square footage. Additionally, refinements were made to the construction acreage assumptions. Refinements to operational assumptions also included incorporating improvements from regulatory requirements such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards, and accounting forthe Project's density and proximity to jobs. These model updates and refinements would not change the magnitude of impacts or the conclusions and mitigation in the Draft EIR. Table 4.6-3. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions– Metric Tons per Year Construction Year CO2e 2018 1,442 1� 140 2019 2,68 2 061 2020` - 11549 2021 247-2 2 693 2022 92-6927 Total Construction &,3538370 Source: Michael Baker International, 2017b. Table 4.6-4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Project Operation — Metric Tons per Year Emissions Source CO2e Construction Amortized over 30 Years 285 279 Area Source 61 Energy 463 987 Mobile x-282962 Waste 31 Water and Wastewater 116 Total 1,439 2 157 SCAQMD Bright -line threshold 3,000 Exceeds threshold? No Source: Michael Baker International, 2017b. Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning The analysis for General Plan LU Policy 6.2.1 has been revised as follows: Consistent: The Project is consistent with this policy. The General Plan Housing Element identifies five locations—Newport Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and the Balboa Peninsula—as key sites for future housing opportunities. The General Plan designates these areas as appropriate for development of up to =�,_ 44,446 new dwelling units jsource: Table H32 Site Analysis and Inventory Summary). The project site is in the Airport Area and 260 units are identified as additive units for the site. The Kell Center Residences Project 5-6 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 400 City of Newport Beach Section 4.14, Traffic and Transportation Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation Table -4.14-18. Intersection Operation -CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project No. Intersection Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. a 0.610 B 0.832 D 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. 9.4740.493 A B -97.B 0.589 A 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 9§32 0.653 B 93470.635 1+B 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. a 8,7560.806 ED 0:8210.866 D 5 MacArthur Blvd. SB at University Dr. 0.563 A 0.514 A 6 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr. a 0.619 B 0.839 D 7 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr. a 0.650 B 0.742 C 8 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St. 0.3450.376 A 93880.408 A 9 Teller Ave. at Campus Dr. a 0.435 A 0.522 A 10 Teller Ave. at Birch St. 13.4 B 13.2 B 11 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps a 0.800 C 0.916 E 12 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps a 1.133 F Jff 1.019 F 13 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr. a 0.901 D 1.079 F 14 Jamboree Rd. at Dupont Dr. a 0.704 B 0.729 C 15 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr. a 0.677 B 0.762 C 16 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St. a 0.643 B 0.610 B 17 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Rd. a 0.643 B 0.779 C 18 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 4498 0.422 A 0.590 A 19 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 07570.762 C 0 7530.780 C 20 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 93430.508 A 0 W9 0.542 A 21 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr. 0.=4, 0.710 4 C 93880.711 4 C 22 Carlson Ave. at Campus Dr. a 0.522 A 0.734 C 23 University Dr. at Campus Dr. b 0.841 D 0.869 D 24 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr. 0398 0.620 A B 0446 0.786 C 25 Bristol St. S at Campus Dr./Irvine Ave. 0 761 0.844 6 D 9,6430.718 9C 26 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr. 0.474 A 4.6940.697 B 27 Bristol St. N at Birch St. 9:6800.687 B 0-6470.665 B 28 Bristol St. S at Birch St. 43450.528 A 03930.606 A B 29 Bristol St. S at Bayview PI. &4430.460 A 0,4940.504 A Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service. Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology, and average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM Methodology. a. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. b. A5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS). Source: Kimley-Horn, 2017. The Kell Center Residences Project 5-7 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 401 City of Newport Beach This page intentionally left blank. The Kell Center Residences Project 5-8 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 4.0 Native American Tribal Consultation G of w FIGURE 3d4k Conceptual landscape Plan The .all Cenlar Pb�au. Rope Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions The Kell Center Residences Project 5-9 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 40S Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-10 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 404 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions FIGURE 41: Development Activity in the City of Newport Beach ©nNrta.uN KimleyoHorn The Kell Center Residences Project The Rall Center Residences project 5-11 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 405 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-12 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 'I T�� of HEIGHTTG GRADE', 112'-0" HENUM SEA LEVEL (AVO M. 167 1350 VON KARM41 4VENUE 1EIeH1 ii `L HEI6HTiL'..., , 40H MA-,AFTHUR BOULEVARD Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions I _'\'dT TO SEA LEVEL(Mn Se 142' T Sr..: MVE a Partners, 2017 FIGURE 4.1-1: Contextual Building Heights The Koll Center Residences Project Not to scale Kimley��Horn The Koll Center Residences Project 5-13 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 407 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-14 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 402 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions FIGURE 4.14-3: Existing Transit Routes Kimley Morn Koll Center Residences Project N Not to scale The Rall Center Residences project 5-15 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 4o0 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-16 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation :LD Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions -ITY of NENi W BEAC GENERAL PIAN Figure LU3 STATISTICALAREA MAP The Rall Center Residences Project 5-17 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 412 Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions The Rall Center Residences Project 5-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 41= JAI : P _I., tic -C .6:— ` '�t...,il. �- �'- 1910 -• -' `4LJtIJl1111JL r �� - (\}Ire\1 •1 73 •'!l! tlt.- IMO r 1 - Z i \'!!0 4 „ A-01.6 The Rall Center Residences Project 5-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 41= Section 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions This page intentionally left blank. The Rall Center Residences project 5-20 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 4-14 415 410 Attachment No. PC 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 427 412 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC H NO. 2017011002 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date January 2018 4:LZ The Koll Center Residences Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13.16 -acre project site includes land legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 445-131-04,-09,-29, and -30. The project site is an irregularly-shaped property generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154 -acre mixed-use development area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. The Project would allow for the development of a mixed-use infill residential and retail development with 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. The 260 dwelling units would be in three, 13 -story buildings with a maximum building height of 160 feet in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The buildings would have two levels of above -grade and two to three levels of below -grade structured parking. The public park would be located adjacent Birch Street. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the demolition of existing surface parking and landscaping within the limits of disturbance. All Project residential parking would be provided on site in the residential building parking structures, with additional on-site surface parking for the proposed public park and retail uses. Office parking removed during construction and bythe proposed development would be provided in a new free-standing parking structure, the Building 1 parking structure, and surface parking areas. 1.2 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in orderto mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor Project Design Features (PDFs), Standard Conditions (SCs), and mitigation measures (MMs) outlined in the Koll Center Residences Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. SCH NO. 2017011002. The Koll Center Residences MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. Specifically, Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or t 420 The Koll Center Residences Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. CECtA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the Koll Center Residences Project and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program. The MMRP defines the following for each PDF, SC, and MM identified in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements: • Definition of Mitigation (PDF, SC, MM). The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. • Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, the Applicant is the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. • Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact -related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the Final EIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division. 2 421 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Becorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF(, Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES SC 4.1-1: Obtain site development review approval before the issuance of a Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development building or grading permit in compliance with the City of Newport BeachGrading Community and Building Department—Planning Municipal Code Section 20.52.080. Development permits Division Department; other applicable departments SC 4.1-2: The following City -adopted standard operating conditions of Applicant Submittal of light plan Community Development approval would apply: and photometric study Department—Planning 1. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning prior to issuance of Division Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within Building Permits Code and Water Quality .site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto Final inspection prior to Enforcement Division public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" issuance of Certificates type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero- of Occupancy cut-off fixtures and light standards shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare to the adjacent property. 2. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 4. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the 422 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 5. Public areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 -foot candle on the driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter. See Noise MM 4.10-7. AIR QUALITY PDF 1: Building Design. The Applicant will pursue a Leadership in Energy Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver Certification for the Project. Project Building Permits; during Department—Planning features may include the following. construction Division • Bicycle storage and maintenance facility Verification to City • Electric vehicle charging stations based on U.S. Green • Indoor water use reduction Building Council • Optimized energy performance determination • Low emitting materials • Day lighting • Enhanced indoor air quality features • Earth day functions for residents SC 4.2-1: Dust Control. During construction, the Applicant shall require all Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air QualityConstruct Grading and Building Department — Building Management Districts (SCAQMD's)Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize ion Permits Division construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires Contractor Monitor during grading that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. Rule 402 prohibits and construction the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endangerthe comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons 423 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF(, Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PMso emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c) All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times. e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. SC 4.2-2: Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management Applicant Identify in contractor Community Development District (SCQMQD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end- Construction specifications Department—Building users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce Manager building plan Department reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, check and construction cheDurck and construction primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic 424 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as nates on contractor specifications. Please refer to Greenhouse Gas Emissions SC 4.6-1. MM 4.2-1: Prior to the issuance of Grading Permit, the construction Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development contractor shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director Construction Grading and Building Department—Building and City Traffic Engineer that the following measures will be implemented Manager Permits Division during construction: Identify in approved Public Works Department— a) Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all grading and Traffic Engineer phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. construction plans b) Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks Monitor during grading and equipment both on and off of the project site, and construction c) Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications. d) Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators, as feasible. e) Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. f) During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the project site shall meet EPA -Certified Tier 4 emissions standards, or higher according to the following: • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions 425 The Kell Center Residences Project Monitoring and Retorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of it Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARS regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SC 4.3-1: The Applicant shall be responsible for planting trees in the Applicant Prior to issuance of Municipal Operations parkway abutting the building site in accordance with City rules, regulations Landscape Architect Grading and Building Department—General and policies in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Permits, Landscape Services Division Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees). The parkway trees shall be at least a 36- Plan review inch box of the type, variety and/or species determined by the City in Site inspection accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. If the City determines that because of the location, terrain, or condition of the property that required tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway, the Applicant shall plant the 36 -inch box tree at a location designated by the City. MM 4.3-1: A preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall he conducted by Qualified Biologist Prior to issuance of Community Development a qualified biologist if clearing and grubbing work is conducted within the Applicable resource Grading and Building Department—Planning bird nesting season (typically February 15 to September 15). If an active agencies (if required) Permits for activity Division nest is discovered, disturbance within an established buffer shall be scheduled to occur Municipal Operations prohibited until nesting is complete; the buffer distance shall be from February 15'" determined by the biologist in consultation with applicable resource through September 15" Department—General agencies and inconsideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site of any year. Services Division conditions. Limits of avoidance shall be demarcated with flagging or Where there is an fencing. The biologist shall record the results of the recommended active nest, establish protective measures described above and shall submit a memo avoidance area prior to summarizing any nest avoidance measures to the City to document disturbance 420 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. CULTURAL RESOURCES SC 4.4-1: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section Qualified County Coroner: within Community Development 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process Archeologist 24 hours of a discovery Department— Planning to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human Native American Division remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health Heritage Community Development and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human Commission (NAHC) Department—Building remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall (as necessary) Division be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. MM 4.4-1: The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an Qualified Grading Permit and/or Department—Planning archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Archaeologist action that would Division Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines permit site disturbance include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; Native American (whichever occurs first) (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a monitor chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent Attendance of conservation easement. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or Archaeologist and action that would permit project site disturbance (whichever occurs first), Native American the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that the Applicant monitor at pre -grade has separately retained a qualified archaeologist and Native American meeting monitor to observe grading activities and if preservation in place is not 427 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reaching Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) feasible, to salvage and catalogue historic and archaeological resources, as Identify in approved necessary. The selection of a qualified Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians grading and Native American monitor shall be made with input from the archaeologist construction plans subject to the approval of the City. The archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be present at the pre -grade conference; the archaeologist Monitoring during shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and grading/disturbance shall establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for activities, Including temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, monitoring by Native identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. Because of American Monitor the disturbed condition of the project site, the duration of monitoring by both the archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be determined by the archaeologist and the Native American monitor. If the archaeologist and the Native American monitor, determines that they are unique historic or archaeological resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2 or a tribal cultural resource as defined by PRC Section 21074, then the archaeologist and Native American monitor shall conduct additional excavations as determined to be necessary to avoid impacts to these resources by the development. If they are not "unique" then no further mitigation would be required. Unique cultural resources shall be determined based on the criteria set forth in Section 21083.2 of CEQA. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. MM 4.4-2: Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and/or action Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development that would permit project site disturbance, the Applicant shall provide Qualified Grading Permits and/or Department—Planning written evidence to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Paleontologist action that would Division Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified Paleontologist to permit site disturbance monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout the Identify in approved duration of any ground -disturbing activities at the project site. The grading and paleontologist shall review the Project's final plans and develop and construction plans 422 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Recanting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SCI, Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, which shall include the Monitoring during following minimum elements: grading/ disturbance • All earthmoving activities eight -feet or more below the current activities surface shall be monitored full-time by qualified paleontological monitor. • If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor has the authority to temporarily divert work as deemed necessary to allow recovery of the fossils and evaluation of the fossil locality. • Fossil localities shall require documentation including stratigraphic columns and samples for micropaleontological analyses and for dating. • Fossils shall he prepared to the paint of identification prior to being donated to an appropriate repository. • The final report shall interpret any paleontological resources discovered in the regional context and provide the catalog and all specialists' reports as appendices. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SC 4.5-1: The Project is required to comply with City of Newport Beach Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code. Prior to the Registered Grading Permits Department—Building issuance of any grading permits, the City of Newport Beach Community Geotechnical Identified in approved Division Development Department, Building Division Manager or his/her designee Engineer grading and shall review the grading plan for conformance with the grading shown on construction plans the approved tentative map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days. If the Applicant submits a grading plan that deviates from the grading shown on the approved tentative map, as determined by the Building Manager, s/he shall review the plan for a finding of substantial conformance. If the 10 429 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Recanting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) Building Manager finds the plan not to be in substantial conformance, the Applicant shall process a revised tentative map or, if a final map has been recorded, the Applicant shall process a new tentative map. A determination of CEQA compliance shall also be required, SC 4.5-2: The Project is required to comply with General Plan Safety Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development Element Policies S 4.1 through S4.6, which require new development to be Registered Grading and Building Department—Building incompliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard Geotechnical Permits Division safety standards, and help protect community health and safety through Engineer Identified in approved the implementation of effective, state-of-the-art standards for seismic grading and design of structures. construction plans MM 4.S-1: The Applicant shall submit to the City of Newpart Beach Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Community Development Department, Building Division for review and Registered Grading and Building Department—Building approval, asite-specific, design -level geotechnical investigation prepared Geotechnical Permits Division for the project site by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation Engineer shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements and: a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted methodologies; b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults; c) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related improvements; Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigation in the site-specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the site-specific investigations, provide any additional necessary measures to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all applicable recommendations from the investigation in the The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Rerunning Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF(, Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements. The City's registered geotechnical engineer or third -party registered engineer retained to review the geotechnical reports shall review each site- itespecific specificgeotechnical investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical requirements contained in the investigation in the plans submitted far the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits. The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A1111111 - RAM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of a building, grading, or demolition permit, Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development the Applicant shall prepare a soil management plan for all excavation Grading and Building Department -Building projects conducted on the project site, to be implemented in the event that Permits Division excavation occurs in an area that may contain contaminants and for situations when contaminants that were not previously identified are suspected or discovered. The plan shall identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are encountered during excavation. The appropriate measures shall identify personnel to be notified, emergency contacts, and a sampling protocol. The excavation and demolition contractors shall be made aware of the possibility of encountering known and unknown hazardous materials, and shall be provided with appropriate contact and notification information. The plan shall include a provision stating at what point it is safe to continue with the excavation, and identify the person authorized to make that determination. Removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil or groundwater shall be performed in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The soil management plan shall be submitted for City of Newport Beach for review and approval. The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Rearming Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY PDF 2: Utilize Best Management Practices to Capture and Treat Storm Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Water Construction Grading and Building Department — Building a. Podium. The Project will use a biotreatment or hioretention Manager Permits Division strategies for treating the design capture volume. Roof drainage shall be directed, as appropriate, into landscape areas in the podium gardens. Roof areas will be 100 percent treated in the podium gardens and then discharge directly onto the adjacent landscaped marsh areas that include bioretention strategies with an underdrain. b. Street. The bio -treatment strategy includes the use of proprietary biotreatment devices such as a Modular Wetland System, or an approved equivalent, in streets and parking. Tributary drainage areas and resulting design capture volumes will be treated within the treatment capacities of each biotreatment device. c. Park. Vegetated swales will be used in the park to treat the design capture volume. Vegetated swales will provide pollutant removal through settling and filtration in the vegetation lining the channels. Volume reduction can be incorporated by adding agravel drainage layer underneath the swale allowing additional flows to be retained and infiltrated. If additional support is needed to detain the entire design capture volume, infiltration drywell systems will be incorporated. SC 4.8-1: Prior to the issuance of rough grading permits, an SWPPP and Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Notice of Intent(NDI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction SWRCB Grading and Building Department—Building Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Resources Permits Division Control Board (SW RCB), and made part of the construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the Projects impact on water quality and storm water runoff volumes. 13 432 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Retorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) SC 4.8-2: Prior to issuance of precise grading perm its, the Applicant shall Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Grading and Building Department — Building project, subject to the approval of the Community Development Permits Division Department, Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement. Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPsto ensure project Division runoff is adequately treated. SC4.8-3: During construction,if groundwater is unexpectedly encountered, Applicant During grading and Community Development the Applicant would apply for dewatering coverage and adhere to the construction Department—Building monitoring and reporting program under the Santa Ana Regional Water Division Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Quality Enforcement (NPDES) Order No. R8-2009-0003. Division Santa Ana RWQCB LAND USE AND PLANNING SC 4.9-1: Approval of the Project would require project implementation and Applicant Ongoing conditions of Community Development all future approvals to be subject to all applicable provisions of the Newport approval Department—Planning Beach General Plan; Koil Center Newport Planned Community; all Division requirements and enactments of federal, State, and local agency authorities; as well as the requirements of any other governmental entities. All such requirements and enactments will, by reference, become conditions of project approval. SC 4.9-2: Pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration determination of Applicant Within five days after Community Development No Hazard to Air Navigation for a project, the Applicant is required to file the construction Department—Planning FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration within five reaches its greatest Division days after the construction reaches its greatest height. height. NOISE SC 4.10-1: To ensure compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Applicant Condition of Grading Community Development Section 10.28.040, grading and construction plans shall include a note Construction and Building Permits Department—Building indicating that loud noise -generating Project construction activities (as Monitor during grading Division definedin Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall and construction 14 433 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. Loud, noise -generating construction activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and federal holidays. SC 4.10-2: Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units shall be Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development designed and installed in accordance with Section 10.26.045 of the Construction Grading and Building Department—Building Newport Beach Municipal Code, which specifies the maximum noise levels Manager Permits Division for new HVAC installations and associated conditions. All mechanical equipment shall he screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure, as authorized by a Site Development Review Permit. SC 4.10-3: As required by General Plan Policy N 2.3, the hours of truck Applicant Ongoing Community Development deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise Building Department— Building sensitive land uses shall be limited to minimize excessive noise unless there Management Division is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) noise standards. MM 4.10-1: Grading plans and specifications shall include temporary noise Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development barriers for all grading, hauling, and other heavy equipment operations that Construction Grading and Building Department—Planning and would occur within 300 feet of sensitive receptors and occur for more than Permits Building Divisions 20 working days. The noise barriers shall be a minimum height of 12 feet Manager Identify in approved high. The barriers shall he solid from the ground to the top of the barrier, grading and and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per square foot, which is construction plans equivalent to % inch thick plywood. The harrier design shall optimize the following requirements: (1) the barrier shall be located to maximize the Monitor during grading interruption of line of sight between the equipment and the receptor; (2) and construction the length and of the barrier shall be selected to block the line of sight between the construction area and the receptors; (3) the barrier shall be located as close as feasible to the receptor or as close as feasible to the construction area. 15 434 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Retorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM4.10-2: Prior to the start of grading, the Construction Manager shall Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Construction Grading and Building Department—Building Director and/or Community Development Director, that: Permits Division Manager All construction vehicles and equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be Identify in approved Public Works—Traffic maintained in goad operating condition and be equipped with all internal grading and Engineer combustion, engine -driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust construction plans muffles, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as' Monitor during grading originally equipped by the manufacturer. and construction a) Where stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, is located within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor including offices, the equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit equipment noise. b) Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be located as far away from office buildings adjacent to the project site as feasible. c) Electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment shall be used to the extent possible. d) All internal combustion engine idling both on the site and at nearby queuing areas shall be limited to no more than five minutes for any given vehicle or machine. Signs shall be posted at the jab site and along queueing lanes to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. e) The use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. Use smart back- up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters. 16 435 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Becorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.10-3: At least 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbing or Applicant Written notice at least Community Development other noise generating activities, the contractor shall notify all businesses Construction 30 days prior to ground Department—Building within 500 of the project site of the planned start date, duration, nature of Manager disturbance Division the construction activity, and noise abatement measures to be provided. The notification shall include a contact telephone number for questions and the submittal of any complaints of excess, unanticipated noise or vibration. MM 4.10-4: Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a sign shall be Applicant Prior to the start of Community Development posted at the entrance to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that Construction grading and Department—Building contains a contact name and telephone number of the construction Manager construction activities Division contractor's authorized representative to respond in the event of a vibration or noise complaint. If the authorized representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Director. MM 4.10-5: All residential units shall be designed to ensure that interior Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior sources (including aircraft and Qualified acoustical Building Permits Department—Planning and vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. This Consultant final inspection to Building Divisions mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California issuance of Certificates Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). Prior to of Occupancy granting of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for review and approval architectural plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units would he 45 dBA CNEL or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL limit, Project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. MM 4.10-6: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase T and Phase 2,a Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by Qualified acoustical Building Permits for Department—Planning and a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community consultant Phase 1 and Phase 2 Building Divisions Development Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the City's 60 dBA daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) exterior noise 17 4366, The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) standard, and 50 dBA L,a nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) exterior noise Final inspection prior to standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas. In issuance of Certificates addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior noise levels at of Occupancy all residential units at the project site would meet the City's 45 dBA 4, daytime threshold, and 40 dBA L,a nighttime threshold. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. MM 4.10-7: Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase A, a detailed Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development acoustical study based on architectural plans for the free-standing parking Qualified acoustical Building Permits for Department—Planning and structure shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and consultant Phase A Building Divisions submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that the future adjoining residences to the southeast at the Uptown Newport property would meet the City's 60 dBA 4ndaytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) exterior noise standard, and 50 dBA 4y nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior noise levels at the Uptown Newport residential units would meet the City's 45 dBA 4c daytime threshold, and 40 dBA Lm nighttime threshold. The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by incorporating a solid perimeter barrier or other light and noise -attenuation features at the free-standing parking structure. The final building plans shall incorporate the required noise -attenuation features, and the property owner/ developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. IMM 4.10-8: The parking lot surface of all parking garages shall be textured Applicant Prior to issuance of Comm unity Development to eliminate tire squeal noise. Ventilation equipment for the parking Qualified acoustical Building Permits for Department—Planningand garages shall be designed to meet the Cites noise limits for Zone III, not consultant Phase A Building Divisions exceed exterior daytime maximum of 60 dBA and a nighttime maximum of The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortine Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) 50 dBA. This can be accomplished by selecting quieter equipment or by enclosing ventilation equipment. PUBLIC SERVICES SC 4.12-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development residential and commercial uses, the Applicant shall pay the required Building Permits for Department—Planning Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Phases 1 and 2 Division Municipal Code (§ 2.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities (residential and associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, the City of commercial uses) Newport Beach Public Library, and City of Newport Beach public parks. SC 4.12-2: Prior to City approval of individual development plans forthe Applicant Prior to Site Fire Department Project, the Applicant shelf obtain Fire Department review and approval of Development Review the site plan in order to ensure adequate access to the project site. approval MM 4.12-1: Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first residential Building Permit for first Department—Planning unit(s), the Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall provide residential unit Division payment to the City of Newport Beach for the Project's pro -rata Prior to the issuance of share of the cast for purchasing and equipping a new rescue a Certificate ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) Occupancy forr the first capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. residential unit b) The Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall participate, on a pro -rata basis, in any City -approved funding program for the additional six firefighter/paramedic personnel to staff the new paramedic unit. The funding program may be a community facilities district or other funding program. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first residential unit(s), the Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall execute a written agreement with the City of Newport Beach to participate in such a funding program. c) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit(s), a rescue ambulance with patient transport and 19 438 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortin¢ Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) advanced life support (ALS) capabilities shall be located and operational at the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. RECREATION SC 4.13-1: The Applicant shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Park Applicant Condition of approval Community Development Dedication and Fees Ordinance (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code of Tentative Tract Map Department—Planning Chapter 19.52). The City's tentative map review authority shall determine Land dedication at foal Division whether land dedication, an in -lieu fee, or a combination of the two shall be map recordation required in conjunction with its approval of a tentative map. Land dedications shall be offered at the time of appropriate final map In lieu fees prior to recordation, either on the final map or by separate instrument. issuance of Building Permits TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PDF 4: Improved Project Site Access and Circulation. The Proposed Applicant As a part of application Community Development Project's new circulation pattern from the spine street will provide better for Site Development Department— Planning overall circulation, as well as wayfinding, which will result in more Review Division accessible parking to individual buildings with the existing Koll Center Prior to issuance of Public Works—Traffic Newport. The Project will also include improvements to pedestrian Grading and Building Engineer circulation within Koll Center Newport with the Inclusion of raised Permits crosswalks located at convenient locations within the project site. Final inspection prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy PDF 5: Valet Parking and Shuttle Service. Valet parking, which will be Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development provided during Phase A and Phase 3 of construction, and shuttle service, Valet/Shuttle Grading and Building Department—Planning which will be provided during all phases of construction, will provide Contractor Permits Division convenient parking and building access for guests and tenants of Koll Identify in approved Public Warks—Traffic Center Newport during construction of the Project. grading and Engineer construction plans Monitor during grading and construction 20 4.39 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Rerunning Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SCI, Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) SC 4.14-1: Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any building Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development permit, the Applicant shall prepare for City of Newport Beach Community Grading and Building Department—Planning Development Director and Traffic Engineer review and approval a Permits Division Construction Traffic Management Plan for the Project for the issuance of a Identify in approved Public Works—Traffic Haul Route Permit. The Plan shall identify construction phasing and address grading and Engineer traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other construction plans disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, Monitor during grading the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle and construction staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. Advanced written notice of temporary traffic disruptions shall be provided to emergency service providers and the affected area's businesses and the general public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. Haul operations shall be monitored by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. A staging area shall be designated on site for construction equipment and supplies to be stored during construction. No construction vehicles shall be allowed to stage on off-site roads during the grading and construction period. SC 4.14-2: Sight distance at all intersections shall comply with City of Applicant Prior to issuance of Public Works—Traffic Newport Beach standards. Grading and Building Engineer Permits SC 4.14-3: In compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Traffic Contribution Ordinance, the Applicant shall be responsible for the Grading and Building Department—Planning payment of fair share traffic fees or right-of-way dedication or traffic Permits Division improvements or a combination thereof. Public Works—Traffic Engineer 21 440 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Retorting Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF), Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS PDF 3: Incorporate Efficient Irrigation Design Strategies along with the use Applicant Conditions of approval Community Development of Reclaimed Water. Reclaimed water will be used for all Project of Site Development Department— Building landscaping including the plazas, public park, and podium outdoor spaces Review Division for each of the residential buildings. Reclaimed water would be installed to As part approved Municipal Operations irrigate the existing Koll Center Newport landscape areas within the project precise landscape plans la Department—Utilities site boundaries. While complying with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance in effect at the time of final design, the irrigation design will Division include the use of efficient irrigation systems. Those may include smart IRWD controllers, soil moisture and rain sensors, and source control strategies, all designed to minimize the use of water. SC 4.15-1: The Project would be required to comply with the City of Applicant Conditions of approval Community Development Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 related to water of Site Development Department—Planning conservation and supply level regulations in effect during the construction Review Division and operation of the Project, and Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 with As part of approved Municipal Operations respect to water efficient landscaping. precise landscape plans Department—Utilities Division IRWD SC 4.15-2: The Project would be required to comply with Section 19.28.080 Applicant Condition of Grading Municipal Operations (Storm Drains)of the City's Municipal Code which requires developers to Permit Department—General design and construct all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of Services Division surface water from the site (e.g., open/closed channels, catch basins, manholes, junction structures), and to protect off-site properties from a project's water runoff. The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the standards of the Orange County Flood Division. A drainage fee is also charged to fund improvements to the City's drainage facilities. SC 4.15-4: The Applicant shall prepare and obtain approval of a Applicant Construction and Municipal Operations Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMD)for each Demolition Waste Department—General phase of the Project. The CWMP shall list the types and weights or volumes Management Plan Services Division 22 ^ T�2 The Koll Center Residences Project Monitoring and Reoortin¢ Program Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Project Design Feature (PDF(, Standard Condition (SC), Responsibility for (Signature; Date of Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) of solid waste materials expected to be generated from construction. The (CDWMD); condition of Cl shall include options to divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous Grading and Building materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight Permits or volume. Please refer to PDF 1 23 442 Attachment No. PC 4 Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15) with Proposed Parts VI & VII 443 LM, NOTE: PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For Koll Center Newport Ordinance No. 1449, adopted by the City of Newport Beach August 14, 1972 (Amendment No. __j Original draft May 5, 1972 Amendment (1) August 14, 1972 Amendment (2) August 14, 1972 Amendment (3) August 2, 1973 Amendment (4) February 7, 1974 Amendment (5) June 10, 1974 Amendment (6) May 15, 1975 Amendment (7) September 8, 1975 Amendment (8) June 28, 1976 Amendment (9) January 10, 1977 Amendment (10) July 11, 1978 Amendment (11) August 28, 1978 Amendment (12) October 19, 1978 Amendment (13) November 10, 1980 Amendment (14) March 23, 1981 Amendment (15) October 24, 1984 Amendment (16) May 14, 1984 Amendment (17) December 9, 1985 Amendment (18) July 14, 1986 Amendment (19) March 23, 1987 Amendment (20) July 27, 1987 Amendment (2 1) June 12, 1989 Amendment (22) April 25, 1994 Amendment (23) October 9, 1995 Amendment (24) February 23, 1998 Amendment (25) August 10, 1998 Amendment (26) January 11, 2000 Amendment (27) January 25, 2000 Amendment (28) August 9, 2005 Ordinance No. 2006-19(29) July 25, 2006 Ordinance No. 2006-21(30) October 24, 2006 Ordinance No. 2011-3(31) January 25, 2011 Ordinance No. 2011-8(32) March 8, 2011 Ordinance No. 2013-5(33) March 12, 2013 Ordinance No. See Footnotes beginning on Page 49 for description of amendments. 4415 CONTENTS PAGE NO. PREFACE 1 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 2 GENERAL NOTES 6 DEFINITIONS 7 PART I. INDUSTRIAL —Deleted (33) PART II. COMMERCIAL Section I. 10 Site Area and Building Area Section H. 21 Permitted Uses Section III. 25 General Development Standards for Commercial Land PART III. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section I. 29 PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS Section I. 32 Sign Standards Section H. 35 Sign Area Section III. 35 Maintenance PART V. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section I. 36 General Statement PART VI. MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY 41 PART VII. PUBLIC PARK OVERLAY 47 PART VIII. FOOTNOTES 49 PART VIIII. ATTACHED EXHIBITS Composite ............................................. For Information Only Exhibit A .............................................. Land Use Exhibit B ............................................... Grading and Roads Exhibit C ............................................... Storm Drain Exhibit D .............................................. Water & Sewer Exhibit E ............................................... Boundary and Topography Exhibit F .............................................. Overlay Map — Office Site B Exhibit G ............................................. Pedestrian Connection Diagram 447 54 PREFACE It is the intent of this Planned Community Development to provide comprehensive zoning for Koll Center Newport while adding provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan approved by the City of Newport Beach on December 10, 2010. Existing and planned uses within this development include a hotel with banquet and convention facilities, a small retail and service center, restaurants, a private club, the Orange County Courthouse with the balance of the acreage developed as a business and professional office park emphasizing open space. Residential uses are permitted in accordance with the provisions found in Part V1, herein. (34) 442 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS (1) The site is comprised of approximately 154.0 acres and is generally bounded on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. (10) (33) In order to ensure development consistent with the master plan concept, a review shall be required. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a site development review application shall be submitted by the developer to the Community Development Director for review. The application shall conform to the requirements of this Planned Community text and all other applicable codes and regulations. Included in the plan review material shall be: 1. Building Criteria a. size b. location c. height d. materials 2. Parking Criteria a. areas, including drives and accesses b. quantity c. size 3. Landscaped Areas a. setbacks b. walls c. plazas d. pools, fountains and/or other amenities 4. Signing Criteria a. location b. size c. quantity 5. All other information as required by the City or as directed by the Community Development Director and as recommended below. Items 5a through 5e inclusive. 2 441 a. Sewage System Criteria The sewer system in the vicinity of the lake should be revised to conform to the following criteria: 1. All sewer lines should be located such that they will not be under water even when the lake is at its maximum level. 2. Sewer lines shall be located in 15 -foot wide (minimum) easements and must be accessible to maintenance vehicles at all times. 3. The depth of sewer lines should not exceed 15 feet, with the possible exception of joining the existing system at MacArthur Boulevard. b. Pedestrian Circulation A pedestrian sidewalk system along the public streets shall be constructed throughout the development. The adequacy of such system shall be analyzed independently of any on-site pedestrian walkway system proposed for a particular portion of the development. In addition, connections between Uptown Newport and Koll Center shall be consistent with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (34). C. Bicycle Circulation A system of bicycle paths coordinated with the City's Master Plan of Bicycle Trails and meeting the approval of the Community Development Director and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation shall be developed and maintained within the planned community. d. Erosion Control Landscaping plans shall incorporate provisions for Erosion Control on all graded sites which will remain vacant for a considerable period of time prior to commencement of building construction. e. Traffic Considerations i. Both MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road shall be widened to provide for 6 through lanes, double left tum lanes at all intersections, and free right turning lanes at all intersections. ii. Von Karman shall be widened at the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard to provide 6 lanes. iI 450 iii. All streets on the site except for Von Karman shall be flared to provide at least 5 lanes at intersections with peripheral streets. iv. Birch Street shall be flared to 5 lanes at the intersection with Von Karman. V. Campus Drive shall be widened to provide dual left turn lanes at Von Karman. vi. Von Karman shall be improved for its full length from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive in conjunction with initial development of areas which do not take primary access from Campus Drive or Jamboree Road. vii. Access rights to MacArthur Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City except for the Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue intersections. Consideration may be given to providing additional access points at a later date if more detailed traffic studies demonstrate the desirability of such additional access points. Consideration shall be limited to right tum egress and right and left turn ingress. (11) viii. Traffic signals shall be constructed at the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street and with Von Karman Avenue when the latter two streets are opened. The developer shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of the signal at Von Karman and 50% of the cost of the signal at Birch Street. ix. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road in conjunction with the initial stages of development. The developer shall be responsible for 25% of the cost of the signal. X. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Karman and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 100% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than June 30, 1977. (8) xi. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Von Karman and Campus Drive, with the developer to be responsible for 50% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than December 30, 1976. (8) A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street, with the developer to be responsible for 50% of the cost. Construction shall be scheduled so that the signal will be completed not later than June 30, 1977. (8) EI 452 In order to accomplish the schedule for construction of these two signals, a cooperative agreement may be entered into between the developer and the City. The agreement shall provide for the developer to advance the nondeveloper share of the funding, if necessary; with provisions for reimbursement by the City. The agreement may also provide for a credit to the developer for funds advanced for the City's share of construction costs for signals constructed elsewhere in the project. (8) xii. Provision for other traffic signals shall be investigated in conjunction with the process of development at a later date. xiii. Phasing of Development. 1,651,757 sq. ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 1,058,863 sq.ft. and 260 residential units. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 317,658 sq. ft., shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (12) f Airport (2) The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the Orange County Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the Planned Community Development and shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement (2) The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: i. The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; ii. When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the Orange County Airport; iii. The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at the Orange County Airport; 5 iv. Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the Orange County Airport. -45S GENERAL NOTES Water within the planned community area will be furnished by the Irvine Ranch Water District. Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative map or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. The height of all buildings and structures shall comply with Federal Aviation Authority criteria. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the zoning code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this planned community district except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. ter= DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right-of-way line specifying the closest point from this street right-of-way that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs, stairs and sunscreens). Right -of -Waw When reference is made to right-of-way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right-of-way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Corner Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, irrespective of the direction in which the structures face. Si¢n: Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non -electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any poster, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device or other advertising of any kind whatsoever is used, placed, posted, tacked, nailed, pasted or otherwise fastened or affixed. Commerce: All those permitted uses as specified in Section II, Group I through VII, inclusive, in this text. Commercial Land: The site area upon which any or all commercial permitted uses would exist. Site Area: (3) The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit, including footprint lots. :iL1f.7 Special Landscaped Street: Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights-of-way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights- of-way. In the case of private or non -dedicated streets, a minimum setback from the right-of-way line of said streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for all structures. Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets contained herein. Driveway: Vehicular access ways onto or within private property exclusive of streets, dedicated or private. A minimum separation of five (5) feet shall be maintained between all driveways and buildings. Footprint Lot: (3) The area of land required for the building pad, encompassing the peripheral area of the building. Appurtenant and contiguous to the footprint lot shall be all parking, landscape, setbacks and other areas as described and required by this text. Landscape Area: (4) The landscape area shall include walks, plazas, water and all other areas not devoted to building footprints or vehicular parking and drive surfaces. In calculating area of required landscaping any off- site landscaping such as landscaped medians or parkways in street rights-of-way shall not be included. Mixed -Use Building: (34) A building that vertically or horizontally integrates residential, office, commercial, retail, or similar nonresidential uses in the same building. I 450 PART I. INDUSTRIAL —Deleted. (33) 10 45 r� n Section I. 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) A. Building Sites (4) 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) TOTAL 122.574 acres (8)(10)(11) 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)(l1) For Site B, refer to Part VI, Mixed -Use Residential Overlay Zone, and Part VII, Park Overlay Zone, for additional standards. (34) B. Allowable Building Area Site A 363,128 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30)(34) Site B 980,739 square feet (13)(16)(28)(30)(32)(34) 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 42,646 square feet (4)(3 1) Site G 45,000 square feet (8) TOTAL 2,378,962 square feet_(15)(*)(31) C. Statistical Analysis (4) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following: Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The buildings within each parcel may vary. Assumed Parking Criteria: a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G. *(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) 11 452 1. 2. b. One (1) space per 300 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per acre for Sites A, B and C. (11) Site A Allowable Building Area ....... 363,128 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30)(34) Site Area ...... 19.399 acres *(3)(4)(16) a. Building Height Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 1,221 cars C. Landscaped Open Space (4, 11,16) Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development Site B (34) Allowable Building Area Site Area 12 Land Coverage (16)(29)(30) .............. 4.20 acres .............. 2.80 acres .............. 2.10 acres .............. 1.68 acres .............. 1.40 acres .............. 1.20 acres .............. 1.05 acres .............. 0.93 acres .............. 0.84 acres .............. 0.76 acres .............. 0.70 acres Land Coverage ........ 10.18 acres (11,16,29,30) Land Coverage (29,30) ......... 5.02 acres ......... 6.42 acres ......... 7.12 acres ......... 7.54 acres ......... 7.80 acres ......... 8.02 acres ......... 8.17 acres ......... 8.29 acres ......... 8.38 acres ......... 8.46 acres ......... 8.52 acres ......... 980,739 square feet (13,16,28,30) ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11) 455 a. LM C. Buildin Hg eight 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 (16,28,30,32)) ............... 11.22 acres ............... 7.48 acres ............... 5.61 acres ............... 4.49 acres ............... 3.74 acres ............... 3.21 acres ............... 2.81 acres ............... 2.49 acres ............... 2.24 acres ............... 2.04 acres ............... 1.87 acres Parking Land Coverage (l 1,13,16,28,30,34) 3,267 cars ............... 23.68 acres 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 3. Site C (10) Allowable Building Area Site Area 0 11 BuildingHeight 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 Parkin 2,249 cars 13 Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30,32)) ............... 5.32 acres ............... 9.06 acres ............... 10.93 acres ............... 12.05 acres ............... 12.80 acres ............... 13.33 acres ............... 13.73 acres ............... 14.05 acres ............... 14.30 acres ............... 14.50 acres ............... 14.67 acres 674,800 square feet (15) (17)* 18.806 acres (4) Land Coverage (15) ......... 7.75 acres ......... 5.16 acres ......... 3.87 acres ......... 3.10 acres ......... 2.58 acres ......... 2.21 acres ......... 1.94 acres ......... 1.72 acres ......... 1.55 acres ......... 1.41 acres ......... 1.29 acres Land Coverage (15) ......... 18.74 acres 400 * The square footage includes a maximum of 3,250 square feet for up to two (2) restaurants, bars, or theater/nightclubs. Any portion or all of the floor area not utilized for the purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (17) C. Landscaped Open Space 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 4. Site D Allowable Building Area Site Area a. BuildingHeight Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 1,067 cars 14 Land Coverage (4)(15) ............... -7.68 acres ............... -5.09 acres ............... -3.80 acres ............... -3.03 acres ............... -2.51 acres ............... -2.14 acres ............... -1.87 acres ............... -1.65 acres ............... -1.48 acres ............... -1.34 acres ............... -1.24 acres ......... 240,149 square feet (8)(13) ......... 19.673 acres (4) Land Coverage(8) (13) ......... 2.75 acres ......... 1.84 acres ......... 1.38 acres ......... 1.10 acres ......... 0.92 acres ......... 0.79 acres ......... 0.69 acres ......... 0.61 acres ......... 0.55 acres ......... 0.50 acres ......... 0.46 acres Land Coverage (8) (13) ......... 8.89 acres 2", 1 C. 5. Site E Landscaped Open Space 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 Allowable Building Area Site Area a. Buildin Hg eight Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Seven story development Eight story development Nine story development Ten story development Eleven story development Twelve story development b. Parking 144 cars C. Landscaped Open Space (4) 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 15 Land Coverage (4) (8) (13) ............... 8.03 acres ............... 8.94 acres ............... 9.40 acres ............... 9.68 acres ............... 9.86 acres ............... 9.99 acres ............... 10.09 acres ............... 10.17 acres ............... 10.23 acres ............... 10.28 acres ............... 10.32 acres 32,500 square feet (4) 2.371 acres (4) Land Coverage (4) ......... 0.37 acres ......... 0.25 acres ......... 0.19 acres ......... 0.15 acres ......... 0.12 acres ......... 0.11 acres ......... 0.10 acres ......... 0.09 acres ......... 0.08 acres ......... 0.07 acres ......... 0.06 acres Land Coverage(4) ......... 1.20 acres Land Coverage ............... 0.80 acres ............... 0.92 acres ............... 0.98 acres ............... 1.02 acres ............... 1.05 acres ............... 1.06 acres ............... 1.07 acres ............... 1.08 acres ............... 1.09 acres ............... 1.10 acres ............... 1.11 acres L 6. Site F (4)(3 1) Allowable Building Area Site Area a. Ln 10 Buildin Hg eieht One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development Parking 190 cars Landscaped Open Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Five story development Six story development 7. Site G (8) Allowable Building Area Site Area a. b. C. Buildin Hg eight One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development Parking 200 cars Landscaped Open Space One story development Two story development Three story development Four story development ......... 42,646 square feet ......... 1.765 acres Land Coverage ............... 0.98 acres ............... 0.49 acres ............... 0.33 acres ............... 0.24 acres ...........0.20 acres ............0.16 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.58 acres Land Coverage ............ <0.80> acres ......,,,,,, <0.31> acres ............ <0.15> acres ............ <0.06> acres ..........<0,02> acres ........ <0.03> acres ......... 45,000 square feet ......... 5.317 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.03 acres ......... 0.52 acres ......... 0.34 acres ......... 0.26 acres Land Coverage ......... 1.67 acres Land Coveraee ......... 2.62 acres ......... 3.13 acres ......... 3.31 acres ......... 3.39 acres Building Height Maximum building height shall not exceed twelve (12) stories above ground level, and shall in no way exceed the height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. 16 G" /I Conclusions The preceding figures indicate that within a fixed maximum density as the height of the building increases the resulting open landscaped area also increases. Group H. HOTEL & MOTEL (1) 0 Group BI. Building Sites For the purposes of this statistical analysis, 9.54 acres have been allotted for hotel and motel development. This acreage is for statistical purposes only. It is necessary to allot a specific acreage within this analysis to secure office building densities within their specific parcels. Development may include but shall not be limited to this acreage. The hotel and motel site size shall be detennined at the time a use permit is secured. B. Bulldin Hg eieht Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. COURT HOUSE A. Building Site Site 1: 7.80 acres Building Area Site 1: 90,000 square feet 7.80 acres 90,000 square feet The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking 400 Cars D. Landscaped Open Space Two story development. Three story development Four story development. Five story development. Six story development ... E. Building Height .......................... I.......... 3.33 acres Land Coverage .......... 3.44 acres .......... 3.78 acres .......... 3.95 acres .......... 4.06 acres ........... 4.13 acres Maximum building height shall not exceed height limits set by the Federal Aviation Authority for Orange County Airport. 17 Group IV. Group V SERVICE STATIONS A. Building Sites (4) (5) (11) Site 3: 1.765 acres ................................... 1.765 acres Service station site 3 shall be located within Office Site F and shall not exceed 1.765 acres in size. Any portion or all of Site 3 not utilized for service station use shall revert to either professional and business office use or restaurant use. (4) RESTAURANTS (1) (4) A. Building Sites Maximum acreages for Site 2 shall not exceed 1.25 (18) acres. Maximum acreage for Site 3: 1.765 acres. Maximum acreages for Sites 4 and 5 shall not exceed 3.0 acres. Maximum acreage for Sites 6 and 7 shall not exceed 2.2 acres. (8) (The following acreages are for information only.) Site 1 Deleted see Group VII. .............. (18) Site 2 .................................................... 1.25 acres Site 3 .................................................... 1.765 acres Site 4 Deleted......................................................(30) Site 5 Deleted .................................................... (30) Site 6 .................................................... 1.50 acres (8) Site 7 .................................................... 0.70 acres (8) 5.215 acres ...........5:215 acres (301 Site 1 Deleted see Group VII Private Club (18) Site 2 (4101 Jamboree — Taco Bell) located within Office Site "B" (4)(16)(30) Site 3 located within Office Site "F". (4) Site 4 (4300 Von Karman Avenue — Koto Restaurant) deleted and reverted to Site B Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30) Site 5 deleted from Office Site "B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area (30) Sites 6 and 7 located within Office Site "G". (8) Any portion or all of the restaurant, bar, theater/nightclub acreage for Sites 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. Any portion or all of the restaurant acreage for Site 3 not utilized for that purpose shall revert to either professional and business office use or service station use. (4) (8) (18) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. W 4615 F C. II" E. Building Area (4)(8) (30) Site 2 ................ 2,397sq. ft. Site 3 ................ 10,000 sq. ft. Site 4 ................ Deleted Site 5 ................ Deleted Site 6 (8) .......... 7,000 sq. ft. Site 7 (8) .......... 3,000 sq. ft. Parking ...... 0.06 acres (30) ...... 0.22 acres ...... 0.16 acres ...... 0.07 acres ...... 0.51 acres .......0.51 acres (8, 18, 30) Criteria: 300 occupants/ 10,000 sq. ft. 1 space/3 occupants and 120 cars per acre. Site 2 .......... 24 cars Site 3 .......... 100 cars Site 4 .......... Deleted Site 5 .......... Deleted Site 6 (8) ... 70 cars Site 7 (8) ... 30 cats Site 7 (8) 224 cars ..... 0.20 acres (30) I...... 0.84 acres Landscaped Open Space (4) (30) Site 2 .......... 0.99 acres (30) Site 3 .......... 0.70 acres Site 4 .......... Deleted Site 5 .......... Deleted Site 6 (8) .... 0.76 acres Site 7 (8) .... 0.38 acres 2.83 acres ....... Building Height 0.58 acres 0.25 acres 1.87 acres ... 1.87 acres (8) (18)(30) 2.83 acres (8) (18)(30) Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. 19 Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER A. Building Site (4) (5) Site 1 .......... 5.026 acres Site 2 Deleted (30) 5.026 acres ......................................... 5.026 acres (30) Site 2 shall be located within Office Site `B" Any portion or all of the retail and service Site 2 acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. (4) (16) Site 2 deleted from Office Site "B" and transferred to Office Site "A" as Professional and Business Office Allowable Building Area. (30) B. Allowable Building Area (5) * Retail Site No. 1 .......... 120,000 sq. ft. (14)(27) Retail Site No. 2 Deleted (30) * Retail Site No. 1 (sq. Ft.) Parcel Existing Total Parcel 1, R/S 588 (H) (H) 70,630 Parcel 3, R/S 506 (R) (R) 0 (0) (0) 22,000 Parcel 4, R/S 506 (R) 4,115 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (O) 5,474 Subtotal (R) 12,315 (R) 21,896 (0) 0 (0) 27,474 (H) 70,630 Total 120,000 (14)(27) (R) = Retail C. Landscape Are (5) (0) = Office (H) = Hotel Twenty-five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 shall be developed as landscape area. If twenty-five (25) percent of the 5.026 acres constituting retail and service center Site No. 1 is not developed as landscape area, a specific site plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuing of a building permit. 20 407 E. Statistical Analysis (5) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. Assumed parking criteria: One (1) space per 200 square feet of net building area at 120 cars per acre. 1. Site 1 Allowable Building Area Site Area ...................... a. BuildingHeight (14) Two story development .............. Three story development Four story development. Five story development.. b. Parking (14) 460 cars ...... C. Landscaped Open Space (14) Two story development ........ Three story development ...... Four story development ........ Five story development ........ 2. Site 2 Deleted (30) Building Height 120,000 sq. ft. (14)(27) ................. 5.026 acres 1.17 acres 0.78 acres 0.59 acres 0.47 acres 3.83 acres 0.03 acres 0.87 acres 0.61 acres 0.73 acres Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet above mean existing grade as shown on Exhibit `B." (5) Building height of structures for Service Site 1 shall be limited to a height of sixty feet (27) 21 Group VII. PRIVATE CLUB (18) A. Building Site Site 1 2.0 acres ..... 2.0 acres Site 1 shall be located within Office Site "A." Any portion or all of the private club acreage not utilized for that purpose shall revert to professional and business office use. 1. Site 1 Allowable Building Area B. Building Height ...............45,000 square feet (26) Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of fifty (50) feet. Section H. Permitted Uses Group L PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES To allow the location of commercial activities engaged in the sale of products or services relating to and supporting the Development Plan, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings. A. Professional Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Accountants 2. Attorneys 3. Doctors, dentists, optometrists, oculists, chiropractors and others licensed by the State of California to practice the healing arts. 4. Engineers, architects, surveyors and planners. B. Business Offices similar in nature to but not limited to the following: (6) 1. Advertising agencies 2. Banks 3. Economic consultants 4. Employment agencies 5. Escrow offices 6. Insurance agencies 7. Laboratories a. Dental b. Medical c. X -Ray d. Bio -chemical e. Film, wholesale only f Optometrical 8. Stockbrokers 9. Studios for interior decorators, photographers, artists and draftsmen. 10. Telephone answering services 22 � 69 11. Tourist information and travel agencies C. Hotel and Motel (1) To allow for the location within Office Site "A" of a hotel or motel development, subject to a use permit. D. Restaurants, bars and theater/nightclubs subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (1) (3) (4) (7) (25) 1. Deleted (18) * 2. To allow within the 43.703 acres of Office Site `B" three (3) restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub sites. (16) 3. To allow within the 18.806 acres of Office Site "C" up to two (2) restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub sites with a total area not to exceed 3,250 square feet. Specific location of these restaurants, bars or theater/nightclubs to be determined at a later date. The permitted professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site will be reduced accordingly. (17) 4. To allow within the 1.765 acres of Office Site "F" two (2) restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall be adjusted and shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices allowable building area for the site. 5. To allow within the 5.317 acres of Office Site "G" three (3) restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub sites. Specific location of these sites to be determined at a later date. All other acreage shall not increase or decrease the professional and business offices' allowable building area for the site. (8) (25) * E. Private Club (4) (18) (26) To allow within Office Site "A" one (1) private club site at 4110 MacArthur Boulevard. F. Service Station (4) To allow within Office Site "F" one (1) service station site. Specific location to be determined at a later date. All other acreages shall be adjusted and shall not increase or decrease the professional and business office allowable building area for the site. * (4) If restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub, or private club uses are developed, the allowable building area for Office Site "B" shall be restricted by one of the following conditions: 23 470 1. The 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall not increase or decrease so long as twenty-five (25) percent of the 41.969 acres constituting Office Site `B" is developed as landscaped area. (16) 2. If twenty-five (25) percent of the 42.709 acres constituting Office Site `B" is not developed as landscape area, the 963,849 square feet of allowable building area shall be reduced by the gross building area of the restaurants, bars or theater/nightclubs and/or private club. The allowable building area shall be further reduced by the number of additional parking spaces required to support a restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub, or a private club beyond what would be required for an equivalent area of office use. The reduction shall be 225 square feet per additional space. (16) G. Support Commercial (20) The uses permitted under this section are of a convenience nature ancillary to the operation and use of office facilities. These uses shall be in addition to those sites permitted under Part II. Section IL Group V (Restaurants). These uses shall not increase the allowable building area for Professional and Business Office. Retail sales and services including tobacco stores, card shops, confectionery and newspaper stands, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, are of a similar nature. Retail uses shall be located in the basement or on the first floor of a building. Storage for such uses shall be within a building. 2. Restaurants, including outdoor restaurants and take-out restaurants, bars or theater/nightclubs shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) Group H. HOTEL & MOTEL (1) Subject to a use permit. Group III. COURT HOUSE State, County and/or City Facilities. Group IV. SERVICE STATIONS & MECHANICAL CAR WASH (4) A. Service stations subject to the City of Newport Beach service station standards. B. Mechanical car wash, subject to a use permit. Mechanical car wash shall only be allowed in conjunction with or in lieu of a permitted service station use. 24 x-72 Group V. RESTAURANTS (7) A. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants, bars and theater/nightclubs, shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. Facilities other than indoor dining establishments or those that qualify as outdoor, drive-in or take-out establishments shall be subject to the City of Newport Beach regulations covering drive-in and outdoor establishments. (25) Group VI. RETAIL & SERVICE CENTER (1) A. Permitted Uses Restaurants, including outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants, bars and theater/nightclubs, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case, except as noted under "a" and "b" below. (7) (25) a. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants, shall be permitted subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) b. Outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants shall be subject to the procedures, regulations and guidelines set forth in Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, in each case. (25) 2. Barber shop and beauty parlor 3. Book and stationery store 4. Blueprinting and photostatics 5. Camera Shop 6. Delicatessen store Florist 8. Shoe store or repair shop 9. Tailor 10. Tobacco store 11. Office equipment rentable and repair 12. Pharmacies 25 472 13. Tourist information, travel agencies, and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage, or freight. (1) 14. Athletic club or health clubs (5) * 15. Professional and Business Offices (5) 16. Other uses similar to the above listed 17. Hotel subject to approval of a Use Permit (27) Group VII. LODGE HALLS, PRIVATE CLUBS, ATHLETIC CLUBS, UNION HEADUARTERS (1) (4) (18) Subject to use permit. Group VIIL AUTO DETAILING (19) A. All drainage shall be into the sanitary sewer system. B. That all car wash and auto detailing operations shall be conducted within a covered area. C. This service shall be designed to serve building tenants and their patrons and guests, and shall be ancillary to the primary use. Section III, General Development Standards for Commercial Land A. Site Area Minimum site area shall not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. Footprint lots shall have all required appurtenant areas contiguous thereto and the sum of these areas shall not be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. (3) * To allow, in addition to the 2,320,600 square feet of professional and business office use permitted elsewhere in the text, a maximum of 38,022 net square feet of professional and business office use within Retail and Service Center Site 1. (5) (14) Exception: (9) The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: 1. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 26 477 2. That the Development Considerations and intent of this planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. B. Building* Area Maximum building area for professional and business offices shall be as noted in Site Area and Building Area, Part II, Section I, Group 1. C. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that line created by the ultimate right-of-way of the frontage street. Front Yard Setback (10) Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sunscreens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. The setback for Site C from MacArthur Boulevard would be at least thirty-six (36) feet except that unsupported roofs or sun- screens any project six (6) feet into the setback. 2. Side Yard Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a. Corner Lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into setback area. b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. 3. Rear Yard None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. 4. Footprint Lots (6) Except as required by the Uniform Building Code, there shall be no additional setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. Provided, however, that buildings within footprint lots shall be so located as to observe the setbacks from streets and existing lot lines required under Part II, Section I1I, C.1, 2 and 3. D. Loading Areas 27 474 1. Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right-of-way line, or one hundred ten (I 10) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. E. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height, but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. F. Refuse Collection Areas 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. G. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on-site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. H. Pedestrian Access (1) It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right- of-way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. I. Parking All parking shall be as specified in the General Parking Requirements, Part III. M 475 I Signs All signing shall be as specified in the General Sign Requirements, Part N. K. Landscape All landscaping shall be as specified in the General Landscape Requirements, Part V. 29 470 PART III. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section I A. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on -street parking. Required off-street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site, or within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. B. Parking requirements for specific sites shall be based upon the following parking criteria. All parking shall be determined based upon building type and the area within allotted to the following functions: Business & Professional Offices One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. Company parking stalls shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of required parking spaces. The number and design of compact parking stalls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. (11) Exception: (11) Parking Requirement for Business and Professional Office Buildings based on Parking Pool. The parking requirements for office buildings within a contiguous office site may be modified in accordance with the following schedule when the net building area or areas served exceeds 100,000 square feet. a. For the first 125,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 250 square feet of net floor area. b. For the next 300,000 square feet, parking shall be provided at one space per 300 square feet of net floor area. C. Any additional floor area, parking shall be provided at one space per 350 square feet of net floor area. d. For pools based on more than 425,000 square feet of net floor area, the Planning Commission may modify the parking formula by use permit, based on a demonstrated formula. 30 477 2. Medical & Dental Offices Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. 3. Manufacture, Research and Assembly - Deleted. (33) 4. Warehouse - Deleted. (33) 5. Lodge Halls, Private Clubs, Athletic Clubs, Union Headquarters (1) (4) (5) a. One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area. b. Specific parking requirements shall be developed for private clubs or athletic clubs based upon functions and occupancies within this use. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. (4) In the event that private clubs or athletic clubs are converted to another use, parking requirements for the new use shall be subject to review by the Planning Director. (5) 6. Restaurants, Bars or Theater/Nightclubs, Outdoor, Drive -In and Take -Out Restaurants (7) a. Restaurant, bar or theater/nightclub parking shall be in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and "c" below. b. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants, within retail and service centers shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area and one (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net floor area of all restaurants does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the net floor area of the retail and service center. In the event that any restaurant causes the total of all restaurant uses in the retail and service center to exceed the twenty (20) percent limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under "a" above. C. Parking for outdoor, drive-in and take-out restaurants shall be provided in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 31 472 7. Commercial Retail and Service Center (5) One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Professional and business office parking shall be provided per Part III, Section I.B.1. Athletic or health club parking shall be provided per Part III, Section 1.B.5b. 8. Hotels and Motels One (1) space for each guest unit plus employees' parking on a demonstrated formula. Parking for restaurants, bars, banquet rooms, retail shops or service stores shall be as specified in the above applicable section or on a demonstrated formula acceptable to the Planning Director. * Professional and business office net floor area shall be included in this provision. Athletic and health club net floor area shall be excluded from this provision. (5) 9. Court House Specific parking requirements shall be developed based upon functions and occupancies within this zone. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies, or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Planning Director. 32 479 PART IV. GENERAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS Section I. Sign Standards A. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. B. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products sold thereon. C. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. D. All signs attached to the building shall be surface mounted. Group I. PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. Ground Signs Ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (double face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of two hundred (200) square feet. B. Wall Signs In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. 1. The following exceptions apply to industrial zoning only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the tenant. Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to six (6) inch high letters. Said signs must be oriented toward the parking or pedestrian area for that building and shall not exceed a maximum area of five (5) square feet. 2. Fascia mounted identification signs limited to two (2) facades for each building and structure. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. 33 M Group U. 3. The following exceptions apply to Professional and Business Offices and Retail and Service Center uses only. In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual ground floor business may have signing in addition to permitted Building Identification signs. (6) Each individual ground floor business shall be limited to one (1) sign per frontage not to exceed two (2) signs per business. Said signs shall not be located above the ground floor fascia. No sign shall exceed an area equal to ten (10) percent of the business face upon which it is located. However, no sign shall exceed thirty-five (35) square feet in area. (6). In no event shall there be more than three (3) permitted ground floor wall signs per building for Professional and Business Offices. (6) C. Pole Signs One (1) identification pole sign per site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses only: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar C. Hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. The following signs shall conform to all requirements for "Ground Signs," Section I, Group I, Item A unless specifically limited below. Sale or Lease Sign with General Sign standards above A sign, advertising the sale, lease or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 2. Construction Sign One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is 34 421- occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 3. Future Tenant Identification Sieh A sign listing the name of future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted. Said sign will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of forty (40) square feet. 4. Directional Signs Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (double face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs in this section. 5. Exceptions Group II.A.1, 2 and 3: this information may be grouped on a single sign when the aggregate surface area does exceed the summation of the individual areas for each use. This area may be distributed on all surfaces of the sign. This sign may not exceed four (4) feet above grade. Group III. SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS A. The following permanent signs shall be permitted. Permanent Directional Sign Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet in area per face, double faced and shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted in these standards. 2. Community Directional and/or Identification Sign Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two hundred fifty (250) square feet (per face), shall be permitted but subject to use permit. 35 422 Section II. Sien Area A. Industrial - Deleted. (33) B. Industrial Support Facilities and — Deleted. (33) Business and Professional Offices (33) The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part I, Section III. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. C. Commercial The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part II, Section 11, Groups II, BI, V and VI. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. D. Business and Professional Offices The following shall apply to Permitted Uses, Part II, Section 11, Group I. Building identification shall be limited to a single entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. Section III. Maintenance All signs indicated in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspection shall be made as directed by the Planning Director, City of Newport Beach or his designated agent. 36 42S PART V. GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Section I. General Statement (1) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a registered Architect or under the direction of a Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation prior to issuance of a building permit and installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Landscape in the public right-of-way shall be installed per plans and specifications approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director and in accordance with Parks, Beaches and Recreation Standards. All landscaping in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Periodic inspections will be made as directed by the Planning Director and reports submitted with regard to the condition of maintenance. If suggestions of improvement are made, and are in the realm of the Maintenance Standards, the work shall be corrected within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report. A. Maintenance 1. All planting areas to be kept free of weeds and debris. 2. Lawn and ground covers to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. 3. All plantings to be kept in a healthy and growing condition. Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning are to be carried out as part of regular maintenance. 4. Irrigation systems are to be kept in working condition. Adjustment and cleaning of system should be a part of regular maintenance. 5. Stakes, guys and ties on trees should be checked regularly for correct function; ties to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. 6. Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. B. Front Yard Setback Area 1. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking shall be landscaped in a similar manner. Full coverage of ground cover to be expected in a minimum of three (3) months. 37 424 2. Special Landscaped Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any driveway in said area. Tree size to be no less than 24 -inch box. 3. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet back in the front property line shall be landscaped except for any driveway in said area. Tree size to be no less than 24 inch box. C. Side Yard and Rear Yard 1. General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. 2. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition, but need not be landscaped. 3. Screening Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets, freeways and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees of a sufficient size and height to meet this requirement when initially installed. 4. Boundary Areas Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas shall be placed along the entire length of these property lines or be of sufficient length to accommodate the number of required trees. Trees, equal in number to one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of each property line, shall be planted in the above defined areas in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. Minimum width of property line landscaping shall be three (3) feet. 5. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, at least six (6) inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area. 0 4215 D. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls, shall be provided in the parking area. Planting area around building shall not be included in parking area. Planting of trees may be in groups and need not necessarily be in regular spacing. E. Sloped Banks All sloped banks greater than 5 to 1, or six (6) feet in vertical height and adjacent to public right-of-way shall be stabilized, planted and irrigated with full coverage in accordance with plans submitted and approved by Planning Director. F. Loading Areas Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets, shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right-of-way line or one hundred ten (I10) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. G. Storage Areas All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. H. Refuse Collection Areas All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. 3. Minimum width for landscaping shall be three (3) feet around refuse collection areas. 39 Telephone and Electrical Service All "on-site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12 KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties, or an approved method of display. I Pedestrian Access (1) It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right-of-way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. K. Landscape Plant Vocabulary (1) It is the intent of this standard to provide flexibility and diversity in plant selection yet maintain a limited variety to give greater unity to the development. At the direction of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, material lists and a street tree master plan shall be developed to aid in this development. All trees occurring in the ten (10) foot setback shall be no less than 24 inch box. The parking lot trees shall be no less than fifteen (15) gallon size. Shrubs to be planted in containers shall not be less than one (1) gallon size. Ground covers will be planted from one (1) gallon containers or from root cuttings. Every effort should be made to avoid using plants with invasive and shallow root systems with fruit that would stain paving or automobiles. L. Earth berms shall be rounded and natural in character, designed to obscure automobiles and to add interest to the site. In cases where the ratio of width and height of berm creates a bank greater than 3 to 1, shrubs or walls can be used as shown in illustration (b) (c). Wheel stops shall be so placed that damage to trees, irrigation units and shrubs is avoided. M. Trees in parking lots should be limited in variety. Selection should be repeated to give continuity. Regular spacing is not required and irregular groupings may add interest. Care should be exercised to allow plants to grow and maintain their ultimate size without restriction. O 427 N. Storage areas are to be provided with an opaque screen up to a point of eight (8) feet in vertical height. Combination of plantings can be used to further soften hard materials and give continuity to planting. 41 PART VI. MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (34) Section I. Applicability and Purpose A. Applicability. The Mixed Use Residential Overlay applies to an area within Office Site B as shown on Exhibit F. B. Purpose. The purpose of the overlay is to provide use and development standards for mixed-use development consisting of residential uses and limited commercial uses to serve residents, nearby office uses, and the public. Section II. Site Area Site Area: 4.20 acres. Section III. Density and Intensity A. Densi . The maximum allowed number of residential units is 260. B. Intensity. The maximum allowed floor area for commercial use shall be 3,019 gross square feet. No minimum amount of commercial area is specified; however, floor area for commercial uses shall be provided. Section IV. Allowed Uses, Conditionally Allowed Uses, and Prohibited Uses A. Allowed Uses 1. Multi -unit residential development, subject to Site Development Review pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080. 2. Retail and service commercial uses. 3. Accessory uses as described and regulated by the NBMC Title 20 (Zoning Code). B. Conditionally Allowed Uses 1. Eating and drinking establishments including the sale of alcohol subject to a Minor Use Permit processed in accordance with NBMC Title 20 (Zoning Code). 2. Wireless telecommunication facilities pursuant to NBMC Chapter 20.49. 42 Section V. Development Standards A. Building Height 1. No building or structure shall exceed 160 feet above the ground level. Ground level shall be the finished grade established by approved grading plan. 2. Buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction— Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 3. In compliance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface shall file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. A copy of the FAA application shall be submitted to the ALUC and the applicant shall provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. B. Building Setbacks 1. A minimum of setback of three (3) feet to nearest property line for all buildings. 2. Fully subterranean parking structures may be located in any setback area but may not cross a property line. C. Parking 1. Residential Uses: Studio: 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit 1 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit 2 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit 3 Bedroom: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit Senior: 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit Guest: 0.3 spaces per dwelling unit 2. Commercial Uses: Parking spaces as required by the NBMC Title 20 (Zoning Code). Section VI. General Requirements A. Circulation 43 490 1. The site shall be designed to provide and enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation within Office Site B connecting any mixed-use development to existing buildings and improvements with the goal of creating a well-connected, pedestrian -friendly environment. 2. A privately -maintained street ("spine street") connecting Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street shall be provided. The street shall be open to the public at all times and shall provide convenient access for all users of the site to access secured parking facilities, on -street parking areas, publicly accessible open spaces, parks, emergency vehicles, and drop off/loading zones. 3. A total of 3 pedestrian connections as shown on Exhibit G, shall be provided and maintained by the property owner or a master association. The connections shall be improved with pedestrian sidewalks, seating areas and canopy trees. B. Loading and Refuse Areas 1. Loading areas shall be provided in curb -side pullouts along the spine street or within mixed-use buildings. Loading areas shall be designed to accommodate moving, delivery and refuse collection vehicles without blocking streets, driveways or parking areas. Loading areas shall be clearly marked and maintained for both residential and commercial users. 2. Refuse collection areas shall be located within parking garages or within enclosed structures such that the interior of these areas is concealed from view. Refuse collection or service vehicles shall utilize the designated loading areas provided by Section VI(B)(a). C. Landscaping 1. Maintenance shall be provided by the property owner or a master association. Landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in compliance with an approved landscape plan. 2. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. Lawn areas shall be exempt from the healthy and growing condition provision when the City Council has declared a Level Three water supply shortage (NBMC Section 14.16.080) and all lawn, landscape, and other vegetated areas shall be exempt from the healthy and growing condition requirement 44 491 when the City Council has declared a Level Four water supply shortage (NBMC Section 14.16.090). 3. Landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds, debris, and other undesirable materials. 4. Reclaimed water shall be used for irrigation of all landscape areas within the park. Irrigation systems shall be kept in good operating condition, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. Adjustments to eliminate overspray or runoff shall be made on a regular basis. 1. Refer to Part IV General Signage Requirements and NBMC Chapter 20.42. E. Outdoor LiAtine 1. Outdoor lighting shall comply with NBMC Section 20.30.070. 2. Detailed lighting plans and a photometric analysis shall be prepared by qualified professionals and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All lighting shall be installed and inspected by the Community Development Department is prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 3. Security lighting shall be provided throughout development within the overlay. 4. Lighting shall be properly maintained by the property owner or master association. Any damaged or non- operational fixtures or lighting elements shall be replaced and made operational within a reasonable amount of time. F. Recreation and Open Space 1. Private Open Space. Private balconies may be provided for residential units. Balconies above the ground level may encroach up to a maximum of four (4) feet within required building setback areas. 2. Public Common Open Space. Publicly accessible urban plazas, walkways, "paseos" and open space areas, collectively open space areas shall be provided at the ground level in an around any mixed-use buildings or 45 492 development. These areas shall be improved and maintained by the property owner or master association. The following amenities shall be shall be provided: a. Interconnected walkways or paths to mixed-use buildings, retail uses, nearby parking areas and other properties within Office Site B. b. Landscaping, seating and social gathering spaces with outdoor furniture. The following amenities are optional and are encouraged: exercise stations, water features, public art, or other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. 3. Private Common Open Space/Recreational Amenities. On-site private recreational amenities accessible to all residents and their guests shall be provided in each residential building or complex. A minimum of forty- four (44) square feet of area per dwelling unit shall be provided. Recreational amenities may include, but are not limited to the following: a. Swimming pools and spas b. Exercise facilities c. Tennis, pickelball or basketball courts d. Clubhouse rooms e. Roof deck recreation or gathering areas f. Community gardens g. Outdoor barbecue and dining areas h. Passive gathering spaces i. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director G. Notification of Future Residents 1. A written disclosure statement shall be prepared prior to sale, lease, or rental of every residential unit within a mixed-use project. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment in proximity to John Wane Airport and that noise, odor, air quality, outdoor activity levels, etc. may be different or higher than typical suburban residential areas. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the vicinity. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The project applicant shall covenant to include within all deeds, leases 46 4Js or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within a mixed-use project (1) the disclosure and notification requirement as stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, air quality, outdoor activity levels, etc. may be different or higher than typical suburban residential areas; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach. 47 494 PART VII. PUBLIC PARK OVERLAY (34) Section I. Applicability and Purpose A. Applicability. The Public Park Overlay applies to an area within Office Site B as shown on Exhibit F. B. Purpose. The purpose of the overlay is to provide for the orderly development, maintenance and use of a public park within Office Site B if a mixed-use project is developed within the Residential Mixed -Use Overlay pursuant to Part VI. Section II. Site Area A. A minimum of 1.0 acres shall be dedicated in fee to the City of Newport Beach if a mixed-use project is developed within the Residential Mixed -Use Overlay pursuant to Part VII. B. The area excludes driveways and parking areas. Section III. Allowed Uses and Activities A. Any uses and activities consistent and regulated by NBMC Chapter 11.04. B. Any activities permitted pursuant to a Special Event Permit pursuant to NBMC Chapter 11.03. Section IV. Park Design and Amenities A. Five parking spaces and vehicular access from an internal driveway shall be provided. Public and emergency access easements for the parking spaces and driveways to public streets shall be provided and recorded prior to acceptance of the park dedication. B. The park shall include the following amenities: 1. Seating & social gathering spaces with outdoor furniture 2. Pedestrian -scale lighting 3. Walkways 4. Water fountains, ponds, water elements, etc. 5. Landscaped open spaces including shade trees 6. Bike racks 7. Restrooms 8. Public art with a minimum value of 10 percent of the cost of park construction excluding parking areas, driveways, and land value. 9. Other active or passive recreational amenities as determined appropriate and necessary by the Parks W. 4/'5 Beaches and Recreation Commission or Recreation and Senior Services Director. C. The design of the park shall be subject the review and approval of the Planning Commission through the Site Development Review process, in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.080, and the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission. Section V. Maintenance A. Maintenance shall be provided by the property owner or a master association. Landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in compliance with an approved landscape plan. B. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. Lawn areas shall be exempt from the healthy and growing condition provision when the City Council has declared a Level Three water supply shortage (NBMC Section 14.16.080) and all lawn, landscape, and other vegetated areas shall be exempt from the healthy and growing condition requirement when the City Council has declared a Level Four water supply shortage (NBMC Section 14.16.090). C. Landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds, debris, and other undesirable materials. D. Reclaimed water shall be used for irrigation of all landscape areas within the park. Irrigation systems shall be kept in good operating condition, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. Adjustments to eliminate overspray or runoff shall be made on a regular basis. 490 PART VIII. FOOTNOTES (1) Planned Community text revision incorporating Planning Commission revisions and conditions of approval. (2) Planned Community Text revision incorporating City Council conditions of approval as adopted by the city of Newport Beach. (Amendment No. 313, adopted August 14, 1972). (3) Planned Community Text revision July 6, 1973 incorporating the addition of footprint lots and the addition of two (2) restaurant sites within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 381, adopted August 2, 1973). (4) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 420, adopted February 7, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Revised Planned Community Text site acreage figures to conform to the recorded tract map. b. Revised Exhibit "A" (land use map) to conform to recorded tract map. C. Changed the size of Office Site "E" and created one parcel of land comprised of Restaurant Site No. 3, Service Station Site No. 3 and the residual of Office Site "C". This new site is designated as Office Site "F". d. Revised Retail and Service Site No. 2 from a specific location to a floating location within Office Site "A". e. Added mechanical car wash subject to a use permit as a permitted use on the service station sites. f Added private clubs or athletic clubs as a permitted use on Office Site `B". g. Made provisions for three (3) additional restaurant sites, two sites within Office Site `B: and one site within Office Site "F". (5) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 430, adopted June 10, 1974) incorporating the following changes: a. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 2. b. Added health or athletic club as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. C. Added Professional and Business Office as a permitted use within the Retail and Service Center sites. d. Added a minimum twenty-five (25) percent landscape requirements or site plan approval by the Planning commission to the development requirements of retail Site No. 1. (6) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 444, adopted May 15, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Clarified the setback requirements for buildings within footprint lots. b. Clarified Professional and Business Office permitted uses. 50 497 C. Added signing provision for ground floor businesses in multi -tenant building. (7) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 451, adopted September 8, 1975) incorporating the following changes: a. Added the requirement that all restaurants shall be subject to the securing of a use permit with the exception of certain restaurant uses within Retail and Service Centers. (8) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 466, adopted June 28, 1976) incorporating the following changes: a. Changed the size of Light Industrial Site No. 2. b. Created Professional and Business Office Site "G". C. Made provisions for two (2) restaurant sites within Office Site "G". d. Reduced the allowable building area of Office Site "D". e. Amended the construction timetable for traffic signals. (9) Planned community Text revision (Amendment No. 475, adopted January 10, 1977) incorporating the following changes: a. Established guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. (10) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 505, adopted July 11, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Increased the site area of Professional and Business Office Site "C>, b. Increased the allowable building area of Professional and Business Office Site «C„ (11) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 508, adopted August 28, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Made provision for consideration of additional left turn ingress from MacArthur Boulevard. b. Eliminated Service Station Site No. 1 and added the land area to Professional and Business Office Site `B". C. Reviewed the parking requirement for office buildings within Professional and Business Office sites. (12) Planned Community Text revision (Amendment No. 514, adopted October 19, 1978) incorporating the following changes: a. Established existing and additional allowable development as of October 1, 1978. b. Established the requirement and criteria for phasing plan approval of development beyond thirty (30) percent of the additional 51 (13) Planned Community text revision incorporating the transfer to allowable building area from Professional and business Office Site "D: to Professional and Business Office Site "B". (Amendment No. 550, adopted November 10, 1980). (14) Planned Community Text revision for Retail and Service Site No. 1, which allocates existing and permitted development. (Amendment No. 558 adopted March 23, 1981). (15) Planned community Text revision increasing the allowable building area in Site C (MacArthur Court). (Amendment No. 593, adopted October 24, 1983). (16) Planned Community Text revision incorporating the transfer of allowable office, restaurant and retail building area from Professional and Business Office Site "A" to Professional and Business Office Site `B". (Amendment No. 606, adopted May 14, 1984). (17) Planned Community Text revision to allow up to two restaurants with a total floor area not to exceed 3,250 square feet within "Office Site U. (Amendment No. 626, adopted December 9, 1985). (18) Planned Community Text revision deleting restaurant Site 1 and substituting a private club with a total floor area not to exceed 30,000 square feet within Office Site "A". (Amendment No. 635, adopted July 14, 1986). (19) Planned Community Text revision to allow auto detailing as a permitted use. (Amendment No. 647, adopted March 23, 1987). (20) Planned Community Text revision adding support commercial uses to the permitted uses under Professional and Business Office permitted uses. (Amendment No. 649, adopted July 27, 1987). (21) Planned Community text revision combining Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increasing the allowable building area for the combined site by 39,000 square feet, and increasing the permitted building height from 35 feet to 55 feet. (Amendment No. 677, adopted June 12, 1989). (22) Planned Community Text revision increasing the permitted building height in Light Industrial Site 1 from 55 feet to 75 feet. (Amendment No. 799, adopted April 25, 1994). (23) Title 20 amendment to reinstate notice and appeal procedures for specialty food service applications. (Amendment No. 829, adopted September 11, 1995, Ordinance 95-39) (24) Planned Community Text revision to increase the permitted height within "Light Industrial Site 1" from 75 feet to 90 feet for a single vertical column. (Amendment No. 867, adopted February 23, 1998, Ordinance 98-3). (25) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 876, adopted August 10, 1998, Ordinance 98-20) to allow the following changes: a. Additional restaurant uses in Office Site "G" (the current limited of two restaurants will be increased to three restaurant sites), and; 52 499 b. Permit eating and drinking establishments throughout the Koll Center Planned Community as per Title 20 of the Municipal Code. (26) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 890, adopted 01/11/2000, Ordinance 99-28) to allow the following changes: a. Increase the permitted level of development for Office Site A by 15,000 square feet (4110 MacArthur Boulevard) and; b. Establish the permitted level of development for Koll Center Newport Office Site A at 418,346 gross square feet. (27) Planned Community Text revisions (Amendment No. 897, adopted January 25, 2000, Ordinance 2000-3) to allow the following changes: a. Designate Parcel 1 of Koll Center Newport Retail and Service Site 1 for Hotel Use, and; b. Establish the permitted Gross Floor Area for Koll Center Newport Retail and Service Site 1 at 120,000 square feet, and C. Establish the permitted height for the site at 60 feet. (28) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2005-014, adopted August 9, 2005) to allow the following changes: a. Office expansion of 1,367 net square feet in the Koll Center Office Site B at 4200 Von Karman Avenue. (29) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006-19), adopted July 25, 2006 to allow the following changes: a. To increase the development allocation for Professional and Business Offices of Site A by 2,129 net square feet. (PA2005-293) (30) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2006-21), adopted October 24, 2006 to allow the following changes: a. To allow the transfer of 24,016 gross square feet of unused retail, restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Office Site A resulting in the elimination of the entire Retail Site #1, an undeveloped portion of Restaurant Site #2 and the entire Restaurant Site #5. (31) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011-3), adopted January 25, 2011 to allow the following changes: a. To allow building area for Professional & Business Site F to increase by 18, 346 net square feet. (32) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2011-8), adopted March 8, 2011 to allow the following changes: a. To allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Site B by 9,917 net square feet 53 500 (33) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2013-5), adopted March 12, 2013 to allow the following changes: a. To delete Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC -15. b. To delete Part I. Industrial uses in its entirety as an allowed use. c. To revise the total acreage within PC -15 to 154.0 acres to reflect the deletion of Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC -15. d. To update the Composite exhibit and Exhibits A through E to reflect the deletion of Light Industrial Sites 1 and 2 from PC -15. Insert exhibits: Composite ............................................. For Information Only (33) Exhibit A .............................................. Land Use (33) Exhibit B ............................................... Grading and Roads (33) Exhibit C ............................................... Storm Drain (33) Exhibit D .............................................. Water & Sewer (33) Exhibit Boundary and Topography (33) (34) Planned Community Text revisions (Ordinance No. 2013-5), adopted March 12, 2013 to allow the following changes: a. Made changes to Professional & Business Offices for Site B to allow for Mixed -Use Residential Overlay and Public Park Overlay. b. For the Mixed -Use Residential Overlay, 4.2 acres are improved with 260 residential units and 3,019 square feet of commercial use. c. For the Public Park Overlay Zone, 1.0 acres are dedicated, improved and maintained as public park d. These improvements impacted the following: i. Reduced allowable building area for Site A u. Increased allowable building area for Site B. iii. Increased parking for Site B iv. Reduced land coverage for parking. e. Made changes to Contents and Overall Document to allow the following: i. New Mixed -Use Residential Overlay as Part VI. ii. New Public Park Overlay as Part VII. iii. Footnotes moved from Part VI to Part VIII iv. Exhibits moved from Part VII to Part VII1I Insert exhibits: Exhibit F .............................................. Overlay Map — Office Site B (34) Exhibit G .............................................. Pedestrian Connection Diagram (34) 54 1501 PART VIII. EXHIBITS Composite Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G For Information Only (33) Land Use (33) Grading and Roads (33) Storm Drain (33) Water & Sewer (33) Boundary and Topography (33) Overlay Map — Office Site B (34) Pedestrian Connection Diagram (34) 55 602 �� .mvmer /• V l I / C NOTA PART (Ordinance 2013-5) ` I� /ofFKE4 B.AIt /.[Mh I'e LANODON¢ WILSON pp ---- _— LAND USE \ I� KOLL CENTERu NEWPORT 50.3 i 4 I l., r 1 I I' NOTA PART (Ordinance 2013-5) VIA WILSON .] _ T...vvrrsc-evs . ORADINO m ROADS — ' qv auptuuaoauin �� uue: ea,x:eweu� ROLL CENTER NEWPORT 504 .ZL"= \ IIIIk,_ _ J� IL r I 9 / NOTA PART (Ordinance 2013-5) : /- / __z_�—__� _ ____' �____ _ __-._ -� �—�...�� �+•-�- � 1� LANOOON m WILBON p STORM, DRAIN MASTER PLAN w:arr ovtx.Gtuatxin I I anui �enx .no.� ROLL CENTER NEWPORTz 505 1500 ( � I i /j rr er /, 4 ---------- j NOTA PART (Ordinance 2013-5) ar S LANODON&WILSON / •. ey r' � 6E ER & WATEA MASTER PLAN am urn — CENTER—NEWYORT_ -KOLL- CENTER—NEW-FORT- I I -- -- 500 I C' i NOTA PART (Ordinance 2013-5)- U — ----- --- — -- -- _ve WlLRON QQ TOPOGRAPHY k HOU MARY 'KOLL- CENTER.. NEW3.ORT— 150 JAMBOREE RVPU ______ EXHIBIT F: OVERLAY MAP - OFFICE SITE B NEWPORT BEACH,C IFORNA FOR KOLL CENTER NEWPORT Qj 508 EXHIBIT G: PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION DIAGRAM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR r KOLL CENTER NEWPORT 509 oQ' 610 Attachment No. PC 5 Parking Study — September 2017 511 512 THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES PARKING STUDY Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, 92660 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 September, 2017 513 PARKING STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................... PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................ Existing Project Site........................................................... Proposed Project................................................................. PARKING ANALYSIS............................................................... Observed Parking Demand ............................................. Parking Data Adjustment Factor .................................. Parking Analysis.................................................................. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS............ Figure 1- Vicinity Map .................... Figure 2 - Project Location ............. Figure 3 - Existing Project Site..... Figure 4 - Project Site Plan ............. LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Page 9 9 9 .....12 .....14 Page .......................... 2 4 6 Page Table 1- Summary of Required Parking for the Koll Center Residences Project .........................7 Table 2 - Summary of Project Parking Supply by Project Phase.......................................................10 Table 3 - Summary of Koll Center Newport Office Parking Data Collection................................11 Table 4 - Comparison of Koll Center Newport Occupied Parking Spaces vs. Total Parking Supply...................................................................................................................................................13 514 DRAFT -PARKING STUDY - DRAFT FOR THE PROPOSED KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION The Koll Center Residences project is condominium project that is proposed to be developed within a portion of the surface parking areas serving the existing Koll Center Newport office park in the City of Newport Beach. The parking required for the residential uses will be provided in accordance with parking standards adopted for Uptown Newport. The project will replace the Koll Center Newport office parking that will be removed during construction of the project. This report has been prepared to evaluate the adequacy of the parking supply for the existing Koll Center Newport office park and the proposed Koll Center Residences during each phase of the construction and upon completion of the Koll Center Residences project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Project Site The Koll Center Newport development is an office park located generally within the area bounded by Campus Drive on the northeast, MacArthur Boulevard on the southwest, and jamboree Road, Teller Avenue, and existing office and industrial development on the southeast. A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. The Koll Center Residences project is shown in its context within the overall Koll Center Newport office complex on Figure 2. The Koll Center Newport office complex consists of almost 50 general office buildings with integrated surface parking areas and parking structures. The portion of Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the Koll Center Residences project (the project site) is shown on Figure 3. 1 The existing office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site (4440 Von Karman Avenue, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, 4910 Birch Street), or immediately contiguous to the site (5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue, 4350 Von Karman Avenue) will remain in their current locations, and are not a part of the proposed development. The Koll Center Residences project will not result in any changes to the existing office buildings. I For purposes of this study, all subsequent references to Koll Center Newport, or to "the project site" will refer only to the portion of Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the Koll Center Residences project, as shown on Figure 3. Koll Center Residences - 1 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 2GBi,5 IL a W �z I> 5-10 U Y N 9 F FIGURE 3 EXISTING PROJECT SITE ( R NOT TO SCALE 4 I Kimley* Horn -- k I I Building EXISTING No. Address PROJECT SITE 1, 4000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower 2. 4000 MacArthur Blvd. West Tower 3. 4. 4040 MacArthur Blvd. 4200 Von Karman Ave. S. 4320 Von Karman Ave. 6. 4300 Von Kafman Ave. 7. 4220 Von Karman Ave. 8. 4100 MacArthur Blvd. 9. 4110 MacArthur Blvd. 10. 4343 Von Karman Ave. 11. 4400 MacArthur Blvd. 12. 4340 Von Karman Ave. 13. 4350 Von Karman Ave. 14. 5000 Birch St 15. 4910 Birch St. 16. 4440 Von Karman Ave. 17. 4490 Von Karman Ave. 18. 4500 MacArthur Blvd. 19. 4590 MacArthur Blvd. 20. 4699 Jamboree Rd. 21. 4881 Birch St. 22. 4880 Campus Dr. 23. 4701 Von Karman Ave. 24. 4 101 Jamboree Rd. 25. Block D 26. 4450 MacArthur Blvd. 4 I Kimley* Horn -- k I I All parking spaces within the Koll Center Newport office complex are part of a common parking pool for the center. Based on a walling inventory of the existing parking, the portion of the Koll Center Newport office complex parking area that will be impacted by the Koll Center Residences project (shown on Figure 2) currently contains 1,651 parking spaces. Access to Koll Center Newport is currently provided by two driveways on Von Karman Avenue, and three driveways on Birch Street. All driveways are currently unsignalized and gated. Cross access throughout the site allows drivers to access any parking area from any of the site driveways. Currently, the parking supply within the project site consists of 1,651 parking spaces. Of these, 1,232 spaces are standard, unassigned spaces, available to all users; 287 are located in the parking structure, which is designated for tenants of the 5000 Birch building; and the remaining 132 are designated or restricted in some way (i.e., ADA accessible, loading spaces, EV charging spaces, or reserved). Proposed Project The Koll Center Residences project consists of construction of the following: • a new 490 -space parking structure for the Koll Center Newport offices, • 260 luxury residential condominiums with 557 parking spaces, • 3,000 square feet of ground -Floor retail uses, • a 1.2 -acre public park, and • the reconfiguration of some of the existing landscaping and surface parking areas. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 4. The condominium units would be in three, 13 -story residential buildings, with 2 levels of above -grade parking and 2 to 3 levels of below -grade parking. The retail uses would be located on the ground floor of the residential buildings. The proposed 1.2 -acre public park would be located adjacent to the easterly entrance to the project site from Birch Street. A summary of the project parking that will be provided for the Koll Center Residences project is provided on Table 1. To allow for the construction of the proposed project, some of the existing Koll Center Newport office surface parking areas and common landscape areas would be removed. The existing office parking displaced by project construction would be replaced with new parking, consisting of a combination of a new parking structure, to be located at the southeast corner of the 5000 Birch office parking structure; dedicated areas of parking within the parking structure built as part of the Building 1 residential development; and reconfiguration of some of the surface parking. Koll Center Residences - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 20/29 N w N a. Z Q J a W I -- V5 V5 �U W W �O LL IL 520 IY TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES PROJECT Use Parking Ratio Phase 1 Phase 2 All Phases Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 # of Units Req. Parkin # of I Req. Parking # of Units Req. Parking # of Units Req. Parkin Residential Uses 1 BR (DU) 1.8 17 31 16 29 17 31 SO 91 2 BR (DU) 1.8 60 108 60 108 60 108 180 324 3 BR (DU) 2 10 20 10 20 10 20 30 60 Total Resident Parking 87 159 86 157 87 159 260 475 Guest Parking 1 0.3 87 27 86 26 87 27 260 80 Residential Parking Required 186 183 186 555 Residential Parking Provided 188 183 186 557 Retail Uses Retail (KSF) 5.0 1.768 9 1 1.232 7 1 3.000 16 Retail Parking Provided 16 Park Park (Acre) 4.0 1.2 5 I 1.2 5 Park Parking Provided 5 Total Parking Provided for the Koll Center Residences Project 578 Source: MVE + Partners, "rhe Koll Center Residences Conceptual Design Package, 10/29/2016 Koll Center Residences - 7 - Kimley-Horn and 165pa1tes, Inc. Parking Study September, 2017 The Koll Center Residences project will be constructed in four phases. With each phase, a portion of the existing Koll Center Newport office parking supplywill be removed during the construction phase, and replacement or additional parking will be constructed as part of some phases. All office parking removed as part of the project will be replaced, and the final Koll Center Newport office parking supply will provide a net increase of 7 spaces over the existing office parking supply. In addition, the parking required for the residential uses will be provided in accordance with parking standards adopted for Uptown Newport. The following chart provides a brief phase -by -phase description of the Koll Center Newport office parking supply, and the changes in the office parking count that would occur during construction and at the completion of each phase. Summary of Office Parking Supply by Project Phase for Koll Center Newport' Condition Change in Office Parking Supply by Phase Balance Existing Koll Center Newport office parking supply 1 1,651 Phase A: New Parking Structure During Construction I -137 (office spaces removed) 1,514 At Phase A Completion I + 506 (office spaces added or replaced) 2,020 Phase 1: Residential Building 1 During Construction 331 (office spaces removed) 1,689 At Phase 1 Completion + 276 (office spaces added or replaced) 1,965 Phase 2: Residential Buildings 2 and 3 During Construction - 242 (office spaces removed) 1,723 At Phase 2 Completion 1 +0 1 1,723 Phase 3: Reconfiguration of selected parking areas throughout site During Construction - 109 (office spaces removed) 1,614 At Phase 3 Completion + 44 (office spaces added or replaced) 1,658 Net change in Koll Center Newport office parking +7 1 Reflects the changes in the office parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the Koll Center Residences project. Koll Center Residences - 8 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 266? -2 The chart above reflects only the changes to the existing Koll Center office parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport complex that will be impacted by the Koll Center Residences project. A summary of the changes and additions to the parking supply during each phase, including the new project parking that will be provided for the new Koll Center Residences project uses, is provided on Table 2. PARKING ANALYSIS Observed Parking Demand Although the data on Table 2 indicates that, upon project completion, the final parking supply for the Koll Center Newport offices will have a net increase of 7 spaces compared to existing, the interim loss of parking during the project construction phases is addressed in more detail here. Parking data collection and analysis has been conducted to document the existing parking needs for the Koll Center Newport offices, and to determine whether or not the resulting office parking supply during the construction and upon completion of each phase of the project will be adequate to accommodate the actual parking demands of the Koll Center Newport offices. To gain an understanding of the actual parking demand for Koll Center Newport offices, parking data collection was conducted on two typical weekdays - Tuesday, January 31st and Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 - from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM each day. The existing parking utilization generated by the Koll Center Newport offices on the project site was observed to determine the amount of parking currently used by the existing office operations. An hourly summary of office parking demand for Koll Center Newport is provided on Table 3. The parking observations indicate that, with the exception of the first hour of data collection, the parking demand was consistently slightly higher on Wednesday than on Tuesday, and that the peak parking demand was 994 occupied spaces on Wednesday, between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM. Parking Data Adjustment Factor At the time of the data collection, the office vacancy rate in the Airport area was 10.3%. For a conservative analysis, the peak observed office parking demand for Koll Center Newport was adjusted by a conservative factor of 1.25 (increased by 25%) to account for office vacancies, as well as other potential fluctuations in parking demand due to seasonal variations and miscellaneous site activities. With this parking adjustment, the adjusted peak parking utilization would be 1,243 occupied spaces. The current parking supply of 1,651 spaces would accommodate this adjusted parking demand, with a surplus of 408 unoccupied spaces. Koll Center Residences - 9 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 20F723 524 0 L 0 a v 0 0 0C 0 00 O O O W 7 V •d rn rn n to n to t\ to y y C O d N x a R• � y L m N V y m w V Oof N m to Zo M N M N d' N N Ln V N 0 G d �o to O �o 0, t\ t\ �o to M N C. V) x [ v p z U u .° G " L m y (OU6 v ti CL DL h V ¢' O O O W O N O W to y � C bCA w ti b a m y w y x a F Z a a a u .r U w w V bO C L ar N v N v .d y d t\ N N O O+ d. a u a a w m N vl N P.i O U M N O y C v �• x o 0 Ln N b0 N C t` c m d' �' a b CL my Wu E3 FV Z y b o 0 o O o o OD rn o o � 7 H rj y C.4 y x C •y O d N .--I V1 m T d v V) = w cr a y a� v c M n O CA Y H U L r o ~ Y F [ aci u ~ � d o rn U) m M d on v 'o ID o� rn � a Q O L Ln L b L O c -I r -I c -I N r -I 11 rl r-1 rl Y y !\ C to CC) N m G C ZC w p C O_ C p C O C p C O_ C p C O_ 3 w m m O] W 0 v C � 0.l U O 'Y U _ Y N V v V N .0 W W W C O O O O o tiv CL CL 8 m CL E N E y o 0 0 x c v u ao a 0 0 cv 0 0 A , u a 0 •C U bo v !A U m y V nn H v 04 y L iLi Y Y C 0 a - a m a m a o h ti N o m 0 0 o v 7 Y Q 7 D Y Q 7 Q Y Q 7 Q Y Q,� C U U U CC II II II II �_ Q Q c -I r-1 N N M M L m �. �'•I N M Q IA N N �/1 Vl N fA N Ol N N y O Om a 524 0 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF KOLL CENTER NEWPORT OFFICE PARKING DATA COLLECTION Number of Parked Cars Time Tuesday, January 31s` Wednesday, February 1s` Maximum Maximum Day Peak Hour 8:30 to 9:30 AM 697 643 697 Tues 9:30 to 10:30 AM 902 925 925 Wed 10:30 to 11:30 AM 956 989 989 Wed 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM 950 994 994 Wed 12:30 to 1:30 PM 889 922 922 Wed 1:30 to 2:30 PM 906 933 933 Wed 2:30 to 3:30 PM 920 933 933 Wed 3:30 to 4:30 PM 853 871 871 Wed 4:30 to 5:30 PM 730 689 730 Wed Note: The data presented represents the current office parking demand for the portion of the Koll Center Newport site that will be impacted by the construction of the Koll Center Residences project. Koll Center Residences 11- Kimley-Horn and Aaga es, Inc. Parking Study September, 2017 Parking Analysis As pointed out previously, each phase of the project will involve the removal of some of the existing office surface parking during construction, and the replacement or construction of new parking at the completion of the phase. An analysis of the adequacy of the parking supply to accommodate the office parking demand during each phase of the project was conducted, and the results are summarized on Table 4. The analysis on Table 4 identifies the number of parking spaces that will be provided for the Koll Center Newport offices during each phase; both during the construction of the phase, when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. The data on Table 4 also shows the peak Koll Center Newport office parking demand (994 observed occupied spaces, increased by 25% to 1,243 spaces, to account for office vacancies, and other fluctuations in parking demand due to seasonal variations and miscellaneous site activities), and the remaining number of unoccupied spaces. The results on Table 4 show that the fewest number of unoccupied parking spaces for the Koll Center Newport office parking would occur during the construction of Phase A. During this period of time, 137 surface spaces will be removed while the new parking structure is under construction. The total parking supply would be reduced to 1,514 spaces, and the number of unoccupied spaces would be 271 spaces. At the completion of Phase A, a total of 506 new office parking spaces will be provided, which will replace the 137 lost spaces, and will provide an additional 369 spaces, compared to the existing condition. The number of office parking spaces at the completion of Phase A would be 2,020 spaces, and the number of available (unoccupied) spaces would be 777 spaces. In all subsequent phases, both during construction and at completion, the office parking supply on the project site will be greater than the parking supply during Phase A construction, and consequently, the number of unoccupied spaces will also be will be greater than during Phase A construction. At the completion of the Koll Center Residences project, all Koll Center Newport office parking spaces impacted by the project will have been replaced, with a net increase of 7 parking spaces. The analysis results indicate that, given the current parking supply and the observed peak office parking demand, adequate parking will be provided at all times to accommodate the parking needs of the Koll Center Newport offices. As a project design feature, a valet parking program will be implemented by the applicant during the construction of the Phase A parking structure, when the existing office parking supply will be reduced by 137 spaces. In addition, an on-site shuttle will be provided during all phases of construction, to assist employees and visitors in getting between the available parking supplies and their offices during the construction. Koll Center Residences -12- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 2a -'?_o -527 I v u c N l- �o N Cl CD c-1 Ln @ m V m O n n d' N 00 00 E C R d' N l- d' r' N as m N 1 C c b M M M M M M M M M U "" L N N N N N N N N N O i W o d ci N c c i L � Q w L4 C LL 7 CD O u F' U a C- Q ,� N t o N rn 00 Ln ID m N m N d. co y p z to O �O °� r- h �o �D -I O L, rl' �--I N �--1' c-1 rl c O [y Q U w � G Y c p F Q (M M dN' WU fQ V! z y O W ti p Y ' H x O LO " a a u t:z o N to O ON v] M M d' OD C Q z c A 7 Lr O N �^ Q+ a 7 N a y V Q 4 W n c ro O D w p m i E a D c g° c •Y c g° c c 3° c ❑ °° c o W N c b E U V Y u v Y u N _m 'Y u F� v 'Y u Y � > bD d ❑ b E E E E x m y y y C ° y C ° L m N UU U U o 'O U y U w U y U DO ti UN O bD E M t b0 E �b = bD O �p V L Q.i L d ° > [rig b0 m M yN, N 0 C Y W N N N d N N N N tC N N A N (6 t6 c0 t6 t6 tb 'L N a F -527 I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • The Koll Center Residences project is proposed to be a 260 -condominium project, to be developed within a portion of the surface parking areas serving the existing Koll Center Newport office park. • The condominium units would be in three, 13 -story residential buildings, with 2 levels of above -grade parking and 2 to 3 levels of below -grade parking. A small amount of retail use would be located on the ground floor of the residential buildings. A 1.2 -acre public park would be located adjacent to the easterly entrance to the project site from Birch Street. • Currently, the Koll Newport Center office parking supply within the project site consists of 1,651 parking spaces. • Some of the existing Kell Center Newport office surface parking areas would be removed during construction of the Koll Center Residences project. All office parking removed as part of the project will be replaced, and the final Kell Center Newport office parking supply will provide a net increase of 7 spaces over the existing office parking supply. • In addition, the parking required for the residential uses will be provided in accordance with parking standards adopted for Uptown Newport. • Parking data collection and analysis was conducted to document the existing parking needs for the Koll Center Newport offices, and to determine whether or not the resulting office parking supply during the construction and upon completion of each phase of the project will be adequate to accommodate the actual parking demands of the Koll Center Newport offices. • Parking data collection was conducted on two typical weekdays - Tuesday, January 31st and Wednesday, February 1st, 2017 - from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM each day. The parking observations indicate that the peak parking demand was 994 occupied spaces on Wednesday, between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM. • The peak observed parking demand was adjusted by a conservative factor of 1.25 (increased by 25%) to account for office vacancies, as well as other potential fluctuations in parking demand due to seasonal variations and miscellaneous site activities. With this parking adjustment, the peak parking utilization would be 1,243 occupied spaces. The current parking supply of 1,651 spaces would accommodate this adjusted parking demand, with a surplus of 408 unoccupied spaces. Koll Center Residences -14- Kimley-Horn and Associates,) DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, tog • The fewest number of unoccupied parking spaces for Koll Center Newport office parking would occur during the construction of Phase A. During this period of time, 137 surface spaces will be removed while the new parking structure is under construction. The total parking supply will be reduced to 1,514 spaces, and the number of unoccupied spaces will be 271 spaces. • In all subsequent phases, both during construction and at completion of each phase, the office parking supply on the project site will be greater than the parking supply during Phase A construction, and consequently, the number of unoccupied spaces will also be will be greater than during Phase A construction. At the completion of the Koll Center Residences project, all Koll Center Newport office parking spaces impacted by the project will have been replaced, with a net increase of 7 parking spaces. • The parking required for the residential uses will be provided in accordance with parking standards adopted for Uptown Newport. • A valet parking program will be implemented by the applicant during Phase A of construction, when the existing office parking supply will be reduced by 137 spaces. In addition, an on-site shuttle will be provided during all phases of construction, to assist employees and visitors in getting between the available parking supplies and their offices during the construction. Koll Center Residences - 15- Kimley-Horn and Associates, 1�c.� DD, DRAFT Parking Study - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION September, 20iT�J 530 Attachment No. PC 6 Traffic Study — September 2017 531 5S2 0 Traffic Impact Study for: The Koll Center Residences In the City of Newport Beach Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach September 2017 Kimley»>Horn 53-4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, CA 92868 September 2017 535 THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Site Uses and Access .................... ................ ................ :............... :.............................................. 1 Proposed Site Uses and Access................................................................................................................. 1 STUDY METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 5 StudyArea................................................................................................................................................... 5 AnalysisMethodology............................................................................................................................... 8 PerformanceCriteria............................................................................................................................... 10 Thresholdof Significance........................................................................................................................ 11 Cityof Newport Beach......................................................................................................................... 11 Cityof Irvine......................................................................................................................................... 11 Caltrans................................................................................................................................................. 11 StudyScenarios........................................................................................................................................ 12 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM............................................................................................... 12 RoadwayCharacteristics......................................................................................................................... 12 ExistingTransit Service........................................................................................................................... 14 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS......................................................................................................... 16 ExistingTraffic Volumes......................................................................................................................... 16 Existing Intersection Analysis................................................................................................................ 19 PROJECTTRAFFIC..................................................................................................................................... 19 TripGeneration........................................................................................................................................ 19 Trip Distribution and Assignment......................................................................................................... 19 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS.............................................................................................. 24 FUTURE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................. 24 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis............................................................................................ 24 TPO1% Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 28 TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project.............................................................................................. 28 TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project................................................................................................... 32 CEQA (Cumulative Conditions) Analysis............................................................................................... 35 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project....................................................................................... 38 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project............................................................................................. 38 CITY OF IRVINE ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS.......................................................................... 43 ExistingConditions..............................................................................................................................45 ExistingPlus Project............................................................................................................................45 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project....................................................................................... 50 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project............................................................................................. 50 ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES.................................................................................... 55 Intersections on State Highway Facilities............................................................................................. 55 TrafficImpact Criteria............................................................................................................................. 55 State Highway Intersection Analysis..................................................................................................... 57 ExistingConditions.............................................................................................................................. 57 ExistingPlus Project............................................................................................................................57 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project....................................................................................... 57 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project............................................................................................. 57 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE............................................................... 59 SITE ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION............................................................................................... 59 CONSTRUCTIONTRAFFIC....................................................................................................................... 64 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 66 53 (o APPENDICES APPENDIX A -Traffic Data Collection Worksheets APPENDIX B - Intersection Analysis Worksheets B-1 - Existing Conditions B-2 - Existing Plus Project Conditions B-3 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project B-4 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project B-5 - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project B-6 - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project APPENDIX C - Future Conditions Information C-1 - Newport Beach Committed and Cumulative Project Information C-2 - City of Irvine ITAM Forecasts APPENDIX D - 1% Analysis Worksheets - TPO Analysis APPENDIX E - Intersection Analysis Worksheets - State Highway Analysis E-1 - Existing Conditions E-2 - Existing Plus Project Conditions E-3 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project E-4 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project E-5 - CEQAAnalysis Year 2022 Without Project E-6 - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project APPENDIX F - CMP Compliance 537 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 - Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure2 - Existing Project Site..................................................................................................................... 3 Figure3 - Project Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4 - Study Intersections...................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5 - Existing Transit Routes............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6 - Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control.................................................................... 17 Figure 7 - Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................................ 18 Figure 8 - Project Trip Distribution........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 9 - Project -Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................... 23 Figure 10 - Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................ 25 Figure 11 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................. 29 Figure 12 - TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................... 33 Figure 13 - Location of Cumulative Projects............................................................................................ 37 Figure 14 - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................... 39 Figure 15 - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project Peak Hour Volumes ............................................. 41 Figure 16 - Study Roadway Segments....................................................................................................... 44 Figure17 - Existing Site Access................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 18 - Proposed Site Access............................................................................................................... 62 LIST OF TABLES Table 1- Summary of Intersection Operation - Existing Conditions.................................................... 20 Table 2 - Summary of Project Trip Generation........................................................................................ 21 Table 3 - Summary of Intersection Operation - Existing Plus Project Conditions ............................... 26 Table 4 - Summary of City of Newport Beach Committed Projects....................................................... 27 Table 5 - Summary of 1% Analysis - TPO Analysis................................................................................. 30 Table 6 - Summary of Intersection Operation - TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project ................ 31 Table 7 - Summary of Intersection Operation - TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project ..................... 34 Table 8 - Summary of Cumulative Projects.............................................................................................. 36 Table 9 - Summary of Intersection Operation - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project.............40 Table 10 - Summary of Intersection Operation - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project ................. 42 Table 11 - City of Irvine Roadway Segment Analysis - Existing Conditions........................................46 Table 12 - Peak Hour Link Analysis - Existing Conditions..................................................................... 47 Table 13 - Roadway Segment Analysis - Existing Plus Project Conditions .......................................... 48 Table 14 - Peak Hour Link Analysis - Existing Plus Project................................................................... 49 Table 15 - Roadway Segment Analysis - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project ......................... 51 Table 16 - Peak Hour Link Analysis - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project .............................. 52 Table 17 - Roadway Segment Analysis - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project ............................... 53 Table 18 - Peak Hour Link Analysis - CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project .................................... 54 Table 19 - Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations............................................................ 58 538 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR THE THE KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to provide an evaluation of the traffic -related impacts associated with the proposed Koll Center Residences project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic impact study requirements, County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, and in support of the environmental documentation for the project, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Koll Center Residences project site is located at the southeast corner' of Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. Existing Site Uses and Access The project site is located within the surface parking areas serving the existing Koll Center Newport office park. Koll Center Newport consists of general office buildings with surface parking and a parking structure. Except for the 4440 Von Karman office building, the existing office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site (4490 Von Karman and 4910 Birch), or immediately contiguous to the site (5000 Birch, 4340 Von Karman, and 4350 Von Karman) are not a part of the proposed development Access to Koll Center Newport is currently provided by two driveways on Von Karman Avenue, and three driveways on Birch Street. All driveways are currently unsignalized and gated. The existing Koll Center Newport site is shown on Figure 2. Proposed Site Uses and Access The Koll Center Residences project consists of the construction of 260 luxury residential condominiums, 3,000 square feet of ground -floor retail uses, a one -acre public park, a parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. The proposed residential units would be in three, 13 -story buildings, with 2 levels of above -grade parking and 2 to 3 levels of below -grade parking. The proposed one -acre public park would be located adjacent to the easterly entrance to the project site from Birch Street. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 3. ' As shown on Figure 1, the streets adjacent to the project site are oriented on a diagonal. For purposes of this report, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Von Karman Avenue are considered to be the north -south streets, and Birch Street is the east -west street. The Koll Center Residences - 1 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September�3� 540 (R NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP -z- PIH '.1 1 -',,i !F'M1Yi WIIAN it r i. IrI ! I PP PWT r' \\ I uq NJN WMI:i Off, FIGURE 2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE -3- (p NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3 PROJECT SITE PLAN s NOT TO SCALE oQ' 54� After completion, the project would take access via two access points on Von Karman Avenue (one full access point, and one for egress only) and three full access points on Birch Street. To allow for the construction of the proposed project, some of the existing surface parking areas and the common landscape areas would be demolished. All project parking would be provided in parking garages underneath the buildings, with additional on-site surface parking for the proposed one -acre public park and retail uses. Existing Koll Center Newport office parking displaced by the project construction activities and by the proposed development would be replaced with the construction of a new 506 -space parking structure, to be located at the southeast corner of the 5000 Birch office tower's parking structure, and designated office parking spaces in the Building 1 parking structure. A separate construction parking management plan is being prepared. STUDY METHODOLOGY Study Area This Traffic Impact Study for the Koll Center Residences project includes evaluation of morning and evening peak hour operations at the 29 existing intersections listed on page 7. The study intersections consist of a combination of intersections in the City of Newport Beach and the adjoining City of Irvine. The study area and study intersection list reflect input received from the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The locations of the study intersections are shown on Figure 4. Of the 29 study intersections, 12 are controlled and maintained by the City of Irvine and 15 are controlled and maintained by the City of Newport Beach. The two I-405 Freeway ramp intersections at Jamboree Road are controlled and maintained by Caltrans. Each intersection has been analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. For "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the City that controls and maintains the signal. A discussion of the analysis methodology and significance criteria for each city is provided in the next section. Of the 29 study intersections, two intersections are located on State Highways, and are therefore controlled and maintained by Caltrans. A separate analysis of the State Highway intersections using the analysis methodology specified in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies is provided in a separate section of this report. The Koll Center Residences - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, � 540 (R NOT TO SCALE c aaaa e V, 4 j a \p a % JOHN WAYNE CITY / AIRPORT COSTA MESA / l / 2 �i O v FQ OQ CITY OF 0a''A NEWPORT BEACH FIGURE 4 STUDY INTERSECTIONS CITY OF IRVINE ®�aFWY SITE LEGEND: Q Newport Beach Intersection Irvine Intersection QQ Caltrans Intersection ---- City Boundary oQ' 548 Study Intersections No. Intersection Jurisdiction 1 Traffic Control 1 MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive 1 Irvine Signal 2 MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street Newport Beach Signal 3 MacArthur Boulevard at Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach Signal 4 MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 1.2 Newport Beach Signal 5 MacArthur Boulevard SB Ramp at University Drive Irvine Signal 6 Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive Irvine Signal 7 Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive 1 Irvine Signal 8 Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street Newport Beach Signal 9 Teller Avenue at Campus Drive 1 Irvine Signal 10 Teller Avenue at Birch Street Newport Beach 2 -way Stop 11 Jamboree Road at I-405 NB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal 12 Jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal 13 Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive Irvine Signal 14 Jamboree Road at Dupont Drive Irvine Signal 15 Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 1 Irvine Signal 16 Jamboree Road at Birch Street 1 Irvine Signal 17 Jamboree Road at Fairchild Drive 1 Irvine Signal 18 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signal 19 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signal 20 Jamboree Road at Bayview Way Newport Beach Signal 21 Jamboree Road at University Drive Newport Beach Signal 22 Carlson Avenue at Campus Drive Irvine Signal 23 University Drive at Campus Drive Irvine Signal 24 Bristol Street N at Campus Drive Newport Beach Signal 25 Bristol Street S at Irvine Avenue / Campus Drive Newport Beach Signal 26 Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive Newport Beach Signal 27 Birch Street at Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signal 28 Birch Street at Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signal 29 Bayview Place at Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signal 1 For "shared" intersections on the boundary between the two cities, the city listed indicates the city that maintains and controls the signal. Freeway ramp intersections and intersections on a State Highway are maintained and operated by Caltrans. 2 Designated County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. The Koll Center Residences - 7 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 017 Analysis Methodology Intersection analysis for all signalized intersections has been conducted using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which is the methodology utilized by both cities, as well as the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Intersections that are located at a State Highway intersection are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements, using a separate methodology, as discussed later in this report. The ICU methodology provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during any given hour. The ICU calculation assumes an hourly per -lane capacity for each lane through the intersection, and a clearance factor to account for the effect of yellow and red signal phases. Variations in analysis input parameters between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine have been accounted for in the analysis. The following presents the ICU parameters for each of the cities. ICU Parameter Saturation Flow Rate / Lane City of Newport Beach City of Irvine 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) Clearance Interval 0 .05 of cycle length Right -turn -on -red allowed 1 NA Yes ATMS Credit 2 NA .05 Critical Movement/ ICU calculation 3 decimals for each critical 2 decimals for each critical movement, summed and movement and final ICU rounded to 2 decimals for the final ICU for the TPO analysis, and 3 decimals for the CEQA analysis Right -turn -on -red is allowed from exclusive right -turn lanes. For the City of Irvine, "unofficial' right - turn lanes (known as a de facto right -turn lane) are assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet of travel lane exists from lane stripe to edge of roadway, and curbside parking is prohibited during peak periods. 2 ATMS is an advanced traffic signal management system employed by the City of Irvine to allow the control of signal operations in real-time response to traffic conditions at the intersection. Intersections with the ATMS equipment installed are given a 0.05 capacity credit. The ATMS credit is not applied to intersections located within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). One study intersection (University Drive at Campus Drive) has the ATMS equipment installed. The ATMS credit is applied in all study scenarios. Intersection analysis for unsignalized intersections has been conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle. Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of "Level of Service" which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to - capacity CV/C) ratio that translates into a corresponding Level of Service, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free-flowing conditions; to LOS F, representing congested, over- capacity conditions. The Koll Center Residences - 8 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 0O The HCM methodology returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle, which also corresponds to a Level of Service measure. A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding V/C ratio or delay is provided on the following chart. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level Signalized: Unsignalized: of ICU HCM 1 Description V/C Ratio Delay (sec) Service EXCELLENT - No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and A 0.00-0.60 510 no approach phase is fully used. VERY GOOD - An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; B 0.61-0.70 > 10 and15 15 drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. GOOD - Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more C 0.71-0.80 > 15 and15 25 than one red light; back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. FAIR - Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush D 0.81-0.90 > 25 and:5 35 hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups. POOR- Represents the most vehicles that the intersection E 0.91-1.00 > 35 and <- 50 approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. FAILURE - Back-ups from nearby locations or on cross F > 1.00 > 50 streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 The Koll Center Residences - 9 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September,2017 1 Performance Criteria The City of Newport Beach target Level of Service (LOS) for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS D or better, except for designated intersections within the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine, where LOS E is acceptable. The shared Airport Area intersections include: No. Intersection 1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive 1 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 2 7. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive 1 9. Teller Avenue at Campus Drive 1 15. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 16. Jamboree Road at Birch Street 1 17. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road 1 1 Will be analyzed using the City of Irvine ICU parameters 2 Will be analyzed using the City of Newport Beach ICU parameters In the City of Irvine, the target Level of Service is LOS D, except where the intersection is located within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections, the target Level of Service is E. The following study intersections are located in the IBC: No. Intersection 1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive 1 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 1 6. Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive 1 7. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive 1 9. Teller Avenue at Campus Drive 1 11. Jamboree Road at 1-405 Northbound Ramps 1 12. Jamboree Road at 1-405 Southbound Ramps 1 13. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive 1 14. Jamboree Road at Dupont Drive 1 15. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 1 17. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road 1 22. Campus Drive at Carlson Avenue 1 ' Will be analyzed using the City of Irvine ICU parameters 2 Will be analyzed using the City of Newport Beach ICU parameters The Koll Center Residences -10- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 017 Threshold of Significance City of Newport Beach To determine whether or not the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following thresholds of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project -generated trips causes the Level of Service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable (LOS D, except for intersections on a CMP facility, or designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS E is acceptable) to a deficient Level of Service. • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project -generated trips increases the ICU at a study intersection by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS E or F. For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service, a signal warrant analysis will be conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis will be conducted according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Warrant 3 - Peak Hour warrant parameters, using the peak hour intersection volumes. City of Irvine All of the study intersections in the City of Irvine are signalized. To determine whether or not the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Irvine has adopted the following significance threshold: • A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable Level of Service (LOS D except for intersections located in the IBC or on a CMP facility, where LOS E is acceptable) in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to two percent (v/c increase by 0.02 or more), or; • The project increases the ICU by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.01 or more) at a study intersection, causing it to become deficient. Should a significant impact occur, project mitigation would be required to bring the intersection back to baseline conditions, at a minimum. Caltrans • A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour Level of Service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). The Koll Center Residences _11- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 013 Study Scenarios Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing Plus Project • TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project • TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project • CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project • CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Roadway Characteristics Regional access to the project site is provided by the Corona del Mar Freeway/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73), located less than one mile to the south of the project area, and by the San Diego Freeway (I-405), located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project area. The proposed development would take access to the surrounding street system via connections to Von Karman Avenue and to Birch Street. Michelson Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine, located approximately one-third mile south of the I-405 Freeway. Michelson Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (mph) east of Von Karman Avenue and 40 mph west of Von Karman Avenue. Dupont Drive is a four -lane undivided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine that extends from north of Michelson Drive to just east of Jamboree Road. Dupont Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph to the west of Von Karman Avenue, and 40 mph to the east of Von Karman Avenue. Campus Drive is a six -lane divided arterial that extends north -south between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, then turns and extends as a four -lane undivided arterial in an east -west orientation between MacArthur Boulevard and Carlson Avenue, then two-lane undivided between Carlson Avenue and University Drive. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of Campus Drive. The posted speed limit on Campus Drive ranges from 45 mph to 50 mph within the study area. Campus Drive is designated on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element as a Major Arterial between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, and as a Secondary Arterial between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. The Koll Center Residences -12- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, Birch Street is a four -lane undivided roadway, designated as a Secondary Arterial on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. Birch Street extends in a north -south direction from south of SR -73 to MacArthur Boulevard, and then turns and extends in an east -west direction from MacArthur Boulevard to jamboree Road. Birch Street is divided by a painted median, and on - street parking is prohibited in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Fairchild Road is a four -lane collector in the City of Irvine that extends in a northwest -to - southeast arc from jamboree Road to McArthur Boulevard. Fairchild Road is divided by a painted median and currently has no posted speed limit. MacArthur Boulevard is a six- to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. MacArthur Boulevard is divided by a raised or painted median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements. Bristol Street North is part of the Bristol Street couplet that runs along either side of SR -73. Bristol Street North is a three- to four -lane one-way arterial that extends from jamboree Road in a northwest direction north of and parallel to SR -73. It crosses over SR -73 and connects with Bristol Street at Santa Ana Avenue/Redhill Avenue. Bristol Street is classified as a Primary Arterial on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Bristol Street South is the southbound portion of the Bristol Street couplet. Bristol Street South is a four -lane one-way arterial that extends from Santa Ana Avenue/Redhill Avenue to jamboree Road in a southeast direction south of and parallel to SR -73. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Von Karman Avenue is a four -lane north -south Primary Arterial that starts at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, and extends northward into the City of Irvine. Von Karman Avenue is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 mph. Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. On the City of Irvine Circulation Element, Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Secondary Highway between Campus Drive and Michelson Drive and as a Major Highway north of Michelson Drive. Jamboree Road is a six- to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through both Irvine and Newport Beach in a north -south direction. Within the Newport Beach city limits, jamboree Road is mainly a six -lane divided arterial with three lanes in each direction, with the exception of the segment between Birch Street and Fairchild Road, where there are four southbound travel lanes. jamboree Road transitions into a seven -lane arterial north of the Newport Beach city limits. jamboree Road is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. jamboree Road is classified as a Major arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements. University Drive is a four -lane to six -lane divided arterial. University Drive extends eastward from jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach across the SR -73 into the City of Irvine, and The Koll Center Residences -13- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 5 through the University of California Irvine (UCI). University Drive transitions from four to six lanes at the SR -73 southbound ramps. University Drive is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 50 mph within the City of Newport Beach limits. University Drive is classified as a Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element and a Major arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. Existing Transit Service Transit service in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus lines. The bus routes currently operated by OCTA through the study area in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine are shown on Figure S. The following OCTA routes serve the project site and vicinity. OCTA Route 59 operates between the City of Anaheim and the City of Irvine via Kraemer Boulevard/Glassell Street/Grand Avenue and Von Karman Avenue. The Route 59 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 59 operates in full - route mode on weekdays from 4:30 AM to 11:30 PM with 20- to 35 -minute headways (the time interval between bus arrivals). On Saturdays and Sundays, Route 59 does not offer service to UCI; it only operates to Pullman Street and Dyer Road from approximately 6:00 AM to 10:15 PM, with SO- to 60 -minute headways. OCTA Route 76 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach via Talbert Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 76 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and jamboree Road. Route 76 operates on weekdays only, from approximately 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM with 45 -minute to 1 -hour headways. OCTA Route 178 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Irvine via Adams Avenue, Birch Street, and Campus Drive. The Route 178 stop closest the project site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 178 operates on weekdays from 5:50 AM to 10:50 PM with 45 -minute to 1 -hour headways. Route 178 does not operate on weekends. The Koll Center Residences -14- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September017 F EAIJ I IN V 1 RH1701 I RV V 1 GJ is- oQ' 552 OCTA Route 212 provides express route service between John Wayne Airport and San Juan Capistrano via the San Diego Freeway (I-405). The Route 212 stop closest the project site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 212 operates on weekdays only, and in the northbound direction only in the morning - from 5:50 to 7:30 AM; and in the southbound direction only in the evening - from 4:00 to 6:30 PM. OCTA Route 213 operates between the Park -and -Ride in Brea and UCI. Major destinations along the route include Brea Mall, Fullerton Transportation Center, the Village at Orange, and UCI. Route 213 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning - from 5:22 to 7:58 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening - from 4:03 to 6:58 PM. OCTA Route 472 provides Metrolink feeder route service for the Tustin Metrolink Station on Jamboree Road. Route 472 starts at the Tustin Metrolink Station and travels through the City of Irvine where it turns around at the Food and Drug Administration building on Fairchild Road, across Jamboree Road from the project site. The Route 472 stop closest to the site is located at the corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road. Route 472 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning - from 6:10 to 9:00 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening - from 3:30 to 5:20 PM. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing Traffic Volumes Field observations of all study intersections were conducted to document the number of through and turning lanes, traffic control, and other existing traffic conditions at each intersection. Existing lane configurations and intersection traffic control at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6. Existing morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement counts were provided by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. Intersection counts that were not provided by either City were collected in 2016. The traffic counts provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were conducted between 2014 and 2015. For City of Newport Beach intersections, traffic counts older than one year have been grown at 1% per year on certain major roadways, per direction from City staff. For City of Irvine intersections, traffic counts were grown at 2% per year, based on direction from City staff. The resulting peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 7. Copies of peak hour traffic data collection sheets are provided in Appendix A. The Koll Center Residences -16- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 017� 500 1. MacArthur Blad a II Campus Or 2. MacArthur Blvd at Birch St 3. MacArthur Blvd a1Van Karman Ave O. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. MOGlrtbur Blvtl BEatUniversity Or 6. Von Kerman Ave at Michelson Or JIIII` CP � III` �F � �111� afar �111r® ]. Vonamus Ave atCampus Or B. Von barman Ave at Birch St 9. Tamp Ave at Campus Or 111. Teller Ave at BlrcM1 at 11.Jamboree Rd at 1405 NB Ramp II.405 SB and a11NO55B Ramp IIS JII� l ff t J IBIII III Dr.Bam l �11r 111r W 1I1r a1� us se 13. Jamboree Rtlm at Michelson Or 11. Jamboree Rtlm at Dupont Or 1E. Jamboree Rd� at Campus Or 16. Jamboree Rtlm at Birch St 1]. Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd fO. Jamboree Rd at Bristol St JIIBI� �F JI{{� r F �8� ! JIBI P J1181� 2 Nuch v J�III on-vam r �1111r r �111Ir �11It- —°�rw.y �a�r F� 19. Jamboree Ad al Bristol St 20. Jamboree Rtlm at Bayview day 21. Jamboree Rd at University Or 22.Carlson Ave. at Campus Or 23. University Dra at Campus Dr 26. Bristol St Nmm at Campus Or �F L 1811- 1111E L 181 181- � .11 uv -11 i _ v 25. Bristol At S At Campus Or 26.Iraine Aver at Mesa Or 2]. SuBbl StN at Birch St 2%Brimed 515mm at Birch St 29. Bristol at at Bayview Pi lug °°11111 JIIT1r€ JJ�I IIS` °111 L or..wey In„e rm L a FIGURE 6 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 32_ LEGEND: Q Newport Beach Intersection Q* Irvine Intersection Caltrans Intersection — — City Boundary F Free Movement c Right -Tum Overlap Defector Right -Turn Lane ora No Right -Turn On Red © Signal Stop Sign �N urs f or r Masaar FF ..a- .g - e. /a Oea O� r "a P n d e `Lwa wxir z Yy 3 11 -FIT sm Fe s P 4i aAvs eeecw e. n s LEGEND: QX Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Intersection rm Caltrans Intersection — -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes FIGURE 7 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ,B- IGmley>»Horn 1. MacArthur Blvd I. MaeA/IFur Blvtl 3. MCCAe1M1u/Blvtl C. MacArthur Blvd S. MaeAdhur Blvd 6. VOn Ke en Ave al Campus flr at Birch 5[ a1 Von Karman Ave al Jamboree Rd Be al Unive,aily Dr al Michelson Or STL Wim. �i�la .-�. wtyrnas a,n,as rna-.'S SIS rese .-.SPr 1 .�nrvr yin,.—.1 'gyp a. ka.�, ]. Van Karman Ave B. Von Karman Ave^ 9. Teller Aveaw N. Telle/Ave 1t. JamboreefldYV 1]. Jamboree Rtlp^ al Campus flr al Birch St al Campus 0r al BircM1 St e11dp5 NB Ramp a11dp55B Romp - ^ 7ilr,ytlT J3L,—uN �Y�r/sn JLL ra,n �i r�.�.nua JT .-'.1 i f i�s�.¢a�a Sa„7i,n� 1 P T f r am.s i t /aay SCE a,Ny p9C /R�y Ati .vAeey &C 1 ]. Jamboree Rtlry 1G. Jamboree Rd 15. Jamboree Rd 1fi. Jamboree RdJ� 1]. JamborIF NEWPORY ee Rd NO 19. Jamboree Rtlre at MicM1Olgon Or g� al Dupont Or al Campus Or al BircM1 6t al Fairchild Rd MBtlg1oI5IN F„�¢/� , ro ",/� ,nog -y mss& w+g„aae Tn.z�xFa ..i.a-„a=E ,/a -yea- czg 19. Jambae"Rdm 3p. Jamboree Rd 21. Jamboree Rd 33. Carlson Avee� 33. University Ur... 3C. Bristol OtN� al Bris1a1616 at Bayview toy al University Or al Campus pr al campus flr ¢ al Campus O/ I 7p � C iL4'"„ 7iL ,a.,� =rr sr menm-y }AE PjC 7� �u 8nu 4 35. Bristol iw 26. Wine Aver sm3]. Bris1ol51Nm 36.8ris1o1015 39. Brislo1010� al CampusDr a$[gpM1esa Ur at Birth 51 e1pB1i',ch St al0ayview Pl j of �az9� 1 Y �nre,—. y¢ dmrw,. i ,rv¢oa a M+—.E�= z? TO/ �R aa� �S no.� s Existing Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the signalized study intersections using the applicable intersection analysis methodology and parameters for each city, as discussed previously in this report. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections. Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 1. Review of this table indicates that all study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D for all intersections, except LOS E for intersections in the Airport Area or the IBC area, and CMP intersections) in both peak hours. Intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix B. PROJECT TRAFFIC Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) publication. The proposed project components and trip generation estimates for the Koll Center Residences are as follows: • Luxury Condominiums/Townhouse (Land Use 233) • Specialty Retail Center (Land Use 826) The trip generation estimates for the proposed project were developed by adding together the trips generated by the residential and retail uses. However, not all trips from the retail land use are anticipated to be off-site trips. Some trips are expected to be captured by the internal land uses, such as the existing office uses, and the proposed residential uses. A 10% retail adjustment factor was applied to the Specialty Retail land use to account for internal capture, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates for the Koll Center Residences project are shown on Table 2. The project would generate approximately 1,207 daily trips, with 149 morning peak hour trips (36 inbound and 113 outbound) and 151 evening peak hour trips (94 inbound and 57 outbound). Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution assumptions for the project site were developed based on likely origins and destinations of project residents and visitors, and the transportation network available for those trips. Distribution assumptions were submitted to City staff for review and concurrence. Trip distribution assumptions for the project are shown on Figure 8. The resulting project -related traffic volumes at each study intersection are shown on Figure 9. The Koll Center Residences _19- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September63 TABLE 1 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION EXISTING CONDITIONS Int Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd at Campus Dr * 5 0.57 A 0.74 C 2 MacArthur Blvd at Birch St 5 0.38 A 0.52 A 3 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave S 0.58 A 0.53 A 4 MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd * 5 0.58 A 0.65 B 5 MacArthur Blvd SB at University Dr 5 0.48 A 0.41 A 6 Van Karman Ave at Michelson Dr * S 0.55 A 0.68 B 7 Van Karman Ave at Campus Dr * 5 0.60 A 0.76 C 8 Von Karman Ave at Birch St 5 0.34 A 0.37 A 9 Teller Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.27 A 0.41 A 10 Teller Ave at Birch St U 13.1 B 13.0 B 11 Jamboree Rd at 1-405 NB Ramps * S 0.71 C 0.80 C 12 Jamboree Rd at 1-405 SB Ramps * S 0.93 E 0.89 D 13 Jamboree Rd at Michelson Dr * S 0.67 B 0.83 D 14 Jamboree Rd at Dupont Or * S 0.62 B 0.61 B 15 Jamboree Rd at Campus Dr * S 0.62 B 0.62 B 16 Jamboree Rd at Birch St * S 0.53 A 0.50 A 17 Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd * S 0.64 B 0.73 C 18 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St N S 0.33 A 0.48 A 19 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St S 5 0.67 B 0.64 B 20 Jamboree Rd at Bayview Wy S 0.45 A 0.45 A 21 Jamboree Rd at University Dr S 0.61 B 0.57 A 22 Carlson Ave at Campus Dr * 5 0.42 A 0.69 B 23 University Dr at Campus Drl 5 0.74 C 0.70 B 24 Bristol St N at Campus Dr S 0.55 A 0.70 B 25 Bristol St S at Campus Dr / Irvine Ave S 0.71 C 0.58 A 26 Irvine Ave at Mesa Dr 5 0.44 A 0.64 B 27 1 Bristol St N at Birch St S 0.63 B 0.58 A 28 113ristol St S at Birch St S 0.47 A 0.56 A 29 1 Bristol St S at Bayview PI 5 0.41 A 0.46 A Notes: S = Signalized, U = Unsignalized, ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. * Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. - Intersection operation is expressed in terms of volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology, and average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM ethodology. A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System IATMS The Koll Center Residences -20- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 504 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates t AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code Unit Daily In Out Total In Out I Total Luxury Condominium/Townhouse 2 233 DU 4.18 0.129 0.431 0.56 0.347 0.204 0.55 Specialty Retail Center' 826 KSF 44.32 0.595 0,365 0.96 1.192 1.518 2.71 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out I Total Land Use Quantity Unit Luxury Condominium/Townhouse 260 DU 1,087 34 112 146 90 53 143 Specialty Retail Center 3.000 KSF 133 2 1 3 4 5 9 Retail Adjustment Factor (10%) ° -13 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 Total Project Trips 1,207 36 113 149 94 57 151 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trio Generation Manual 9th Edition ITE Trip Generation does not provide daily rates for a Luxury Condominium/Townhouse. Therefore, the daily rates for Land Use Category 232 - High -Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse were used to estimate daily trips. ' ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. 4A 10% adjustment factor to account for internal capture between the existing offices and the proposed residential and retail uses is assumed. The Roll Center Residences - 21 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 505 (R NOT TO SCALI FIGUR PROJE 10% 10% 10% -22- 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or I. MacArthur god At Birch St 3. MecAdhur Blvd at Von Kaman Ave C. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. MacArthur Blvd Be at Univemity Or 6. Von Ke en Ave at Michelson Or 7. Van KarmanPeS at Commit01 8. Von Karman Ave^ at Birch St 9. Teller at Campus Aceaw Or b 10. Teller at Birch Aver St g 11. Jamboree Rd at Id05 NB Ramp a 12. Jamboree Rd .1 .05 SB Ramp R g r o :n'ti4e n e 1rr r 'ro :: tirr g 1 anu r e 1 rr c ua _11cess, I J. Jamboree Rd might, less 0, 1G. Jamboree Rd al Bupont Br 15. Jamboree Rd al Campue 0, 16. Jamboree RdJu at Birch St 17. Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd 18. Jamboree Rd AtBurned St @ L p 11—.e F wn 19. Jamboree Rdm at Briatol 6tS 30. Jamboree Rd at Bayview toy 21. Jamboree Rd at University Or 22. Carlson Ave at Campus Or University Or UniverOr... at Campus Or 34. Bristol St N at Campus Or ®p A {5 G C f R C. u iw Em u4 25. Bristol inCampus C Sl S Or d �+Ir 26. Irvine at Mesa AV' Or 27. Bristol at Birch rc Sl Nm in h 28. Bristol 81 Birth St S 5t 29. Bristol Sl S� at Bayview Pi 2 C +11 FIGURE 9 PROJECT -RELATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 23_ (LEGEND: QX Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Intersection Caltrans Intersection — -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes oQ' 568 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS This section presents the results of the analysis of the impacts associated with adding project - related trips to existing traffic volumes. The Existing Plus Project scenario is a hypothetical scenario which assumes that the Project would be fully implemented at the present time. This analysis is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and assumes full development of the Project and full absorption of Project traffic on the existing circulation system. Existing Plus Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 10. The intersection analysis was conducted, and the results are summarized on Table 3. With the addition of project traffic to Existing Conditions peak hour traffic volumes, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. The addition of project traffic would not cause a significant impact at any study intersection. FUTURE CONDITIONS Year 2022 was used in the analysis of Future Conditions. Near-term future traffic forecasts have been developed for two analysis conditions: • Opening Year with Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects, representing analysis of the conditions required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) • Opening Year with Existing plus Growth plus Committed plus Cumulative Projects, as required by CEQA. A discussion of each is provided in the following sections. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis The City of Newport Beach TPO first requires a determination of whether project trips will increase traffic volumes on any leg of a Primary Intersection by one percent (1%) or more during either the morning or evening peak hour one year after project completion, or that portion of the project expected to be constructed within five years (sixty months) of project approval, which would be Year 2022. The TPO then requires a Level of Service analysis of the project impact at any Primary Intersection that exceeds the 1% threshold. For TPO purposes, traffic forecasts for study intersections in the City of Newport Beach are developed by applying an ambient growth rate of one percent per year on primary roadways (Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue), plus traffic from Committed Projects in the vicinity of the project site. For study intersections in the City of Irvine, a growth factor of 2% per year is applied to develop Year 2022 forecasts. The Koll Center Residences -24- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 2017 1509 570 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or E. MacArthur goof at Birch St 3. MCCAdhur Blvd at Von Kaman Ave C. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. Me,Adbar Blvd Be at University Or 6. Va. Kaman Ave at Michelson Or $ "cz d as _ 9'rs h ` ogv 3it ,s $ c?a l t�m^old N N,ziezie 3 mAs. a$a f agB ,u L S .-iu%n. ' rzz/+, �' nF�—.'Si„P m—'•4PT �' .mppwee��iT am—.M1i7 nM'o, C ASC c, /amy C o.x sexy 6y4 "-q'Anrrn ,sell:—.4 /vim uw YV 9/ex�CCc Aa 7. Van KarmanPeS at Campus Or 8. Von Barman Ave at Birch St 9. Teller Ava at Campus Or N. Teller Ave at Birch St 11. Jamboree Rd at IdOS NB Ramp 12. Jamboree Rd .1 .05 SB Ramp b »���./�+ ���r;7U" g /e, JEC',^n' SS r,nan,•a �T "''�11f :•"'1if rf '^'"' if •esi/ssa'rz ca ss/i.:�. e•n`-�. °�'� Rm KE aC� M a. _ : ua :?„re la.Jamboum Rdw at Michelson Or 1G. Jamboree Rd al B.... t Br 15. Jamboree Rd al Campus Or le. Jamboree Rd at Birch St 17. Jamboree Rd al Fairchild Rd 18. Jamboree Rd ASurged St 68 ��r^nA �nre9 gess �rW�R JL r-mA .R. '0.1 Sf ps �runerA ¢Y Lr�*znm •ar..r/o F "VC It ''I .i�t�F-zz./.aq @p�p 1 r i f ,•imw xnn,z@ac ,la.', T wna„@ae -- rn.�x�� mnm-,. c:e/o-y ec? cF -9-c -9-c 19. Jamboree Rdm al Bristol St 30. Jamboree Rd at Bayview toy 21. Jamboree Rd at University Or 22. Carlson Avewn at Campus Or 33. University 0r.-. at Campus Or 3C. SHOW St N at Campus Br SE Sor,P,U,C cl,. GeM1w� �8 ¢ m S9 `^mv%z,eB ; �tirf rema m 1rf p zraM1w .@ w/,rr �E^ h'tirs /n-yF^qz nov; }Ay, qC iw sm 8nunve qS 25. Bristol al Campus Sl S Or 26.Irvine a[Mesa @'tee/ 'AV Or 27.eristol at Birch Bl Nm Sl ss 28. Sris1o1515 81 Birth CS St 29. Brislol St at Bayview Pi j cR ��o��¢,�alsoalve acus FIGURE 10 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES -25- (LEGEND: QX Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Intersection Caltrans Intersection - -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes The Koll Center Residences -26- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 5/ 2 TAHLE3 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS In[ersecHon On. Control Without, Project WHO Project PruleRlmPact AM Peak How PMPem Hour AMPeak Hour PMlumm Hour Change Significant? ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS ICU/ Delay L0s AM PM AM PM I MacArthur Blvd at Campus Dr S 0.574 A 0.735 C 0.577 A 0.735 C 0,003 0.000 NO Na 2 MacArthur Blvdat Birch St 5 0.376 A 0517 A 0.387 A 0.522 A 0.011 0.005 No No 3 MocArtM1ur Blvd at Von Karma. Ave S 0.580 A 0.526 A 0585 A 0.530 A 0.005 0.004 No No 4 MazArther Blvd at jamboree Rd a 5 0583 A 0648 B BSB6 A 0653 B O.B03 OROS No No 5 Mcninum Blvd SB et University Dr S OA77 A 0.405 A 0.4]] A 0405 A 0.000 0000 No No 6 Von Karmen Ave at Mi cheIsm Or S 0.549 A 0683 B 0.551 A 0.684 B 0.002 CORI No No ] Von Karm an Ave a t Campus Be' A 0597 A 0]58 C 8599 A B.]6B C Root B.B02 No No B Von KarmanAve at Binh St S 0.340 A 0.372 A 0.351 A 0380 A 0,011 0.008 No No 9 Teller Ave A Campus Or S 0.270 A 0406 A 0.270 A 0407 A 0,000 0,001 No NO 10 Teller Ave at Burch St B 131 B 13B B 13.9 B 165 B BB 15 Be No 11 lam bene Rd at 1405 NB Ramps' s 0.709 C 0798 C 0.711 C 0801 C 0.002 0003 No No 12 jamboree Rd at1 405 SO Ramps• 5 0.928 E 0.889 0 0.929. B 0889 0 0.001 0000 No No 13 jamboree Rd at Michms.. Or S 0.673 B 0.831 0 0.676 B 0832 D 0.003 0,001 No No 14 jarmarm Rd at Dopers On 5 0.622 B 0.614 R 0.623 B 0.615 B 0.001 0001 No N. 15 Jamie nee Rd at Campos 0r' S 0617 8 0621 B 8618 It 0622 B 0001 0001 Na No 16 jamboree Rd at Birth St' S 0.532 A 0,499 A 0.543 A 0.515 A 0.011 0016 No No 17 jamboree Rd at Fairthild Rd' S 0,636 B 0.726 C 0,638 B 0.731 C 0.002 0,005 No No 18 jamboree Ed at Brl5ml5l N S 0329 A 0483 A 8331 A 0484 A 0002 8001 No No 19 Jamboree Rd at Brodal St S S 0.673 B 0.638 B 0.673 B 0.642 B 0.000 0,004 N. No 20 jamboree Rd at Bayview Wy 5 0.451 A 0.450 A 0.452 A 0,450 A 0.001 0.000 No No 21 jamboree Rd at relvernty 0r 5 Oct. B 0.567 A 061E 0 O56B A 0002 0001 No No 22 Carlson Ave at Campus 0r' S 0418 A 0.688 B 0.418 A 0.688 B 0.000 0.000 No No 23 University 0r at Campus Oel S 0.740 C 0.704 B 0.740 C 0A04 B 0,000 0.000 N. No 24 BnAnt St N at Campus Br S 0554 A 0100 It OS58 A BRe B 0004 0002 No No 25 Bristol St S at Campus Or/Irvine Ave 5 0.706 C 0.577 A 0.707 C 0.577 A 0001 0.000 No No 26 Irvine Ave of Mesa Be 5 0.437 A 0,642 B 0.43. A 8643 B 0001 Bmo No N. 27 Based St N a[ Burch St S 0631 B 0.582 A 0.633 B 0.584 A 0002 0.002 Re No 28 Bmere l St S at Birth St S 0471 A 0.557 A 0471 A 0,558 A 0,000 0001 No No 29 .-rd S[S at..,,in, Pl 5 0407 A 00.59 A 048. A 8461 A 8001 BOB, Nu No -.1-1- ee = else. .1a.ehaaeaseh . c . lme-mcue opeca-aveopoicat C., den x m uopndl. en reaxe 11,E erwle lec-S.ee, rce, . ameuvorme P Is,,] one rm nad"ed Vane-tv saves eIN MnnMme®.ana=mageexenaaereebyper eenleeV �enaamow- AeB%eapnryemll[uapplkaugMlnreneNonmallenlmpl<menutlocotgeAasaatl Prvu'Ponatlor.Mmagemm akm1AN51 fm aangiunaea"ce-em od.q The Koll Center Residences -26- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 5/ 2 Committed projects consist of projects in the City of Newport Beach that have been approved, but are not yet fully constructed and occupied. Committed Projects information was provided by the City of Newport Beach Staff. A copy of the Committed Projects data sheets provided by the City of Newport Beach is included in Appendix C. A summary of the Newport Beach Committed Projects is provided on Table 4. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Number Project Name Percent Complete 148 Fashion Island Expansion 40% 154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65% 910 Newport Dunes 0% 945 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0% 949 St. Mark Presbyterian Church 77% 955 2300 Newport Boulevard 0% 958 Hoag Health Center 95% 959 North Newport Center 0% 960 Santa Barbara Condominiums 33% 962 328 Old Newport Medical 0% 965 Mariner's Pointe 16% 966 4221 Dolphin Striker 55% 967 San Joaquin Hills Plaza 0% 968 Uptown Newport (Phase 2) 0% 969 Uptown Newport (Phase 1) 0% 970 Marina Park 0% 971 Back Bay Landing 300 E. Coast Highway 0% 972 Westcliff Drive Medical Plaza 0% 973 Lido House Hotel Traffic 0% 974 Newport Executive Center 0% 975 Ebb Tide Residential 0% 976 ENC Nature Pre-school 0% 977 Balboa Marina West 0% Source: City of Newport Beach - Traffic Phasing Ordinance Data - Includes approved projects less than 100% complete. The Koll Center Residences Traffic Impact Study -27- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. September, 2017 57S Traffic volumes generated by the Committed Projects in the study area were added to existing peak hour volumes plus ambient growth to develop the TPO Analysis Year 2022 forecast traffic volumes. The resulting peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 11. TPO 1% Analysis In accordance with City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements, the project traffic contribution at the study intersections was evaluated for the TPO Analysis to determine the extent of the Traffic Impact Study required of the project. The study intersections identified through the 1% Analysis will be evaluated for the TPO Analysis, as required by the City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements. For the TPO Analysis, the project -related morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection to determine whether or not the project would result in a 1% increase. The results of the analysis are summarized on Table S. The 1% Analysis Worksheets for the TPO Analysis are provided in Appendix D. Review of Table 5 shows that the project traffic will exceed 1% on at least one approach in one or both peak hours at each of the Newport Beach study intersections, except at the following intersections: • 7. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive • 20. jamboree Road at Bayview Way • 21. jamboree Road at University Drive • 25. Bristol Street S at Campus Drive • 28. Bristol Street S at Birch Street • 29. Bristol Street S at Bayview Place The analysis will proceed with a TPO Traffic Impact Study at the remaining Newport Beach study intersections. It should be noted that the 1% Analysis was not conducted for the study intersections in the City of Irvine, since the TPO requirement only applies to the City of Newport Beach intersections. All of the study intersections in the City of Irvine have been analyzed for all study scenarios in this report. TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project Intersection analysis was conducted for the TPO Analysis Year 2022 (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects) Without Project peak hour traffic conditions. Intersection worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 6. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service under TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project Conditions: • 12. jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) • 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours. The Koll Center Residences -28- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 2017 574 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or I. MacArthur god at Birch St 3. Weather Blvd at Von Kaman Ave9 C. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. me, Adbar Blvd Be at Univereity 0r 6.VOnelson Ke an Ava at MichOr you F ` �i dT / Jea- 3d '—wrm, 0 „aa tmn,.g �11Srr°.nre' -11er rr 7. Van KarmanPeS at Cempus er B. Von Karman Ave^ at Birch St 9. Teller Acesaw at Compua 0r 10. Teller at Bush Ave St 11. Jamboree RdYV at it NB Ramp 12. Jamboree Rd .1 .05 SB Ramp �'�,;—'.1 i f s/uZ E�� ^3x �nn,','� 1 i_r Ny pEC BAa „^g”„—�• 11 f ♦/my YBe ^:a °'� �nsN�. aM1 P T ]%? �„am. "-o'e, f t .yq ua a m'.�' i T ,cs/smy _.�. I J. Jamboree Rd at Michelson Or 14. Jamboree Rd al Buponl Br 15. Jamboree Rd al Campus 0r le. Jamboree RdJm at Birch St 11. Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd 18. Jamhorea Rd ABretol StN kE€J 11L =° n>ad r`tta �mcq�L�°M1� e".,fln' e -win eve ^8^ a: r•�m/w A Ys c_F: q _ JIC Be^ ^gS F.rulucA 7l�r;ua °on, -y eaa eA �" € S �i j i r ipa e 19. Jamboree Rdm at added StS 20. Jamboree Rd at Bayview toy 21. Jamboree Rd at university Or 22.Carisen Avee� at Campus Br 23. University 0r... at Campus 0r 2C. Bristol St at Campus Br i _ iw 7IS�"�° '^,Ntirr „-y? - Jit :'a azm sm 4 a'a y= 25. Bristol at Campus R^S I L a..nma +,�nre,—. Sl S Br d rT 2 RR soo 26. Irvine at Mesa 7I6 Aver Or r,�;� M1ir a8: 2]. Bristol at Birch a� 31°°; Sl Nm Bt 2x e 'Sr 8 28. Bristol or Birth SS I C "u'» St Bt iT ^.A a- 29. Bristol Sl S� at Bayview Pi .r,ixr,e—. asol FIGURE 11 TPO ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 29 - (LEGEND: Q Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Interval Caltrans Intersection — -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes oQ' ro The Koll Center Residences Traffic Impact Study go Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 577 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF 1% ANALYSIS TPO ANALYSIS No. Intersection Condition Northbound Approach AM PM Southbound Approach AM PM Eastbound Approach AM PM Westbound Approach AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr 1% of projected pk hr volume 11 17 16 21 15 9 3 15 Project peak hour volume 23 11 7 19 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St 1% ofprojected pk hrvolume 10 9 11 13 5 7 2 8 Project peak hour volume 0 0 7 19 3 8 41 20 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y N Y N N N 3 MacArthur Blvd/Von Karman Ave 1% of projected pk hr volume 18 9 7 it 1 5 3 9 Project peak hour volume 8 21 0 0 0 0 25 13 Project traffic less than 1%? Y N Y Y Y Y N N 4 MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd 1% of projected pk hr volume 24 14 7 21 18 14 16 21 Project peak hour volume 7 18 25 13 10 25 18 9 Project traffic less than 1%? Y N N Y Y N N Y 7 Von Karman Ave/Campus Dr 1% of projected pk hr volume 8 6 6 13 9 9 5 8 Project peak hour volume 6 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15 jamboree Rd/Campus Dr 1% of projected pkhr volume 17 24 22 22 4 12 8 9 Project peak hour volume 20 10 7 18 3 1 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 jamboree Rd/Birch St 1% of projected pkhr volume 18 20 22 23 3 7 0 3 Project peak hour volume 8 22 6 16 39 19 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y N Y Y N N Y Y 18 jamboree Rd/Bristol St 1% of projected pkhr volume 34 33 13 22 0 2 0 2 Project peak hour volume 9 24 21 it 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 19 jamboree Rd/Bristol StS 1% of projected pkhr volume 22 23 8 12 30 31 0 1 Project peak hour volume 4 9 11 6 6 15 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 20 jamboree Rd/Bayview Wy 1% of prajected pkhr volume 21 22 20 22 1 3 1 2 Project peak hour volume 4 9 it 6 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 21 jamboree Rd/University Dr 1% of projected pkhr volume 18 21 21 24 7 5 5 7 Project peak hour volume 4 9 it 6 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 24 Bristol St N/Campus Dr 1% of projected pkhr volume 22 12 5 18 0 0 16 24 Project peak hour volume 3 7 4 2 0 0 23 11 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 25 Bristol St S/Campus Or 1% of projected pk for volume 15 11 6 12 33 22 0 0 Project peak hour volume 1 3 4 2 1 4 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 26 Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr 1% of projected pkhr volume 18 9 7 20 4 3 2 8 Project peak hour volume 2 5 4 2 0 0 2 1 Project traffic less than l%? Y Y Y Y Y Y 'N Y 27 Bristol St N/Birch St 1% of projected pk hr volume 12 5 3 15 0 0 20 20 Project peak hour volume 1 2 14 7 0 0 10 5 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 26 Bristol St S/Birch St 1% of projected pk hr volume 8 6 6 11 22 17 0 0 Project peak hourvolume 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 29 Bristol St S/Bayview PI 1% of projected pkhr volume 1 4 0 0 29 23 0 0 Project peak hour volume 0 0 0 0 6 15 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%? Y Y Y I Y I Y Y Y Y The Koll Center Residences Traffic Impact Study go Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 577 The Koll Center Residences -31- Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Traffic Impact Study 579 TABLE 6 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION TPO ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection Int. Control Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd at Campus Dr * S 0.59 A 0.78 C 2 MacArthur Blvd at Birch St S 0.41 A 0.55 A 3 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave S 0.61 B 0.55 A 4 MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd * S 0.68 B 0.73 C 5 MacArthur Blvd SB at University Dr S 0.53 A 0.45 A 6 Von Karman Ave at Michelson Or * S 0.62 B 0.84 D 7 Von Karman Ave at Campus Or * S 0.61 B 0.69 B 8 Von Karman Ave at Birch St S 0.35 A 0.38 A 9 Teller Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.44 A 0.52 A 10 Teller Ave at Birch St U 13.1 B 13.0 B 11 Jamboree Rd at I-405 NB Ramps * S 0.80 C 0.92 E 12 Jamboree Rd at 1-405 SB Ramps * S 1.13 F 1.02 F 13 Ijamboree Rd at Michelson Or * S 0.90 D 1.08 F 14 Jamboree Rd at Dupont Dr * S 0.70 B 0.73 C 15 Jamboree Rd at Campus Or * S 0.67 B 0.76 C 16 Jamboree Rd at Birch St * S 0.64 B 0.62 B 17 Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd * S 0.64 B 0.78 C 18 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St N S 0.39 A 0.54 A 19 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St S S 0.73 C 0.72 C 22 Carlson Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.52 A 0.73 C 23 University Drat Campus Dr' S 0.84 D 0.87 D 24 Bristol St N at Campus Dr S 0.58 A 0.71 C 26 Irvine Ave at Mesa Dr S 0.47 A 0.68 B 27 Bristol St N at Birch St S 0.67 B 0.61 B Notes: S = Signalized, U = Unsignalized, ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. - Intersection operation is expressed in terms of volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology, and in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM Methodology. 'AS% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMs) The Koll Center Residences -31- Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Traffic Impact Study 579 TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project In this scenario, project -related peak hour traffic volumes are added to the TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project traffic volumes. TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 12. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 7. The following study intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of project traffic: • 12. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) • 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at these intersections; therefore, the addition of project trips would not result in a significant impact. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours. The Koll Center Residences -32- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 20117 �Q 520 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or I. MacArthur god at Birch St 3. MacArthur Blvd at Von Kaman Averyg C. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. MacAdbar Blvd Be at University 0r 6.VOn Ke an Av. at Michelson Or �,.,n E x� ATL s'�aa�STT esN.0 RS �i°` �1Lw� lar's Rn.��. ^ yoP '" �". rein r„;y1IP a� �a/� jg e•� mP ,x°�pey5r ,� '-w m, ��d � X115 «-,bninere.; 1r ��5 7. Van KarmanPeS at Cemme 0r B. Von Kaman Ave at Birch St 9. Teller Ace at Campus Or N. Teller Ave at Birch St 11. Jamboree RdYV at ldpS NB Ramp 12. Jamboree Rd .1 .05 SB Ramp 1if roi The Koll Center Residences - 34 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study TABLE ROLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION TPO ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITH PROI ECT Intersection Im. moral Without AM Peak Huur ICU/Delay LOS Project PM Peak Hanr ICU/ Delay LOS AMPeak ICU/ Delay With Hour LOS Project PMPeak Hour ICU/Delay LOS Project Impact Change Significant? AM I PM AM PM 1 MCWYhur Blvd at Campus Dr" S 0.59 A 0]B C D59 A 0]8 L 0.003 O.o00 No No 2 MacArthur Blvdat Birch St S 0.41 A 0.55 A OAZ A 0.56 A 0.011 0.004 No No 3 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave S 0.61 B 0.55 A 0,62 B 0.56 A 0.005 0.004 NO No 4 MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd" 5 0.68 B 0.73 C 0,69 B 0.73 C 0.004 0.000 No No 5 MacArthur Blvd SB at University or S 0.53 A 0.45 A 053 A 045 A 0.000 0.000 No No 6 Von Barman Ave at Michelson ➢r° S 0.62 B D84 ➢ 0.62 B 0.84 0 0.000 0.001 No No ] Von Barman Ave at Campus Dr" S 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.61 B 069 B 0.001 0.002 No No 8 Von Barman Ave at Birch St S 0.35 A R38 A B36 A 0.38 A 0.010 0.009 No No 9 Teller Aveat Campus Dr" S 0.44 A 0.52 A 0.44 A 0,52 A 0.000 0.001 No No 10 Teller Ave at Birch St U 13.1 B 13.0 B 13.9 B 14.5 8 0.8 1.5 No Be ll jamboree Rd at 1-405 NB Ramps" S 0.80 C 0.92 E 080 C 0.92 E 0.002 0.003 No No 12 jamboree Rd at 1-4055B Ramps# 5 1.13 F 102 'F 1.13 P 1.02 'F 0.001 0.001 No No 13 jamboree Rd at Michelson➢r S 0.90 D 1.08 F 090 D 1.08 If 0.003 O001 No No 14 Jamboree Rd at Dupont or 5 0.70 B 173 c 071 C 0.73 C 0.001 0.001 No No 15 Jamboree Rd at Campus or S 0.67 0 096 C 0.67 B 0.77 C 0.001 0,004 No No 16 Jamboree Rd m Binh SN S 0.64 0 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.63 B VD10 Om16 No No 17 Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd" S 0.64 B 0.78 C 0.65 8 0.78 C 0.002 0.005 No Be IB Jamboree Rd at Bristol St N S 039 A 054 A 0.39 A 0.54 A 0.002 0.001 No No 19 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St S 5 0.73 C 0.72 C 0.73 C 0.72 C 0.000 0.004 No No 22 Carlson Ave at Campus or S R52 A 073 C 0.52 A 0.]3 C O000 O000 No No 23 University Ora[Campus OJ S R84 ➢ OB] ➢ 0.84 D 0.8] ➢ 0.000 0.000 No No 24 BtlsrolS[N alCampus ➢r' S 0.58 A 171 L 0,58 A 0]2 C 0.004 O.OW No Na 26 imine Ave At Mesa or S 0.47 A 0.68 B o.47 A 0.68 B 1002 0.001 No No 27 Bristol St N at Birch St 5 0.67 B 0.61 3 0.67 B 0.61 B 0.002 0.002 1 No No Notes. S=Signalized, U- Unsignalized, ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS - Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating At an unacceptable LOS. " Level of Service E Is acceptable atHas Intersection. e operation k expressed Internis of volume-#the HCdty olog for slgnalizedintersettlons using the ICU Mtthodology, and average seconds of tlelay per vehicle - ring the peak during the peakhour(or unsignalized intersections using the RCM Methodology. 'A 5%capackv credit is applied at this intersection to ieflect implememadon of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) The Koll Center Residences - 34 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study CEQA (Cumulative Conditions) Analysis CEQA requires that a Cumulative Conditions analysis be conducted. The Cumulative Conditions analysis includes traffic from Cumulative Projects in the vicinity of the project Cumulative Projects consist of the Committed Projects (approved projects in the City of Newport Beach), as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects, and must therefore be analyzed for CEQA purposes. The Cumulative Projects list includes the projects identified by the City of Newport Beach as Committed Projects, plus pending projects in the City of Newport Beach, as well as approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine. A summary of Cumulative Projects is provided on Table B. The location of the Cumulative Projects in relation to the project site is shown on Figure 13. Cumulative Projects information and data provided by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine are provided in Appendix C. The CEQA Cumulative Conditions analysis was conducted for the following scenarios: • CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project • CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of one percent per year to existing volumes on primary roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from the Cumulative Projects. For the City of Irvine intersections, City of Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) which is maintained and operated by the City. The ITAM forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from Cumulative Projects; the forecasts are presented in Appendix C. ITAM forecasts represent year 2017 traffic volumes; therefore, City of Irvine staff recommended applying a growth factor of 2% per year to develop Year 2022 forecasts. The Koll Center Residences -35- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September, 2017 583 TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project Project Name Location Existing Use Project Description No. City of Newport Beach 600 E. Bay Avenue 1 ExplorOcean 209 Washington Street 26,219 SF 70,295 SF of Ocean Literacy Facility 600 and 608 Balboa Avenue Commercial 6,500 SF Floating Classroom 200 Palm Street Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015- Harbarb101 90,000 SF of convalescent and 2 210) Bayview Place Restaurant congregate care facility with 121 beds 2,807 -Acre 3,180 DO Single -Family Detached 3 Newport Coast Newport Coast Drive State Park Residential City of Irvine 4 PA 35 Adult Daycare Irvine 3,422 SF Office 3,422 SF Community Facility 5 Concordia University 1530 Concordia N/A 336,785 SF Institutional 330 -Room Dormitory 1,876 KSF Office 6 EI Toro 100 -Acre County Project Marine Way north of I-5 N/A 2,103 DO Residential 220 KSF Retail 242 Room Hotel 7 Cultural Terrace The Orange County Great Park N/A 260 Acre Master Plan 8 Cemetery s/o Irvine Blvd, PAS N/A 125 Acre 9 Kawasaki 9950 Jeronimo Road N/A 80 KSF Office 10 West Alton Apartments North Side of Irvine Blvd N/A 970 DU Condominiums 11 Colton Apartments Campus Dr/Martin Ct/Von Karman Ave N/A 876 DO Apartments 12 Kilroy Apartments 17150 Von Karman Avenue N/A 469 DU Apartments 13 17861 Cartwright 17861 Cartwright N/A 45 DO Residential 14 2660 Barranca & 1652 Millikan 2660 Barranca & 1652 Millikan N/A 136 DO Residential 15 2652 White Rd 2652 White Rd N/A 165 DU Residential 16 17811-17817 Gillette Ave 17811-17817 Gillette Ave N/A 44 DU Residential 17 17822 Gillette Ave 17822 Gillette Ave N/A 149 DU Apartments 18 2152 Alton Apartments 2152 Alton N/A 357 DU Apartments 19 Boardwalk 18691 jamboree Road N/A 458 KSF Office 20 Irvine Canaan Church JCCCCJ 16808 Armstrong Ave. N/A 13.434 KSF Church 11.295 KSF Child Care 21 2602 McGaw Apartments 2602 McGaw Ave N/A 120 DU Apartments 22 Parcel 3/Diamond Jamboree Retail Diamond jamboree Retail Center N/A 25,000 SF Retail 23 17850 Von Karman Office 17850 Von Karman Avenue N/A 242,497 SF Office 24 1400 Reynolds Avenue 1400 Reynolds Avenue N/A 39,200 SF Medical Office Building 25 John Wayne Airport Airport Way N/A 12.5 MAP 26 UCI LRDP UCI N/A Campus Master Plan DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet, KSF = Thousand Square Feet, MAP = Million Annual Passengers The KOH Center Residences Traffic Impact Study Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. J Ca F LOCATION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS 37- oQ' 586 CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project peak hour traffic volumes for all study intersections are shown on Figure 14. CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project intersection operations are summarized on Table 9. As was the case with the TPO Analysis, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service under CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project: • 12. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) • 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) All other study intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours. CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project In this scenario, project -related peak hour traffic volumes were added to the CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project traffic volumes. The resulting CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 15, and the resulting intersection operations are summarized on Table 10. The following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service under CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project conditions: • 12. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) • 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) Based on the significance criteria set forth in this traffic study, the project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at either of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of project trips. All other intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours. The Kell Center Residences -38 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Septembee�� 5522 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or I. MacArthur goo at Birch St 3. MacArthur Blvd at Von Kaman Ave 4. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. Mmmmahmr Blvd Be at University 0r 6. Von Ke en Ave at Michelson Dr q� rn..ngr� d���m. �%e FF?t,°Si�� �LL Tams i..y _m �@�s ��ap3 J1L ,reo, isrenes e�n�a$_ w 66c L,e/4� 1LS Nw�,° n�gFg% h='Anrrn 9 �mi'a uw _aa sbiu.s �l1L`—io. ^�M »^ i. Van Karman Ave al Cems or pu �'n° 1rr s /oZ Ce= B. Von Kaman Ave^ at Birch St �tirr Ny Bp C•a 9. Teller Acea at Campus D, slrr ♦/my YBR N. Teller at Birch a-vre�,�a Ave St hrr 11. Jamboree RdYV at IdOS NB Ramp "ou e ua 12. Jamboree Rd .1.05 SB Ramp a 1 �s rr 13. Jamboree Rd at Michelson 0r 14. Jamboree Rd at Dupont Br 15. Jamboree Rd al Caesarean, 16. Jamboree RdJu at Birch St 17. Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd 18. Jamboree Rd MScrol St n.M1 onA}c @nr _ i T.ost °aa, n _ +,t,. A 19. Jamboree Rdm al Bristol St 20. Jamboree Rtl at Bayview toy 21. Jamboree Rd at University Dr 22. Carlson Ave23. at Campus Dr University 0r. at Campus Dr 24. Bristol St N atCampus B, 4L—Ili a25. 'le sm ~;�a Bristol al Campus IL Sl S Or 26. Wine a[Mesa 9iCr;7/A. AV Or 2].eristol at Birch �E i Bl Nm It �';oo orcus 28. Sris1o1515 81 Birth 8, �C IC 5t 29. Bds1o1515� at Bayview Pl B. - FIGURE 14 CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES -39- (LEGEND: QX Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Intersection Caltrans Intersection — -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes oQ' 5Jo The Koll Center Residences -40- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study J�92 TABLE 9 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection Int. Control Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd at Campus Dr * S 0.610 B 0.832 D 2 MacArthur Blvd at Birch St S 0.474 A 0.570 A 3 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave S 0.632 B 0.597 A 4 MacArthur Blvd at jamboree Rd * S 0.756 C 0.821 D 5 MacArthur Blvd SB at University Or S 0.563 A 0.514 .4 6 Von Karman Ave at Michelson Dr * S 0.619 B 0.839 U 7 Von Karman Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.650 B 0.742 C 8 Von Karman Ave at Birch St S 0.365 A 0.388 A 9 Teller Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.435 A 0.522 A 10 Teller Ave at Birch St U 13.4 B 13.2 B 11 Jamboree Rd at 1-405 NB Ramps * S 0.800 C 0.916 E 12 Jamboree Rd at 1-405 SB Ramps * S 1.133 F 1.019 F 13 Ijamboree Rd at Michelson Dr * S 0.901 D 1.079 F 14 Jamboree Rd at Dupont Dr * S 0.704 B 0.729 C 15 jamboree Rd at Campus Dr * S 0.677 B 0.762 C 16 Jamboree Rd at Birch St * S 0.643 B 0.610 B 17 jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd * S 0.643 B 0.779 C 18 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St N S 0.408 A 0.590 A 19 Jamboree Rd at Bristol St S S 0.757 C 0.753 C 20 Jamboree Rd at Bayview Wy S 0.503 A 0.525 A 21 Jamboree Rd at University Dr S 0.687 B 0.688 B 22 Carlson Ave at Campus Dr * S 0.522 A 0.734 C 23 University Dr at Campus Dr' S 0.841 D 0.869 D 24 Bristol St N at Campus Dr S 0.598 A 0.746 C 25 Bristol St S at Campus Dr / Irvine Ave S 0.761 C 0.643 B 26 Irvine Ave at Mesa Dr S 0.474 A 0.690 B 27 Bristol St N at Birch St S 0.680 B 0.642 B 28 Bristol St S at Birch St S 0.505 A 0.593 A 29 Bristol St S at Bayview PI S 0.443 A 0.494 A Notes: S = Signalized, U = Unsignalized, ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS. * Level of Service E is acceptable atthis intersection. - Intersection operation is expressed in terms of volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections using the ICU Methodology, and in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsignalized intersections using the HCM Methodology. ' A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) The Koll Center Residences -40- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study J�92 X92 1. MacArthur Blvd at Campus Or I. MacArthur god at Birch St 3. MacArhur Blvd at Von Karman Ave C. MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd S. Me,Adbar Blvd Be at University Or 6. Von Ke en Ave at Michelson Or x,.a c 7TS�a�:" 7YSfe. 3TL�° s enia�� w 7PS fo ,= �-'s, pit -las 7. Van Karman Ave at Cemme Br 8. Von Karman Ave^ at Birch St 9. Teller Acea at Campus Or 10. Teller Aver at Bush St 11. Jamboree RdYV at Id05 NB Ramp 12. Jamboree Rd .1 .05 SB Ramp n.na�s r•,n 1 Z L �.an. ;vms sae J E C 'o,6 nn a e v a onn Siam 1a.Jambarea Rd at Michelson 0, 11L �w�' g � 14. Jamboree Rd al Buponl Br gggg JLC e`-ws M1 r T s 15. Jamboree Rd al Counties Br 1Z��n�� �O.E: ..nssy ate a -a le. Jamboree at Birch a'c alt Rd'. St xr e� 11. Jamboree Rd at Fairchild Rd 1Z�r;ua c �« r 18. Jamboree Rd M Brutal StN �� i T era -q 19. Jamboree Rdm al Bristol StS 20. Jamboree Rd at Bayview toy 21. Jamboree Rd at University Or 22. Carlson Ave al Campus Or 23. University 0r... at Campus Or 2C. Bristol St N at Campus 0r Y ^w' rr mm's Ra i w 1ISr.;� ,1rr „,„ mn=,—.=pS J1L a�a; o '— it ,a/.ml s m 'a`tm, , ,t W m u4 n„ seitr ,,r 'veo.3 25. Bristol al Campus Sl S Or § RF^•8 28. Irvine at Mesa e Aver Or 2]. Bristol at Birch ae Sl N Bt :8 28. Bristol or Birth ee St S St g^ 29. Bds1o1515� at Bayview Pi FIGURE 15 CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 41 - LEGEND: Q Newport Beach Intersection Qx Irvine Intersection Caltrans Intersection — -- City Boundary XXNY AMIPM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes The Koff Center Residences -42- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study TABLE 10 ROLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION CELIA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITH PRO]ECT Intersection wi[hnut Prniectwith AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS Project Pogctimpact AMPeak Hour PMPeak Hour Change Significant? ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS AM PM AM PM 1 MacArthur Blvd at Campus or 0.610 B 0.832 D 0.614 B 0832 D 0.004 0.000 No Nu 2 MacArthur Blvd at Birch St 0.474 A 0.570 A 0.485 A 0.5]5 A 0.011 0.005 NO Nu 3 MacAmbur Blvd at Von Kaman Ave 0.632 B 0.597 A 0.63] B 0,601 B 0.005 0.004 No No 4 MacArthur Blvdatlambaree Rd* 0.756 C 0.821 D 0759 C 0827 D. 0.003 0.006 No Nu 5 MacArthur Blvd SB at University or 0.563 A 0,514 A 0,563 A 0.514 A 0.000 0.000 No No 6 Van Karman Ave at Michelson or 0.619 B 0.839 D 0,619 B 0,840 D 0.000 0.001 No No 7 Von Kansas Ave at Campus Dr' 0.650 B 0.742 C 0.652 B 0.744 C 0.002 0.002 No No 8 Von Harman Ave at Birth St 0.365 A 0.388 A 0.376 A 0.396 A 0.011 0.008 No No 9 Teller Ave m Campus 0r` 0,435 A 0.522 A 0435 A 0.523 A 0.000 0.001 No No 10 Teller Ave ai Birch St 13.4 B 13.2 B 14.2 B 148 3 0.8 1.6 No No 11 jamboree Rd at 1-405 NB Ramps* Olson) C 0916 E 0.802 C 0,919 E 0.002 0.003 No No 12 jamboree Rd at1.4055B Herb,* 1.133 F 1019 F 1334 F 1,020 F 0001 0.001 No No 13 jamboree Rd M Michelson or 0.901 D 1.079 F 0.904 D 1,080 F 0.003 0.001 No No 14 jamboree Rdat Dupont Dr" 0.704 8 0729 C 0.705 C 0.730 C 0.001 0.001 No NO 15 jamboree Rd at Campus or 0.677 B R762 C 0.679 B 0.764 C 0.002 0B02 No No 16 jamboree Rd at Bich sN 0.643 B aim B 0.653 B 0,613 8 O.OID 0.003 No No 17 jamboree Rd M Fairchild Rd` 0.643 B 0]]9 C 0.645 B 0784 C 0.002 0.005 No Nu 18 jamboree Rd at Brittol St N 0.408 A 0,590 A 0,411 A 0.592 A 0.003 0.002 No No 19 jamboree Rd at Bristol St S 0.757 C 0.753 C 0758 C 0.757 C 0.001 0.004 No No 20 jamboree Rd at Bayview Wy 0.503 A 0,525 A 0,504 A 0.526 A 0.001 0.001 No No 21 jamboree Rd at University or 0.687 8 0.688 8 0689 B 0.690 8 0.002 0.002 No No 22 Carlson Ave at Campus or- 0.522 A Ol734 c 0.522 A 0734 C 0.000 0000 No No 23 Univermit,, Dr at Campus Dr' 0.841 D RB69 D 0B41 D 0.869 D DA00 0000 No No 24 Bristol St N at ampus or 0598 A R746 C 0602 A 0J48 C 0.004 0002 No No 25 Bristo15t 5 at Campus Or/Irvine Ave 0.761 C 11.643 B 0762 C 0.644 B 0.001 0001 No No 26 Irvine Ave at Mesa or 0.474 A 0.690B 0475 A 0.691 B 11001 11001 No No 27 Bristol St N at Birch St 0.6BO B 0642 B 0.662 B 0.644 B 0.002 0.002 NO No 28 Briaol 5t 5 at Birch St 0.505 A 0.593 A 0.505 A 0.593 A 0000 0000 NO No 29 Bflstol 5t 5 at Bayview Pl 0.443 A 1494 A 0,443 A 0.497 A 0.000 0.003 No No Notes: S=Signalized, U=Unsignallud, ICU= Intersection Cappcity Utllbotian, LOS=Levelof Sarvice Bold and shaded values indicate intersections opersong aaan umeceptable LOS. " Level mSeMce E is acceptable nt this intersection. - interseaion operation Is expressed in terms of volume -to -capacity [c/t) if. for Sigwlized Imersections using the ICU Methodology, and average secondsafdelay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsigruliaed intersections using the ELM Methodology. 1 A 5% capacity credit is applied athis intersettlon to ref.et impiemenmHou of the Advamr l Transpurtarim Management system (ATMS) The Koff Center Residences -42- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study CITY OF IRVINE ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Roadway segments within the City of Irvine were analyzed in accordance with the City of Irvine Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Forty-six roadway segments within the project vicinity were analyzed for each study scenario. Per the City's guidelines, the daily roadway capacities for each facility type are shown below. The capacity for facility types not listed below are interpolated, as directed by the City. The study roadway segments are shown on Figure 16. Facility Type Number of Daily Capacity Lanes LOS D LOS E Freeways 10 189,000 210,000 8 158,400 176,000 6 121,500 135,000 4 81,000 90,000 Freeway Ramps 2 19,800 22,000 1 14,400 16,000 Expressway 6 121,500 135,000 Major Highway 8 64,800 72,000 6 48,600 54,000 Primary Highway 4 28,800 32,000 Secondary Highway 4 25,200 28,000 Commuter 2 11,700 13,000 Commuter (Rural) 2 16,200 18,000 Roadway segments that operate deficiently on a daily basis (LOS E or worse) require a Peak Hour Link Analysis (PHLA), as defined by the City of Irvine's "Revised Peak Hour Link Analysis Methodology (December 1996)" publication. The PHLA specifies that the hourly capacity for a single lane is 1,600 vehicles per hour. Where the distance between controlled intersections exceeds one mile, the lane capacity is 2,000 vehicles per hour. The City of Irvine requires mitigation for impacts that are equal to or greater than 0.02 on a roadway segment that operates at a deficient Level of Service based on the PHLA analysis. Daily traffic volumes were obtained from City of Irvine staff, and are based on existing traffic counts, and 2020 ITAM forecasts. Older roadway counts were grown at a rate of 2% per year to be consistent with Existing Conditions. [TAM 2020 forecasts were grown at a rate of 2% per year to be consistent with the CEQA Analysis Year 2022 scenarios. Peak hour volumes, if needed for the PHLA, were taken from the peak hour intersection volumes in this report. The Kell Center Residences -43- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 017 �9� 9 P Off ZO / �Oy e� �F o ! JOHN WAYNE H CITY AIRPORT COSTA / fi I MESA k, 1 �A Paa P 13 14 16 COSTA 3 MESA v pB 2 P° O' 98IRVINE L' OC CITY yVs 1 IRVINE e PROJECT SITE P,1s4�°ass g O 6 fi i d alg 19 3 CITY OF 0� LEGEND: NEWPORT ea © Ne ft a�ea[II InLLryetlbn BEACH W/ee i IrvIreIMe [Ilan o� g O Calbans NR mrs lon unr ersl O --- City Boundary 6 —Study Ree ySegment FIGURE 16 s STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS g a Kimley»)Horn „_ , oQ' 5JR Existing Conditions Existing roadway operations are summarized on Table 11. This table indicates that the following roadway segments are currently operating at a deficient Level of Service based on daily volumes: • jamboree Road: Main Street to 1-405 Northbound Ramp • jamboree Road: Between 1-405 Northbound Ramp and 1-405 Southbound Ramp • jamboree Road: I-405 Southbound Ramp to Michelson Drive • Campus Drive: Carlson Avenue to University Drive • University Drive: California Avenue to Mesa Road • University Drive: Mesa Road to Campus Drive These segments were further analyzed using the PHLA methodology, and the results are shown on Table 12. Review of Table 12 indicates that these roadway segments operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours under Existing Conditions. Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project roadway operations are summarized on Table 13. Review of Table 13 indicates that the following roadway segments will continue to be deficient with the addition of project traffic: • jamboree Road: Main Street to 1-405 Northbound Ramp • jamboree Road: Between 1-405 Northbound Ramp and 1-405 Southbound Ramp • jamboree Road: I-405 Southbound Ramp to Michelson Drive • Campus Drive: Carlson Avenue to University Drive • University Drive: California Avenue to Mesa Road • University Drive: Mesa Road to Campus Drive These segments were further analyzed using the PHLA methodology, and the results are shown on Table 14. Review of Table 14 indicates that these roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours with the addition of project traffic. The Kell Center Residences -45- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September The KOH Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 46 - SII TABLE 11 CITY OF IRVINE ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Roadway Segment FacilityType Number ofLaaes LOSE Capacity Traffic Volume VAC LOS MacArthur Boulevard North of Mann Street Major 7 63,000 26,939 0.428 A Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps Major 8 72,000 35,479 0.493 A Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramps Major 8 72,000 51,177 0.711 C I-40558 Ramps to Michelson Major 8 72,000 52,637 0.731 C Michelson to Campus Major 8 72,000 35,873 0.498 A jamboree to University Major 6 54,000 39,361 0.729 C m Von Koran Ave North of Main Street Secondary 4 28,000 21,662 0.774 C Main to Michelson Secondary 4 28,000 22,999 0.821 D Michelson to Dupont Secondary 4 28,000 16,965 0.606 B Dupont to Campus Secondary 4 28,000 16,965 0.606 B Teller Avenue Michelson to Dupont Commuter 2 13,000 5,566 0.428 A Dupont to Campus Commuter 2 13,000 2,955 0.227 A jamboree Road North of Main Street Major 8 72,000 63,067 0.876 D Main to 1-405 NB Ramps Major 8 72,000 70,074 0.973 E Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramps Major 8 72,000 78,431 1.089 F I-405 SB Ramps to Mirhelson Major 8 72,000 71,095 0.987 E Michelson to Dupont Major 8 72,000 45,474 0.632 B Dupont to Campus Major 7 63,000 41,587 0.660 B Campus to Birch Major 7 63,000 39,071 0.620 B Birch to Fairchild Major 7 63,000 41,102 0.652 B Fairchild to MacArthur Major 7 63,000 33,314 0.529 A Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus Secondary 4 28,000 6,128 0.219 A Harvard Avenue Narthof Michelson Primary 4 32,000 25,439 0.795 C Michelson to Bnlvemity Primary 4 32,000 19,009 0.594 A F11re,1 West of MorArthor Major 6 54,000 23,739 0.440 A MacArthurto Von Korman Malor 6 54,000 29,325 0.543 A Von Karmen to jamboree Major 6 54,000 24,984 0.463 A East oflanaborce Major 6 54,000 23,323 0.432 A Michelson Drive MacArthur to Von Karman Secondary 4 28,000 10,635 0.380 A Von Korman to jamboree Secondary 4 28,000 15,386 0.550 A jamboree to Carlson Primary 4 32,000 20,475 0.640 B Carlson to Harvard Primary 4 32,000 20,475 0.640 B East of Harvard Primary h 32,000 17,894 0.559 A Dupon[Drive Von Kar man m Teller Secondary 4 28,000 4,176 0.149 A Teller Ave [o Jamboree Secondary 4 28,000 3,021 0.108 A Campus Drive Westof MacArthur Major 6 54,000 29,714 0.550 A MacArthur to Von Korman Primary 4 32,000 13,075 0.409 A Von Korman Ave to Teller Secondary 4 28,000 11,189 0.400 A Teller to jamboree Secondary 4 28,000 11,186 0.400 A jamboree to Carlson Secondary 4 28,000 18,431 0.658 B Carlson to University Commuter 2 13,000 18,427 1.417 F East of University Secondary 4 28,000 22,648 0.809 D University Drive MacArthur to California Primary 4 32,000 24,765 0.774 C California [o Mesa Primary 4 32,000 30,386 0.950 E Mesa [o Campus Primary 4 32,000 30,560 0.956 E Campasto Harvard Major 6 54,000 25,303 0.469 A Bold and shaded values indicate a deficient Level of Service, based on the City of Irvine Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines The KOH Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 46 - SII The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -47- 601 TABLE 12 PEAK HOUR LINK ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Direction #Lanes Capacity Volume AM Peak V/C LOS Volume PM Peak V/C LOS Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,641 0.413 A 3,520 0.550 A Southbound 4 6,400 3,279 0.512 A 2,773 0.433 A jamboree Road 1-405 NB Ramps to 1-405 SB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,561 0.400 A 3,657 0.571 A Southbound 4 6,400 3,306 0.517 A 2,592 0.405 A 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Drive Northbound 4 6,400 1,877 0.293 A 3,647 0.570 A Southbound 4 6,400 4,530 0.708 C 2,654 0.415 A Campus Drive Carlson Avenue to University Drive Eastbound 1 1,600 525 0.328 A 1,084 0.678 B Westbound 1 1,600 702 0.439 A 696 0.435 A California Avenue to Mesa Road Eastbound 2 3,200 1,222 0.382 A 1,826 0.571 A Westbound 2 3,200 2,143 0.670 B 1,468 0.459 A University Drive Mesa Road to Campus Drive Eastbound 2 3,200 1,222 0.382 A 1,826 0.571 A 11 Westbound 2 3,200 2,143 0.670 B 1,468 0.459 A jl The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -47- 601 oQ' 002 The KOH Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 48 - (003 TABLE 13 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment LOSE Canada Existing Conditions L Traffic VAC LOS Volume Existing plus Project Project Traffic V/e Tra6-ic Volume LOB Piojectimpact/ I Significance Project Signif Impact ant? North of Main Street 63,000 26,939 0.428 A 60 26,999 0.429 A 11.001 No Main Streetto 1405 NB Ramps 72,000 35,479 0.493 A 60 35,539 0.494 A 01001 No Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramps 72,000 51,177 0.711 C 151 51,328 0.713 C 0.002 No MacArthur Boulevard I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson 72,000 52,637 0.731 C 242 52,879 0.734 C 0.003 No Michelson to Campus 72,000 35,873 0.498 A 242 36,115 0.502 A 0.003 No jamboree to University 54,000 39,361 0.729 C 240 39,601 0.733 C 0.004 No North of Main Street 28,000 21,662 0.774 C 60 21,722 0]26 C 0.002 No Van Karman Main to Michelson 28,000 22,999 0.821 D 60 23,059 0.824 D 0.002 No Ave Michelson to Dupont 28,000 16,965 0.606 B 60 1],025 0.608 B 0.002 No Dupont Campus tt 28,000 16,965 0.606 B 60 1 7,025 0.608 B 0.002 No "I'ellcr Michelsonto Dupont 13,000 5,566 0.428 A t1 5,566 0.428 A 0.000 No Avenue Dupont to Lampus 13,000 2,955 0.227 A 0 2,955 0.227 A 0.000 No North of Main Street 72,000 63,067 0.876 D 60 63,127 0.877 ❑ 0.001 N0 Main [o 1-405 NB Ramps 72,000 70,074 0.973 E 150 70,224 0.975 E 0.002 No Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramps 72,000 78,431 1.089 F 150 78,581 1.091 F 0002 No 1-4055B Ramps to Michelson 72,000 71,095 0.987 E 242 71,337 0.991 E 0.003 N0 jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 72,000 45,474 0.632 B 242 45,716 0,635 B 0.003 No Dupont to Campus 63,000 41,587 0.660 B 242 41,829 0.664 B 0.004 No Campus In Birch 63,000 39,071 0.620 B 212 39,283 1624 B 0.003 No Birch to Fairchild 63,000 41,102 0.652 8 242 41,344 0.656 B 0.004 No Fairchild to MacArthur 63,000 33,314 0.529 1 A 242 33,556 0.533 A 0.004 No Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 28,000 6,128 0.219 A 0 6,128 0.219 A 0.000 N0 North of Michelson 32,000 25,439 0.795 C 0 25,439 0.795 C 0.000 No Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 32,000 19,009 0.594 A 0 19,009 0.594 A 0.000 No West of MacArthur 54,000 23,739 0.440 A 0 23,739 0.440 A 0.000 No MacArthur to Von Karman 54000 29.325 0.543 A 0 29,325 0.000 No Main Street Von Karman to Jamboree 54,000 24,984 0.463 A 0 24,984 M 0.000 No East of jamboree 54,000 23,323 0.432 A 0 23,323 0.000 N0 MacArthurto Von Karman 28,000 10,635 0.300 A 0 10,635 0.380 A 0.000 No Von Karman to jamboree 28,000 15,386 0.550 A 0 15,386 0.550 A 0.000 No Michelson Drive jamboree to Carlson 32,000 20,475 0.640 8 0 20,475 0.640 B 0.000 No Carlson to Harvard 32A00 20,475 0.640 B 0 20,4]5 0.640 B 0.000 No East of Harvard 32,000 17,894 0.559 A 0 1],894 0.559 A 0.000 No Von Karman to Teller 28,000 4,17fi 0.149 A 0 4,176 0.149 A 0.000 No Dupont Drive Teller Ave to jamboree 28,000 3,021 0.108 A 0 3,021 0.106 A 0.000 No Wescof MacArthur 54,000 29,714 0.550 A 0 29,714 0.550 A 0.000 N0 MacArthur to Von Karman 32,000 13,075 0,409 A 0 13,075 0.409 A 0.000 No Von Karman Ave to Teller 28,000 11,189 0.400 A 0 11,189 0.400 A 0.000 No Campus Drive Teller to jamboree 28,000 11,186 0.400 A 30 11,216 0.401 A 0.001 No jamboree to Carlson 28,000 18,431 0.650 B 0 18,431 0.658 B 0.000 No Carlson to University 13,000 18,427 1.417 F 0 18,427 1.417 F 0.000 No East of University 28,000 22,648 0809 D 0 22,648 0.809 D 0.000 No MacArthur to California 32,000 24,765 0.774 C 0 24,765 0.774 C 0.000 No Californ is to Mesa 32,000 30,386 0.950 E 0 30,366 0.950 E 0.000 No Ell Mesa to Campus 32,000 30,580 0.956 E 0 30,580 0.956 E 0.000 N0 Campus to Harvard 54,000 25,303 0.469 A 0 25,303 0.469 A 0.000 No Bold and shaded values indicate a deficient Level of Service, based on the City of Irvine Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines The KOH Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 48 - (003 The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -49- 0 p5 TABLE 14 PEAK HOUR LINK ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT Roadway Segment Direction #Lanes Capacity Volume AM Peak V/C LOS Volume PM Peak V/C LOS Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,647 0.414 A 3,523 0.550 A Southbound 4 6,400 3,281 0.513 A 2,778 0.434 A jamboree Road 1-405 NB Ramps to 1-405 SB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,567 0.401 A 3,660 0.572 A Southbound 4 6,400 3,313 0.518 A 2,611 0.408 A 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Drive Northbound 4 6,400 1,900 0.297 A 3,659 0.572 A Southbound 4 6,400 4,537 0.709 C 2,673 0.418 A Campus Drive Carlson Avenue to University Drive Eastbound 1 1,600 525 0.328 A 1,084 0.678 B Westbound 1 1,600 702 0.439 A 696 0.435 A California Avenue to Mesa Road Eastbound 2 3,200 1,222 0.382 A 1,826 0.571 A Westbound 2 3,200 2,143 0.670 B 1,468 0.459 A University Drive Mesa Road to Campus Drive Eastbound 2 3,200 1,222 0.382 A 1,826 0.571 A 11 Westbound 2 3,200 2,143 0.670 B 1,468 0.459 A jl The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -49- 0 p5 oQ' CEOA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project roadway operations are summarized on Table 15. Review of Table 15 indicates that the following roadway segments will be deficient in the CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project scenario: • Von Karman Avenue: North of Main Street • Von Karman Avenue: Main Street to Michelson Drive • jamboree Road: North of Main Street • jamboree Road: Main Street to 1-405 Northbound Ramp • jamboree Road: Between I-405 Northbound Ramp and I-405 Southbound Ramp • jamboree Road: 1-405 Southbound Ramp to Michelson Drive • Campus Drive: Carlson Avenue to University Drive • University Drive: California Avenue to Mesa Road • University Drive: Mesa Road to Campus Drive These segments were further analyzed using the PHLA methodology, and the results are shown on Table 16. Review of Table 16 indicates that these roadway segments will operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours in the CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project scenario. CEQAAnalysis Year 2022 With Project CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project roadway operations are summarized on Table 17. Review of this table indicates that the following roadway segments will continue to be deficient with the addition of project traffic: • Von Karman Avenue: North of Main Street • Von Karman Avenue: Main Street to Michelson Drive • jamboree Road: North of Main Street • jamboree Road: Main Street to 1-405 Northbound Ramp • jamboree Road: Between 1-405 Northbound Ramp and I-405 Southbound Ramp • jamboree Road: I-405 Southbound Ramp to Michelson Drive • Campus Drive: Carlson Avenue to University Drive • University Drive: California Avenue to Mesa Road • University Drive: Mesa Road to Campus Drive These segments were further analyzed using the PHLA methodology, and the results are shown on Table 18. Review of Table 18 indicates that these roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours with the addition of project traffic. The Kell Center Residences -50- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 51- �I: TABLE 15 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT Roadway Segment Number of Lanes LOSE Capacity Traffic Volume V/C LOS MacArthur Boulevard North of Main Street 7 63,000 34,645 0.550 A Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps B 72,000 53,893 0.749 C Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramp 8 72,000 55,245 0.767 C I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson B 72,000 59,303 0.824 0 Michelson to Campus 8 72,000 38,911 0.540 A jamboree to University 6 54,000 21,640 0401 A Von Korman Avenue North of Main Street 4 28,000 26,738 0.955 E Main to Michelson 4 28,000 28,299 1.011 F Michelson to Dupont 4 28,000 19,351 0.691 B Dupontto Campus 4 26,000 19,247 0.687 B Teller Avenue Michelson to Dupont 2 13,000 8,011 0.616 B Dupont to Campus 2 13,000 5,514 0.424 A jamboree Road North of Main Street 8 72,000 71,163 0.988 E Main to I-405 NB Ramps B 72,000 76,261 1.059 F Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramp B 72,000 65,025 0.903 E E-405 SB Ramps to Michelson B 72,000 87,498 1.215 F Michelson to Dupont B 72,000 61,592 0,855 D Dupont to Campus 7 63,000 47,754 0.758 C Campus to Birch 7 63,000 45,570 0.723 C Birch to Fairchild 7 63,000 44,841 0.712 C Fairchild to MacArthur 1 7 1 63,000 1 39,327 1 0.624 1 B Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 4 28,000 9,156 0.327 A Harvard Avenue North of Michelson 4 32,000 25,802 0.806 D Michelson to University 4 32,000 19,247 0.601 A Main Street West of MacArthur 6 54,000 27,050 0.501 A MacArthur to Von Farman 6 54,000 35,270 0.653 B Von Kerman to jamboree 6 54,000 28,403 0.526 A East of jamboree 6 54,000 24,449 0.453 A Michelson Drive MacArthur to Von Karman 4 28,000 22,681 0.810 D Von Karman to jamboree 4 28,000 21,640 0.773 C jamboree to Carlson 4 32,000 26,530 0.829 D Carlson to Harvard 4 32,000 25,594 0.800 C East of Harvard 4 32,000 19,039 0.595 A Dupont Drive Von Karman to Teller 4 28,000 5,618 0.201 A Teller Ave to jamboree 4 28,000 3,849 0.137 A Campus Drive West of MacArthur 6 54,000 33,397 0.618AD MacArthur to Von Karman 4 32,000 16,126 0.504 Von Karman Ave to Teller 4 28,000 13,629 0.487 Teller to Jamboree 4 28,000 12,797 0.457jamboree to Carlson 4 28,000 20,808 0.743Carlson to University 2 13,000 19,664 1.513East of University 4 28,000 24,866 0.888 University Drive MacArthur to California 4 32,000 27,154 0.849 D California to Mesa 4 32,000 32,877 1.027 F Mesa to Campus 4 32;000 33,397 1.044 F Campus to Harvard 6 54,000 28,507 0.528 A Bold and shaded values indicate a deficient Level of Service, based on the City of Irvine Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 51- �I: The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -52- 609 TABLE 16 PEAK HOUR LINKANALYSIS CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT Roadway Segment Direction k Lanes Capacity Volume AM Peak V/C LOS Volume PM Peak V/C LOS Von Korman North of Main Street Northbound 2 3,200 1,281 0.400 A 1,623 0.507 A Southbound 2 3,200 1,140 0.356 A 1,271 0.397 A Avenue Main Street o Michelson Drive Northbound 2 3,200 1,281 0.400 A 1,623 0.507 A Southbound 2 3,200 1,140 0.356 A 1,271 0.397 A North of Main Street Northbound 4 6,400 3,069 0.480 A 3,986 0.623 B Southbound 4 6,400 3,866 0.604 A 3,335 0.521 A jamboree Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 3,069 0.480 A 3,986 0.623 B Southbound 4 6,400 3,866 0.604 A 3,335 0.521 A Road 1-405 NB Ramps. to 1-405 Southbound Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,877 0.450 A 4,428 0.692 B Southbound 4 6,400 4,185 0.654 B 3,102 0.485 A 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Drive Northbound 4 6,400 2,560 0.400 A 4,511 0.705 B Southbound 4 6,400 5,597 0.875 D 3,412 0.533 A Campus Drive Carlson Avenue to University Drive Eastbound 1 1,600 667 0.417 A 1,116 0.698 B Westbound 1 1,600 776 0.485 A 863 0.539 A California Avenue to Mesa Road Eastbound2 3,200 1,096 0.343 A 2,240 0.700 B Westbound 2 3,200 2,373 0.742 C 1,447 0.452 A University Drive Mesa Road to Campus Drive Eastbound 2 3,200 1,096 0.343 A 2,240 0.700 B Westbound 2 3,200 2,373 0.742 C 1,447 0.452 A The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -52- 609 oQ' !10 The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 53 - 022 TABLE 17 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS CIiQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITH PROJECT Roadway Segment Without Project With Project Prolecthnpact/ Signifimnce LOSE Traffic Project Traffic Project Signif Capacity Volume V/C LOS Traffic Volume V/C LOS Impact trant? North of Main Street 63,000 34,645 0.550 A 60 34,705 0.551 A 0.001 No Main Streetal-405NBRamps 72,000 53,893 0.749 C 60 53,953 0.749 C 0.001 No MacArthur Boulevard Betweenl-405NBand SBRamps 72,000 55,245 0.767 C 151 55.396 0.769 C 0.002 No 1-40556 Ramps to Michelson 72,000 59,303 0.824 ❑ 242 59,545 0.827 D 0.003 No Michelson to Campus 72,000 38,911 0.540 A 242 39,1530.40544 A 0.003 No jamboree to University 54,000 21,640 0.401 A 240 21,880 0 5 A 0.004 No North of Main Street 28,000 26,738 0.955 E 60 26,798 0.957MBI No Main to Michelson 28,000 28,299 1.011 F 60 20,359 1.013 No Van Korman Avenue Michelson to Dupont 28,000 19,351 0.691 B 60 19,411 0.693 No Dupont to Campus 28,000 19,247 0.687 B 60 19,307 0.690 B 0.002 No Teller Avenue Michelson to Dupont 13,000 8,011 0.616 B 0 8,011 0.616 B 0.000 No Dupont o Campus 13,000 5,514 0.424 A 0 5,514 0.424 A 0.000 No North of Main Street 72,000 71,163 0.988 E 60 71,223 0.989 E 0.001 No Main to 1-405 NB Ramps 72,000 76,261 1.059 F 150 76,411 1.061 F 0.002 No Between 1-405 NB and SB Ramps 72,000 65,025 0.903 E 150 65,175 0.905 E 0.002 No 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson 72,000 87,498 1.215 F 242 87,740 1.219 F 0.003 No Jamboree Road Michelson to Dupont 72,000 61,592 0.055 D 242 61,834 0.859 D 0.003 No Dupont to Campus 63,000 47,754 0.758 C 242 47,996 0.762 C 0.004 No Campus to Birch 63.000 45,570 0.723 C 212 45,782 0.727 C 0.003 No Birch m Fairchild 63,000 44,841 0.712 C 242 45,!183 0.716 C 0.004 No Fairchild to MacArthur 63.000 1 39,327 0.624 B 242 39,569 0.628 B 0.004 No Carlson Avenue Michelson to Campus 28,000 9,156 0.327 A 0 9.156 0.327 A 0.000 1 No North of Michelson 32,000 25,802 OBOE D 0 25,802 0.806 D 0.000 1 No Harvard Avenue Michelson to University 32,000 19,247 0.601 A 0 19,247 0.601 A 0.000 1 No Wes[of MacArthur 54,000 27,050 0.501 A 0 27,050 0.501 A 0.000RN. MacArthur to Von Karman 54,000 35,270 0.653 B 0 35,270 O.fi53 B 0.000 Main Street Von Korman to jamboree 54,000 28,403 0.526 A 0 28,403 0.526 A 0.000 East of jamboree 54,000 24,449 0.453 A 0 24,449 0.453 A 0.000 MacArthur to Von Korman 28.000 22,681 0.010 D 0 22,691 0.810M0.000 Von Karman to jamb oree 2B4O00 21,640 0.773 C 0 21,640 0.773Michelson Urive jamboree to Carlson 32,000 26,530 0.829 D o 26,530 0.829Carlson to Harvard 32,000 25,594 0.800 C 0 25,594 0.800East of Harvard 32,000 19,039 0.595 A 0 19,0390.595 Dupont Drive Von Kam. to Teller 20,000 I 5,618 0.201 A 1 0 5,618 0201 A I 0.000 I No Teller Ave to jamboree 28,000 3;849 0.137 A 1 o 3,849 0,137 A 10.000 No West of MacArthur 54,000 33,397 0.618 B 0 33,397 0.610 B 0.000 No MacArthur to Von Ratio. 32,000 16,126 0.504 A 0 16126 0.504 A BABB No Von Karman Ave to Teller 2B4O00 13,629 0.487 A 0 13,629 0.487 A 0.000 No Ca in Pus Drive Teller to jamboree 28,000 12,797 0.45) A 30 12,827 0.458 A 0.001 No jamboree to Carlson 28,000 20,808 0.743 C 0 20,808 0743 C 0.000 No Carlson to University 13,000 19,664 1.513 F 0 19,664 1.513 F 0.000 No East of University 28,000 24,066 0.888 0 0 24,866 0.888 ❑ 0.000 No MacArthur to California 32,000 27,154 0.849 ❑ 0 27,154 0.849 ❑ 0.000 No California to Mesa 32,000 32,877 1.027 F 0 32,877 1.027 F 0.000 No H:11 Mesa to Campus 32,000 33,397 1.0"F 0 33,397 1.044 F 0.000 NoCarepusto Harvard 54,000 28,507 0.528 A 0 26,507 0.528 A 0.000 No Bald and shaded values indicate a deficient Level of Service, based on the City of Irvine Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - 53 - 022 012 The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -54- ro13 TABLE 18 PEAK HOUR LINK ANALYSIS CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 WITH PROF ECT Roadway Segment Direction # Lanes AM Peak PM Peak Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Von Karman North of Main Street Northbound 2 3,200 1,287 0.402 A 1,626 0.508 A Southbound 2 3,200 1,142 0.357 A 1,276 0.399 A Avenue Main Street o Michelson Drive Northbound 2 3,200 1,287 0.402 A 1,626 0.508 A Southbound 2 3,200 1,142 0.357 A 1,276 0.399 A North of Main Street Northbound 4 6,400 3,075 0.480 A 3,989 0.623 B Sauthbound 4 6,400 3,868 0.604 A 3,340 0.522 A jamboree Main Street to 1-405 NB Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 3,075 0.480 A 3,989 0.623 B Southbound 4 6,400 3,868 0.604 A 3,340 0.522 A Road 1-405 NB Ramps. to I-405 Southbound Ramps Northbound 4 6,400 2,883 0.450 A 4,431 0.692 B Southbound 4 6,400 4,192 0.655 B 3,121 0.488 A I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Drive Northbound 4 6,400 2,583 0.404 A 4,523 0.707 C Southbound 4 6,400 5,604 0.876 D 3,431 0.536 A Campus Drive Carlson Avenue to University Drive Eastbound 1 1,600 667 0.417 A 1,116 0.698 B Westbound 1 1,600 776 0.485 A 863 0.539 A California Avenue to Mesa Road Eastbound2 3,200 1,096 0.343 A 2,240 0.700 B W estbound 2 3,200 2,373 0.742 C 1,447 0.452 A University Drive Mesa Road to Campus Drive Eastbound 2 3,200 1,096 0.343 A 2,240 0.700 B Westbound 2 3,200 2,373 0.742 C 1,447 0.452 A The Koll Center Residences Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -54- ro13 oQ' ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES Intersections on State Highway Facilities Intersections on State Highway facilities, which are controlled by Caltrans, are also analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, as required by the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Trak Impact Studies (State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002). In the vicinity of the project, the 1-405 and SR -73 freeways are Caltrans facilities. Therefore, study intersections on these roadways have also been analyzed using the HCM intersection analysis methodology. The HCM methodology measures average seconds of delay per vehicle based on a number of technical parameters, such as peak hourly traffic volumes, number of lanes, type of signal operation, signal timing, and signal phasing in the calculations. A description of each Level of Service, based on delay parameters, per the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is provided in the chart on the following page. For State-controlled intersections, Level of Service standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans will apply. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained." Traffic Impact Criteria The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not establish a threshold of significance for State Highway intersections. This traffic analysis uses the following traffic threshold of significance: • A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). The Kell Center Residences -55- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 20017 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of Signalized Service Intersection Description Dela sec LOS A describes operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is low and either progression is A :510 exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS B describes operations with control delay between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically B > 10 and < 20 assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C describes operations with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the progression is favorable and the cycle length is moderate. C > 20 and <_ 35 Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically D > 35 and <_ 55 assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per E > 55 and15 80 vehicle and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 The Koll Center Residences -56- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 22017 State Highway Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology for the following State Highway study intersections: 11. jamboree Road at 1-40S NB Ramps • 12. jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection analysis worksheets for all HCM analysis of State Highway intersections are provided in Appendix E. Existing Conditions Existing peak hour intersection operations for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19. Each of the State Highway study intersections currently operates at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19, previously referenced. Each of the State Highway study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service with the addition of project traffic. CEOA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19, previously referenced. The intersection of jamboree Road at the 1-405 Southbound Ramps would operate at LOS E in the morning peak hour under CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project conditions. CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19, shown previously. With the addition of project traffic, the intersection of jamboree Road at the 1-405 Southbound Ramps would continue to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. The project traffic would not cause the Level of Service at this intersection to worsen, and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The intersection of jamboree Road at the I -40S Northbound Ramps would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. The Kell Center Residences -57- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 2017 012 Koll Center Residences -58- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 61-9 TABLE 19 KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Without Project I With Project Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Significant? Delay LOS Delay I LOS Delay I LOS Delay LOS AM PM AM PM EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 Jamboree Rd/1-405 NB Ramps 17.0 B 10.5 B 17.5 B 11.0 B 0.5 0.5 No 12 Jamboree Rd/I-405 SB Ramps 24.3 C 19.6 C 29.4 C 20.3 C .5.1 0.7 No qN. CEQA ANALYSIS YEAR 2022 11 Jamboree Rd/1-405 NB Ramps 18.9 B 12.4 B 18.9 B 12.6 B 0.0 0.2 No 12 Jamboree Rd/1-405 SB Ramps 76.5 E 21.2 C 76.7 E 21.2 C 0.2 0.0 No SN. Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour using the HCM Methodology. Koll Center Residences -58- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study 61-9 oQ' !20 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991, to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. A copy of the County of Orange CMP Highway System is provided in Appendix F. Within the project study area, the CMP Highway System includes two arterials: Jamboree Road north of MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard south of jamboree Road. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the project consist of: • 4. MacArthur Boulevard at jamboree Road • 11. I-405 Northbound Ramps at Jamboree Road • 12. 1-405 Southbound Ramps at Jamboree Road The Orange County CMP states that "a TIA will be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,207 daily trips. Base on CMP criteria, a separate CMP analysis is not required of the project. SITE ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION Vehicular access to Koll Center Newport is currently provided by three driveways on Birch Street, and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows drivers to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers access the site either by a key card or by pressing the button and pulling a parking ticket. To exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the gate. Visitors must insert a validated ticket or pay at the gate in order to exit. For discussion purposes, the driveways have been numbered 1 through 5, as shown on Figure 17. The following provides a brief description of each of the existing driveways. • Driveway 1. The westernmost driveway on Birch Street is located approximately 300 feet east of Von Karman Avenue, and is a full -movement driveway. It is 30 feet wide, and provides one inbound lane and one outbound lane. The entry gate on Driveway 1 is set back approximately 95 feet from Birch Street. This driveway leads directly to a surface parking area at the north end of the Koll Center Newport site. The Kell Center Residences -59- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 20117 022 2 O orf FIGURE 17 EXISTING SITE ACCESS 60- (p NOT TO SCALE oQ' 62$ • Driveway 2: The middle driveway on Birch Street is located approximately 600 feet east of Von Karman Avenue, and is a full -movement driveway. It is 36 feet wide, and provides one inbound lane and one outbound lane, with a narrow, raised median. The entry gate is set back approximately 165 feet from Birch Street. This driveway intersects with the spine street that runs through the Koll Center Newport site and connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street in an east -west orientation. • Driveway 3: The eastern driveway on Birch Street is located approximately 1,100 feet east of Von Karman Avenue and approximately 750 feet west of Jamboree Road, and is a full - movement driveway. It is 36 feet wide, and provides one inbound lane and one outbound lane. This driveway connects in a T -intersection to the spine street approximately 85 feet from Birch Street. Entry gates are located on the main spine street, approximately 50 feet to the west, and approximately 100 feet to the east of the T -intersection. • Driveway 4: The northern driveway on Von Karman Avenue is located approximately 350 feet south of Birch Street, and is an exit -only driveway. It is approximately 15 feet wide, and provides one outbound lane only, from which drivers can make both right and left turns. • Driveway S: The southern driveway on Von Karman Avenue is located approximately 900 feet south of Birch Street, and is a full -movement driveway. It is 36 feet wide, and provides one inbound and one outbound lane. The entry gate is set back approximately 90 feet from Von Karman Avenue. This driveway is the western end of the spine street that connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street in an east -west orientation. The proposed project access plan is provided on Figure 18. As part of the Koll Center Residences project, the five existing site driveways for Koll Center Newport will remain in their current locations, with a number of changes to the access provisions for the site, as follows: • The most significant change to the site access circulation is that the main drive aisle that runs from Von Karman Avenue to Birch Street will become an open -access internal spine street through the site. All gates to the Koll Center Newport parking areas and to the new residential buildings will be located off the spine street. • When Phase 1 is complete, all parking for the Phase 1 residential units will be provided in the Phase 1 parking structure. In addition, 276 spaces in the Phase A parking structure will be designated as office parking for Koll Center Newport. • Access to the residential parking in the Phase 1 parking structure will be via a gated entrance off Driveway 2, which will be accessible from Driveways 2, 3, and 5. The Kell Center Residences -61- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 220017 020 10 n n FIGURE 18 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS 62- (p NOT TO SCALE oQ' !28 • Access to the residential parking in the Phase 2 parking structure will be via a gated entrance directly off the spine street, which will be accessible from Driveways 2, 3, and S. • Driveway 1: No changes are proposed for Driveway 1 itself. Access to the office portion of the Phase 1 parking structure will be provided from the surface parking area directly east of Driveway 1. With the construction of the project, drivers entering Driveway 1 will have access only to the surface parking areas immediately accessed by Driveway 1, and the office portion of the Phase 1 parking structure; they will not be able to get to the center drive aisle or to the rest of the Koll Center Newport site from Driveway 1. • Driveway 2. The entry gate on Driveway 2 will be removed. A gated entry to the residential portion of the Phase 1 parking structure will be provided off Driveway 2. Drivers entering Driveway 2 will be able to access all parking areas of Koll Center Newport, except the surface parking areas immediately accessed by Driveway 1, and the office portion of the Phase 1 parking structure. Driveway 2 will be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left -turn and one right -turn lane. • Driveway 3: The Koll Center Newport entry gates on the main drive aisle on either side of Driveway 3 will be removed. A new office parking gate for the parking areas to the east of the driveway will be provided approximately 80 feet to the southeast. Drivers entering Driveway 3 will be able to access all parking areas of Koll Center Newport, except the surface parking areas immediately accessed by Driveway 1, and the office portion of the Phase 1 parking structure. • Driveway 4: Driveway 4 will remain an exit -only driveway, and will be accessible only from the surface parking areas immediately accessed by Driveway 1. Outbound movements will be restricted to right turns only. • Driveway 5: The entry gate on Driveway 5 will be removed. A new office parking gate for the parking areas to the east of the driveway will be provided on the first intersecting drive aisle. Driveway 5 will be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left -turn and one right -turn lane. The Kell Center Residences -63- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 220017 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC Construction of the Koll Center Residences project would add construction -related trips to and from the site during each of the construction phases. These trips are associated with construction activities, including construction workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on-site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on-site during all phases of construction. Construction workers will not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking will be provided, and workers will carpool or be shuttled to the worksite. The Applicant will be required to prepare a construction management plan to identify the timing of construction activities, and the movement of construction vehicles. There will be no dirt hauling activities allowed to and from the site during the peak hours during any of the construction phases. Construction Phasing Phase A — Parking Structure To construct the Phase A parking structure, it is estimated that approximately 24,139 cubic yards of cut material would be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 16 cubic yards per truckload, grading activities will require removal of approximately 1,509 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a 40 -day period for excavation and construction, this would equate to an average of 38 truckloads of export cut material, for a total of 38 trucks inbound to and outbound from the site per day. It is estimated that there will be an average of 15 workers per day at the job site during construction of the site work and parking structure, for an additional 30 construction worker trips per day for the parking structure construction. Heavy vehicle types will include excavator, tractor, loader, water truck, concrete pump truck, crew truck, backhoe, and a 10 -wheeler dump truck. Phase 1— Building 1 To construct the Phase 1 building, it is estimated that approximately 44,000 cubic yards of cut material would be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 16 cubic yards per truckload, grading activities will require removal of approximately 2,750 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a 60 -day period for excavation and construction, this would equate to an average of 46 truckloads of export cut material, for a total of 46 trucks inbound to and outbound from the site per day. The Koll Center Residences -64- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September3O It is estimated that there will be an average of 40 workers at the job site per day during construction of the site work and Building 1. During construction of the superstructure and the interiors, there will be an average of 80-90 workers on site. This would equate to 80 to 180 construction worker trips per day for construction of the Phase 1 parking structure and superstructure. Heavy vehicle types will include excavator, tractor, loader, water truck, concrete pump truck, crew truck, backhoe, 10 -wheeler dump truck, drill rigs, and skid steer loaders. Phase 2 - Building 2 and Building 3 To construct Building 2 and Building 3, it is estimated that approximately 54,000 cubic yards of cut material would be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 16 cubic yards per truckload, grading activities will require removal of approximately 3,375 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a 60 -day period for excavation and construction, this would equate to an average of 56 truckloads of export cut material, for a total of 56 trucks inbound to and outbound from the site per day. It is estimated that there will be an average of 40 workers daily at the job site during construction of the site work and parking structure. During construction of the superstructure and the interiors, there will be an average of 80-90 workers on site. This would equate to 80 to 180 construction worker trips per day for construction of the Phase 2 parking structure and superstructure. Heavy vehicle types will include excavator, tractor, loader, water truck, concrete pump truck, crew truck, backhoe, 10 -wheeler dump truck, drill rigs, and skid steer loaders. Construction Traffic Management Heavy vehicles associated with construction of the project would use the existing regional and local truck route network to approach the site, getting as close to the destination site as possible before turning off the designated truck route. Impacts from construction traffic would be occasional and temporary delays to traffic, during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The Applicant will be required to provide a construction management plan, and to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles, and obtain a Haul Route permit from the City. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles will be via Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Depending on the origin/destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks will either arrive and depart via the 1-405 Freeway, to the north of the site; or via the SR -73 Freeway, to the south of the site. The Kell Center Residences -65- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 20117 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • The proposed Kell Center Residences site is located at the southeast corner of Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. • The Koll Center Residences project would consist of 260 luxury condominium units and 3,000 square feet of retail development within the existing surface parking for the Koll Center Newport office development. • Twenty-nine (29) intersections were analyzed for potential traffic impacts. All signalized intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. One unsignalized intersection was analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. In addition, two intersections on State highway facilities were analyzed using the HCM methodology to comply with Caltrans requirements. • Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. • Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. • Under TPO Analysis Year 2022 Without Project conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service: 0 12. jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) 0 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • Under TPO Analysis Year 2022 With Project conditions, these two intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. • Under CEQA Analysis Year 2022 Without Project conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service: 0 12. jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F, PM: LOS F) 0 13. jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • Under CEQA Analysis Year 2022 With Project conditions, these two intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. The Kell Center Residences -66- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 2017 • A separate analysis of 46 roadway segments within the City of Irvine was conducted per City of Irvine guidelines. Several roadway segments operate deficiently under existing and future conditions on a daily basis. In accordance with City of Irvine policy, a Peak Hour Link Analysis (PHLA) was conducted for these roadway segments. Each roadway segment was found to operate at an acceptable Level of Service from a peak hour perspective. • A separate analysis of intersections on State Highways was conducted in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Intersection analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. • Based on the HCM intersection methodology, the addition of project -related traffic to State Highway intersections would not cause any intersection to operate at LOS D or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen at any intersection already operating at LOS D or worse. • The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,207 daily trips. The addition of project traffic will not cause a significant impact at the CMP intersections. • As part of the Koll Center Residences project, the five existing site driveways for Koll Center Newport will remain in their current locations, with a number of changes to the access provisions for the site. • The main drive aisle that runs from Von Karman Avenue to Birch Street will become an open -access spine street through the site. All gates to the Koll Center Newport parking areas and to the new residential buildings will be located off the main drive aisle. • Access to the residential parking in the Phase 1 parking structure will be via a gated entrance off Driveway 2, which will be accessible from Driveways 2, 3, and 5. Access to the residential parking in the Phase 2 parking structure will be via a gated entrance directly off the main drive aisle, which will be accessible from Driveways 2, 3, and 5. • Impacts from construction traffic would be occasional and temporary delays to traffic, during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. • The project will be required to submit a construction management plan, which will include the proposed haul route plan for construction traffic, for approval by the City. The construction crew will be required to comply with construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures. There will be no dirt hauling activities allowed to and from the site during the peak hours. The Kell Center Residences -67- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study September 2017 N. Attachment No. PC 7 Correspondence O35 C 3C Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin Jack 23 Aries Ct Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 2, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As residents of Newport Beach living on Balboa Island, we want to offer you our full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. We have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Our family frequents the airport area for numerous leisure and business activities, including several events at the Pacific Club. We appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed and remains a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. We are hopeful you will approve this project as we truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Benjamin &?&.'r a Jack CC: Mayor Marshall Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council C3j Bob 9W(Tarfand 17 Beachcom6er Drive Corona de04ar, C,4 92625 January 4, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project. Sincerely, Bob McFarland CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council C32 Chris Shiota 240 Nice Ln #104 Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 2"d, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project. Sincerely, Chris Shiota CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council OS9 I049. Nil . DEVELOPERS RESEARCH January 2, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a business owner, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. The project is located in close proximity to our office. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Developers Research 0/14 -- Laura Oldham, Principal CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council �'1 Debbi Pack 1972 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 December 29, 2017 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge your support for the Koll Center Residences project. I am a voter and homeowner and I am much vested in the future of Newport Beach. I am supportive of the mixed use project which contains 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial and a one acre city park. I have reviewed the plans and believe the project is very well designed, meets all the city criteria, and is in conformance with the General Plan. I've believe it is time to be supportive of projects that meet our stated goals as a community as encompassed in our 2006 General Plan. On other recently proposed projects in the city, I've heard opponents raise the issue of non-compliance with the General Plan. We now have a great project that meets all the goals of the General Plan that deserves your support and ultimate approval. I am hopeful you will agree. Sincerely, py?) d6t,-- Debbi Pack CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 041 Eric J. Cernich 1230 Sand Key Corona del Mar, CA 92625 January 8, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge your support for the Koll Center Residences project. I am a Sth Generation Orange County resident and I have lived in Newport Beach for over 29 years. During that time period, I've lived in Newport Heights, the Westcliff area, Beacon Bay and currently reside in Harbor View Hills South. I am a voter and homeowner and I am very vested in future of Newport Beach. I am supportive of the mixed use project which contains 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial and a one acre city park. I have reviewed the plans and believe the project is very well designed, meets all the city criteria, and is in conformance with the General Plan. I've believe it is time to be supportive of projects that meet our stated goals as a community as encompassed in our 2006 General Plan. On other recently proposed projects in the city, I've heard opponents raise the issue of non-compliance with the General Plan. We now have another great project that meets all the goals of the General Plan that deserves your support and ultimate approval. I am hopeful this project will move forward. i CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council � C42 Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 11:31 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Support for Koll Center project �EWPp� e BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director �tmoaN`� bramirez(o�newoortbeachca aov 949-644-3232 From: Devin Doyle Imailto:devin@responsefiresupply.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 11:31 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Planning Commissioners <Planni ngCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: dailypilot@latimes.com Subject: Support for Koll Center project January 2, 2018 Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Chairman Koetting and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear City Council and Planning Commission: I have been a Newport Beach resident off and on for decades and have been a full time resident on Balboa Island for more than five years. I support the Koll Center Residences project that fits within the current Newport Beach General Plan and believe it will be a positive addition to our city. While I don't support all development, We need additional housing in the City of Newport Beach and this is the perfect location. We already have wide enough streets and infrastructure in this area and it will not increase traffic in the busier sections of town. I also support this plan because it replaces existing uses such as a parking lots and a semiconductor building so it should help to make this project trip neutral. I do not foresee any major impacts to the current neighborhoods of Newport Beach and this is where the General Plan directs new housing. Thank you for your service and leadership for our community and I hope you will support this project. 043 Sincerely, Devin Doyle 300 South Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 949-424-4053 CC: Daily Pilot Sent from my iPad WIM Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 6:40 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Fwd: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Brittany Begin forwarded message: From: Jasmine Moini <jasminemoini@email com> Date: January 4, 2018 at 6:34:36 PM PST To: <bramireznewportbeacheaeov>, <info@spon-newoortbeach ore> Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Please stop trying to tum this town into Los Angeles. You are not listening to the voices of the people who voted you into office. Why are you giving the green light to these monstrous development projects? Some people are saying you are being "paid off' by the developers. What logical reason is there to okay these mega projects? 0415 Rosalinh From: Sent: To: Subject: Ramirez, Brittany Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:17 AM Ung, Rosalinh FW: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramireZ(o)newportbeachca oov 949-644-3232 From: Jramstedt [mailto:jramstedt@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:13 AM To: Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; info@spon-newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Reject this plan. Haven't you heard? The residents of Newport Beach do not want high density condo developments permanently blemishing the character and charm of our community just to line the pockets of developers. Just say NO! Joan Ramstedt, PCC, CLC Professional Coach, Facilitator, "Spark Generator" (949) 644-2480 http://www.JoanRamstedtCoaching.com http://www.Linkedin.com/in/JoanRamstedtt 040 Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 9:14 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Support for Koll Center Residences in Airpeort Area E`we0 o y, BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department 4<soar`� Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirezonnewoortbeachcaoov 949-644-3232 From: KL Dufour [mailto:kldufour44@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:23 PM To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Kiff, Dave <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Peotter, Scott <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>; Campagnolo, Daniel<DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, James <1Campbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; dailypilot@latimes.com Subject: Fwd: Support for Koll Center Residences in Airpeort Area December 29, 2017 Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Chairman Koetting and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 Dear City Council and Planning Commission: I have been a Newport Beach resident and business owner for more than forty-five years. I support the Koll Center Residences project that fits within the current Newport Beach General Plan and believe it will be a positive addition to our city. We need additional housing in the City of Newport Beach and this is the perfect location. We already have wide enough streets and infrastructure in this area and it will not increase traffic in the busier sections of town. f also support this plan because it replaces existing uses such as a parking lots and a semiconductor building so it should help to make this project trip neutral. I do not foresee any major impacts to the current neighborhoods of Newport Beach and this is where the General Plan directs new housing. Thank you for your service on the Planning Commission and I hope you will support this project. 047 Sincerely, Kenneth L. Dufour 971 Sandcastle Corona del Mar CA 92625 CC: Daily Pilot 042 Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:03 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project 4��WP�af c � BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director �groRn`' bramirezaa newnortbeachca eov 949-644-3232 From: Rollin Daniel [mailto:rkdanielmd2@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:56 AM To: Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; info@spon-newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Dear Sir, I am writing to express our opposition to the Koll Residences Project in particular and the need for a General Plan Update. We can not continue to have piece meal development in Newport Beach and need to implement a new general plan. Sincerely, Rollin K. Daniel 3607 Seabreeze Lane Corona del Mar, CA 049 Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 9:14 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Koll Residences Project ®RONO", BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramireZ(aDneWoortbeachca aov 949-644-3232 From: Thomas Damiani Imailto:trdamiani@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:47 AM To: Campagnolo, Daniel<DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, James <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Brittany <braInirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pza k @ newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Koll Residences Project To: Newport Beach Planning Commissioners From: Thomas R. Damiani Subject: The Koll Residences Project The following Letter to the Editor was submitted to the Daily Pilot in response to the earlier Daily Pilot Letter to the Editor "Newport Beach must protect against tendency to overdevelop" by Susan Skinner, December 11, 2017. I believe the Koll Residences project will be a positive addition to Newport Beach and urge the Planning Commission to approve it, especially since it conforms to the current General Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas R. Damiani In a December 11 Letter to the Editor, Susan Skinner attempts to frame approval of the Koll Residences project as a referendum involving the Newport Beach City Council and Newport Beach residents, stating "The City Council will have a choice: stand with developers or stand with the residents. But it cannot do both." She also states "This culture of permissive development emanates from the City Council and permeates the city's actions." While these are clearly the writer's personal opinions, they fail to acknowledge several facts important to an objective narrative. 050 First, the Koll Residences project is in full compliance with the current Newport Beach General Plan which was developed over a two year period with opportunities for significant resident input, after which it was approved by a majority of Newport Beach voters. Second, the project scope and building heights for the Koll Residences are compatible with those in the airport area where it is located. Skinner infers that rejection of the Museum House project proposed for the Newport Center area set a precedent which applies to the Koll Residences. The General Plan requirements for Fashion Island differ from those applicable to the airport area where the Koll Residences are located, thus Skinners inference is invalid. Third, the KolI Residences project fits the "removal and replacement" category to ensure they do not generate traffic that overloads the existing road network. This requirement ensures that any new building must replace existing development, such as manufacturing or office buildings, to limit any new car trips to acceptable levels. Professional traffic studies indicate that the current road system can accommodate the proposed Koll Residences project. Fourth, the Koll Residences project contains numerous amenities of value to the community, such as a one -acre public park, public plazas, paseos, and sports courts on what is now a private parking lot. As a long-time resident of Newport Beach I am interested in keeping the city fresh and vibrant through prudent, responsible redevelopment to meet the evolving needs of the city. The current General Plan was written and approved to provide responsible planning guidance and the Koll Residences project complies with the General Plan. Even though some residents have the opinion that the project should be rejected, doing so would be tantamount to moving the goal posts late in the game and should not be allowed. I urge the City Council to approve this project. Thomas R. Damiani Newport Beach Tom Damiani Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-548-1971 (Office) 949-233-1721 (Mobile) 051 Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 3:45 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 -----Original Message ----- From: charlene murphy [mailto:murphy.charlene@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 3:44 PM To: Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; SPON <info@spon-newportbeach.org> Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project We are opposed to the Koll Center Project - a high rise condo complex that is totally out of character for our Newport Beach community. The negative impacts of this mega -project will be felt throughout the community affecting traffic, density and aesthetics. It is very sad that developers are so aggressively targeting our beautiful city with these mega projects. 0152 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ramirez, Brittany Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 9:14 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Koll Residences Project E`we0 BRITTANY RAMIREZ Uiq Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bram1mz(Unewoortbeachca.w 949-644-3232 ' From: Thomas Damiani [mailto:trdamiani@gmail.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:47 AM To: Campagnolo, Daniel<DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, James <1Campbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pza k @ newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Koll Residences Project To: Newport Beach Planning Commissioners From: Thomas R. Damiani Subject: The Koll Residences Project The following Letter to the Editor was submitted to the Daily Pilot in response to the earlier Daily Pilot Letter to the Editor "Newport Beach must protect against tendency to overdevelop" by Susan Skinner, December 11, 2017. I believe the Koll Residences project will be a positive addition to Newport Beach and urge the Planning Commission to approve it, especially since it conforms to the current General Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas R. Damiani to a December 1 I Letter to the Editor, Susan Skinner attempts to frame approval of the Koll Residences project as a referendum involving the Newport Beach City Council and Newport Beach residents, stating "The City Council will have a choice: stand with developers or stand with the residents. But it cannot do both." She also states "This culture of permissive development emanates from the City Council and permeates the city's actions." While these are clearly the writer's personal opinions, they fail to acknowledge several facts important to an objective narrative. 053 First, the Koll Residences project is in full compliance with the current Newport Beach General Plan which was developed over a two year period with opportunities for significant resident input, after which it was approved by a majority of Newport Beach voters. Second, the project scope and building heights for the Koll Residences are compatible with those in the airport area where it is located. Skinner infers that rejection of the Museum House project proposed for the Newport Center area set a precedent which applies to the Koll Residences. The General Plan requirements for Fashion Island differ from those applicable to the airport area where the Koll Residences are located, thus Skinners inference is invalid. Third, the Koll Residences project fits the "removal and replacement' category to ensure they do not generate traffic that overloads the existing road network. This requirement ensures that any new building must replace existing development, such as manufacturing or office buildings, to limit any new car trips to acceptable levels. Professional traffic studies indicate that the current road system can accommodate the proposed Koll Residences project. Fourth, the Koll Residences project contains numerous amenities of value to the community, such as a one -acre public park, public plazas, paseos, and sports courts on what is now a private parking lot. As a long-time resident of Newport Beach I am interested in keeping the city fresh and vibrant through prudent, responsible redevelopment to meet the evolving needs of the city. The current General Plan was written and approved to provide responsible planning guidance and the Koll Residences project complies with the General Plan. Even though some residents have the opinion that the project should be rejected, doing so would be tantamount to moving the goal posts late in the game and should not be allowed. I urge the City Council to approve this project. Thomas R. Damiani Newport Beach Tom Damiani Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-548-1971 (Office) 949-233-1721 (Mobile) �i Greg Sullivan 1900 BerylLane Newport Beach, CA 92660 December 30, 2017 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a lifelong resident of Newport Beach, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. The housing crisis in our city has become critical and projects like these are the best opportunity to address this problem in a built -out city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business and social activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project. This will help complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned, making the area more walkable and hopefully reducing the need to get in ones car to go to work, out to eat, entertainment, etc. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Greg Sullivan CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 055 John H. Arens 403 Carlotta Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 7. 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Kell Center Residences project. Sincerely, 4, John H. Arens CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 050 January 8, 2018 City of Newport Beach ATTN: Rosalinh Ung 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Supplemental Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences (SCHNo. 20 1 70 1 1 002) Dear Ms. Ung: This letter provides supplemental comments to Olen's original latter on the Draft Enviromnental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Koll Center Residences (KCR) (PA2015-024) dated November 10, 2017 as allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We ask that these comments be submitted into the record, as required by law, and responded to within the Response to Comments. We continue to believe that the City's environmental review of the project is inadequate and should address ours and others' concern through a recirculated DEIR. As detailed below, we believe that this project: • Is fundamentally incompatible with surrounding land uses including the airport and nearby businesses; • Is inconsistent with adopted land use plans, including the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport; and, • Is inadequate in its review of the University of California, Irvine (UCI) Long Range Development Plan and the City's own Anomaly and Statistical Area requirements. DEIR Fails to Address Land Use Compatibility The proposed project requires a text amendment to PC -15 to allow residences on the project site. PC -15 was created in 1972 and rather than look at internally consistent approach, it has instead been amended 33 separate times. When created, it mirrored the private Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions that property owners observe in the recorded title records. These piecemeal I I P a g e Seven Corporate Plaza • Newport Beach, CA 92660 ^ (949) 644-OLEN 057 www.OlenProperties.com .............. amendments to the City documents have not been incorporated into the original 1972 text, and therefore the City has not addressed the internal inconsistencies to this planning document. Further, this proposed amendment has several external inconsistencies with other agency policies. Also, to our knowledge, the cumulative effects of these amendments have not been considered through an environmental review process under CEQA. Introducing dwelling units would fundamentally change the nature of the project area, including the relationships between existing uses, circulation, services, and parking—to name a few. The Koll Center area should be considered from a comprehensive planning perspective that ensures consistency with City goals and policies. we suggest that the City update the Koll Center Newport Plan and carefully consider the environmental impacts of such a change to the Plan before proceeding any further. Additionally, considering the pending development of up to 1,244 units at nearby Uptown Newport Village, we encourage the City to adopt a more balanced approach to providing housing in this area and consider Newport Place as a potential site, rather than the Koll Center Newport area which lacks amenities to support such development. Proposal Colrflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans Policies, and Regulations The Koll Center Residence project is inconsistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies: • LU 1.4 (Growth Management) It is not a well-plamied coirununity and instead appears to be a "rights" grab for the remaining additive units. • LU 1.6 (Public Views) It blocks several views from neighboring offices. • LU 2.8 (Adequate Infrastructure) The project must to demonstrate that it is adequately served by public services including schools and services for seniors and youth. • LU 3.2 (Growth and Change) The project does not retain, nor comptement, the existing commercial and industrial district, as evidenced by request for cone change 1 Planned Community text amendment. • LU 3.8 (Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission) The project proposes up to 200 -foot buildings, higher than existing buildings in the area, which are likely to conflict with airport uses. • LU 4.2 (Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions) According to this policy, the project would require a General Plan Amendment since it would result in additional dwelling units and a tentative tract map is being filed. • LU 4.3 (Transfer of Development Rights) This project must demonstrate that it meets the requirements for transfer of development rights. The DEIR does not address this impact, especially in light of the changing nature of land use. 21 Page 051T • LU 5.3 (Mixed -Use Districts and Neighborhoods) The project does not propose a highly livable design with vital places for socialization. Three thousand square feet of retail in such a large project hardly creates a livable walkable area. • LU 6.15.3 (Airport Compatibility) Similar to LU 3.8, with the excessive building height, there is likely to conflict with airport uses and requires review by the Airport Land Use Commission. • LU 6.15.6 (Size of Residential Villages) This policy allows the development of mixed- use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities. In order to meet the 10 acre minima n, project drawings include existing buildings and surface parking areas that are not part of the project as well as a parking lot and a. parking structure intended to serve existing off -lee uses. It is a stretch to consider all of these elements part of a "residential village" and it should be clearly demonstrated that this project meets the 10 acre minimum as intended by this policy. • LU 6.15.10 (Regulatory Plans) and LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area) The project does not demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses. It is unclear how proposed pedestrian connections are proposed over private easements and other private property. The total gross area of the project is 631,012 square feet (SF). Only 3,000 SP is retail, which is less than half a percent of the total gross area, while 182,009 SP is parking—nearly 30% of the total gross area. • LU 6.15.12 (Development Agreement) A property owner (other than applicant or Koll) within the planning area of the Koll Center Newport should be part of the development agreement committee. The negotiation of public benefits should include public input not just a committee of officials put into office by project proponents. • LU 6.15.14 (Location) Gates in the project would limit access to amenities considered to be public parks. Draft EIR Inadequacies The DEIR does not consider the UCI Long Range Development Plan, which envisions residential units that should be included in the analysis for this project—as was the case for the Uptown Newport Village project. The project site is located in Anomaly Location 2 of Statistical Area L4. The DEIR does not state whether the project would exceed or by how much the development limit of Anomaly Location 2. The foregoing clearly demonstrates that the proposed project will be (1) fundamentally inconsistent with the General Plan (which is in need of a comprehensive update already), and will obstruct its implementation and the attainment of its goals, objectives, and policies, and (2) 31 Page ��9 result in new significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed. The General Plan and Specific Plan inconsistencies, in and of themselves, mandate denial of the project. (Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Viciorville (2016) 248 Cat.App.4th 91, 100 [a project is inconsistent with a general plan if it would obstruct its attainment of the plan's policies and objectives]. Any failure to abide by the clear mandates of state law in consideration and/or approval of the project would subject the City to extreme litigation risks. Thank you for addressing these matters prior to any further discussions. Sincerely, Ckjulie.sel 4 1 P a g e 000 teff Wgwerdink 636 via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 511, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living on Lido Island, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, f-4 Jeff Rowerdink CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 001 Joe Leon 811 Gardenia Way Corona 1De(911ar, CA 92625 January 5th, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Kell Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Kell Center Dear Chairman Koetting: am writing you to urge your support for the Kell Center Residences project. have lived in Orange County for over 50 years. During that time period, I've lived in Newport Beach, and currently reside in Corona Del Mar. I am a voter and homeowner and I am very vested in future of Newport Beach. I am supportive of the mixed use project which contains 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial and a one acre city park. I have reviewed the plans and believe the project is very well designed, meets all the city criteria, and is in conformance with the General Plan. I've believe it is time to be supportive of projects that meet our stated goals as a community as encompassed in our 2006 General Plan. On other recently proposed projects in the city, I've heard opponents raise the issue of non-compliance with the General Plan. We now have a great project that meets all the goals of the General Plan that deserves your support and ultimate approval. I am hopeful you will agree. Sincerely,, Joe Leon CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council �Wr. john X Santry 400 Carlotta %ewport Beach, CA 92660 December 27, 2017 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman - Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am a Newport Beach resident and reside in the Eastbluff area. Please note my full support for the Koll Center Residences project coming before the Planning Commission in the next month. I have reviewed the plans being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe this general plan -compliant, mixed-use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, 3,000 square feet of retail space, and a 1 plus acre park will be a positive addition to our city. I frequent the airport area for a number of business activities, including events and conferences at the Pacific Club, and I appreciate the fact that the Koll Center was developed as, and remains, a vibrant horizontal mixed-use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, a number of restaurants, a variety of offices, and residential. Adding the additional residential units of the Koll Center Residences adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed-use project will add more vibrancy and complete the mixed-use village the city has always envisioned for this area. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences will provide much needed housing in the form of elevator -accessed, single -floor living in the security of three, multi -story buildings. This will provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach senior citizens that desire to remain in Newport Beach, but wish to move from their existing high maintenance, two-story, detached homes using the property tax basis transfer provisions allowed in Proposition 60. For more details, please familiarize yourself with the program as outlined at the county's website http://www.ocgov.com/gov/assessor/programs/55plus. The City of Newport Beach elected and appointed officials should fully support the prospect of providing approval to this project and the building typology. It allows the developer and builder to place density where it can be accommodated in Newport Beach, within the Airport Area, which is why the 2006 General Plan update allowing this type of development was approved by our citizens over a competing ballot measure. 003 Approving this project will provide new housing, which will be first-time housing for some and move down housing for other citizens, and will provide for housing stock turnover and result in additional residential property tax revenues for the City of Newport Beach. In a time of increasing municipal operational costs and unfunded pension liabilities, it is prudent to provide the city with opportunities for additional property tax revenues as other sources, such as retail sales tax revenues, continue to decline or see minimal annual increases. I am hopeful you and your colleagues will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive and necessary addition to our city. Sincerely, John M. Santry CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 004 JAMES TURCO 2 January 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Belcourt neighborhood, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, James Turco CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 32 Belcourt Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 0015 Larry Mandell 2 Colonial Drive Newport Beach, CA 92662 1/05/2018 Chairman Keening & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the neighborhood One Ford Road for the past 14 years, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I understand the project being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Larry Mandell CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 9YlaryAnn zing 7 5W onaco Newport Oeach, CA 92660 January 3, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman - Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am a Newport Beach resident and reside in the community of Harbor Ridge. Please note my full support for the Koll Center Residences project coming before the Planning Commission in the next month. I have reviewed the plans being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe this general plan -compliant, mixed-use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, 3,000 square feet of retail space, and a 1 plus acre park will be a positive addition to our city. I frequent the airport area for a number of business activities, including events and conferences at the Pacific Club, and I appreciate the fact that the Koll Center was developed as, and remains, a vibrant horizontal mixed-use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, a number of restaurants, a variety of offices, and residential. Adding the additional residential units of the Koll Center Residences adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed-use project will add more vibrancy and complete the mixed-use village the city has always envisioned for this area. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences will provide much needed housing in the form of elevator -accessed, single -floor living in the security of three, multi -story buildings. This will provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach senior citizens that desire to remain in Newport Beach, but wish to move from their existing high maintenance, two-story, detached homes using the property tax basis transfer provisions allowed in Proposition 60. For more details, please familiarize yourself with the program as outlined at the county's website http://www.ocgov.com/gov/­assesso-r/"programs/55plus. The City of Newport Beach elected and appointed officials should fully support the prospect of providing approval to this project and the building typology. It allows the developer and builder to place densitywhere it can be accommodated in Newport Beach, within the Airport Area, which 667 is why the 2006 General Plan update allowing this type of development was approved by our citizens over a competing ballot measure. Approving this project will provide new housing, which will be first-time housing for some and move down housing for other citizens, and will provide for housing stock turnover and result in additional residential property tax revenues for the City of Newport Beach. In a time of increasing municipal operational costs and unfunded pension liabilities, it is prudent to provide the city with opportunities for additional property tax revenues as other sources, such as retail sales tax revenues, continue to decline or see minimal annual increases. I am hopeful you and your colleagues will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive and necessary addition to our city. Sincerely, `7 Mary Ann King CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 002 Daniel W McDonough 518 Bolsa Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 3, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Newport Heights neighborhood, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Daniel W McDonough CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council MArWF6l Cb@A8fiur€® 2 January 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Belcourt neighborhood, I want to offer YOU my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Margare hengTurc0 CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 52 6elcourt Drive • Newpor. beam. C4 Xi,0I 070 January 5", 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting, I have been a resident of Newport Beach for a majority of my life and fully support the condominium project that has been proposed by Shopoff Realty Investments. I believe the Koll Center Residences will add value to the area and give our high-class community an alternative to traditional single-family housing. Being a young prospective home owner, I would be very intrigued by this condominium/mixed- use opportunity. I believe the project will enhance this area of Newport Beach/Irvine and will attract young professionals and residents that have the same desire for luxurious living as I do. Myself and my peers do not necessarily desire single-family housing and would much prefer a luxury condominium setting. This mixed-use project will attract more professional talent to the area and expand the diversity of business in Orange County. I genuinely believe this development will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, ��t� Duffield & Members o the Newport Beach City Council 071 Michele Baron McCormack 323 East Bayfront Balboa Island, California 92662 949-933-0449 michelebmccormack@gmail.com January 1, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Chair and Planning Commission: I have been a Newport Beach resident for decades and have a family house on Balboa Island. I support the Koll Center Residences project that fits within the current Newport Beach General Plan and will be a positive addition to our city. I support this plan because of the location in the airport area and it replaces current uses such as a parking lots and a semiconductor building. I do not foresee any major impacts to the current neighborhoods of Newport Beach and this is where the General Plan directs new housing. My family and I encourage the City of Newport Beach to support this project. It creates housing in the airport area, which is where the 2006 General Plan directs most of the new housing to be built in the future. Thank you for your service and I hope you will support this project. Sincerely, Michele McCormack CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council (j2 Steven 944. 944urow 2454 Norse Ave. Costa 91lesa, CA 92627 January 4, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project. Sincerely, "I Steven M. Murow CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 07S Tom 1Daflape 2523 vista Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 1/3/18 ,'FGSIVED By COMMUNITY Chairman Koetting DEVELOPMENT & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission JAN 0 5 2018 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive CITY OF Newport Beach, CA 92660 4ZI'VPORT B�PGO RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Bay Shores neighborhood, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, ':�J Tom Dalla e CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 074 January 10, 2018 Dear Mayor Duffield, City Council and Planning Commission: I have lived in Newport Beach for the past ten years and chose to move back here to give my children a better public school education while being able to live in one of the most beautiful communities. What drove us to move here after my divorce was Newport Beach's charm comes from the preservation of the villages of Newport Beach. Our favorite thing to do is walk around Balboa Island and appreciate the quaint charm of our "neighborhoods". We see something different and special on every walk. I work near the Airport Area (on Quail) and equally appreciate this urban and more industrial area. The additional hotels provide needed rooms for travelers. Because of the recent housing projects moving near the airport, I support the Koll Canter Residences being built there, rather than in our picturesque beach side areas. While I do not want to see a lot of new traffic, I do want to see additional housing be added to the housing stock in Newport Beach. This project builds homes in the airport area and I think this is the best place for Newport Beach to grow. Thank you. Sincerely, Lisa Fogarty 440 Vista Suerte Newport Beach, CA 92660 075 Kenneth L. Dufour January 10, 2018 Dear Mayor Duffield, City Council and Planning Commission: I first came to Newport Beach for business in the early 1960's. I loved going to Sid's Blue Beet, listening to Jose Feliciano and feeding his dog beer. As soon as I could move my life and business from St. Paul, Minnesota to Newport Beach, I did. I raised my family in Corona del Mar and still live here today. I've seen numerous changes. Most, of which, were for the better. Sure there's more traffic, but there's also great retail, restaurants, our great harbor and tourism. That's because this is an amazingly beautiful and fun community. Newport Beach attracts people from all over. The City of Newport Beach has managed to grow in a well established and structured manner, by following the guidelines of the City's General Plan. I appreciate that the original character of Newport Beach still thrives today. The current General Plan directs the City to build new housing in the Airport Area. The Koll Center Residences fits the guidelines for development exactly because it follows the General Plan. While I do not want to see a lot of growth and new traffic, I realize that we need some growth. This project builds homes in the Airport Area and I think this is the best place for Newport Beach to grow. I also like the fact that other land uses will be exchanged for the new development. This proposal replaces several surface parking lots, creates a new parking structure and three new buildings with new housing. I would like to encourage you to follow the General Plan, maintain the character of Newport Beach and vote to move the Koll Center Residences forward. Thank you to all for your support of the General Plan and this Koll Residences Project. Respectfully, Ken Dufour Corona del Mar cc: Daily Pilot 971 Sandcastle Drive corona del mar, ca. 92625 949 231-9090 kendufour449gmail.com 070 Mackey O'Donnell 409 Cabrillo Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 January 7, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Corona Highlands neighborhood, I want to go on record as supporting the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I reviewed the plans presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed-use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial and a 1.17 -acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Koll Center Residences is a great project that meets all the goals of the General Plan and deserves your support and approval. It is time to be supportive of projects that meet our stated goals as a community as shown in our 2006 General Plan. I am hopeful you will approve this project as 1 truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, f Macke 'Donnell' CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council ,,p,CEIVED 6Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PauCR. Evans JAN 0 9 2018 Box 456 CITY OF q\ ewyort Beach, CA 92662 4�kPORT BEPO(\ January 5, 2016 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman - Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am a resident of Balboa Island and have resided in Newport Beach since 1972. Please note my support for the Koll Center Residences project coming before the Planning Commission in the next month. I have reviewed the plans being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe this mixed- use project consisting. of over 200 residential.condominiums, along with retail space, and park of over an acre, will be'a positive addition= to'our city.' When Don Koll developed the Koll Center, the intent was, and remains to be, a vibrant mixed-use area. It currently includes hotels, restaurants, offices, and residences. Adding the additional units of the Koll Center. Residences adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed-use project will add more vibrancy and complete what the city has envisioned for this area. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences will provide much needed housing in the form of elevator - accessed, single -floor living in the security of three, multi -story buildings. This will provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach senior citizens that desire to remain in Newport Beach, but wish to move from their existing high maintenance, two-story, detached homes using the property tax basis transfer provisions allowed in Proposition 60. As a senior citizen, I appreciate that accommodations for locals who are moving into retirement are included in the planning of proposed project. Approving and supporting this plan will allow the developer to place density where it can be accommodated in Newport Beach, within the Airport Area, which is why the 2006 General Plan update allowing this type of development was previously approved. Further, this project will provide new housing resulting in additional property tax revenues for the City. In a time of increasing municipal costs, it seems prudent to take advantage of rational opportunities for additional property tax revenues. I am hopeful you and your colleagues will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive or. Duffield' & Members of the,Newport Beach City Council 072 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Duff Evans <duffevans@gmaitcom> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:05 PM To: Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Res/ Newport Beach Dear Mayor and City Council I am writing to express my support for the Koll Center Residences in Newport Beach. I like that new development will take place up in the airport area where there is very little community. I think the increased housing in that area will create a sense of neighborhood. All of the other neighborhoods in Newport Beach have been built out and really don't need the increased traffic. I have lived on Balboa Island for 8 years and Orange County for 26years. This is a wonderful community. I am friendly with all my neighbors and I would like to see my quality of life preserved. I believe a new community in John Wayne airport area will not affect my quality of life and it gives an opportunity for a new neighborhood to be created in Newport Beach. I hope you will support this proposal. Sincerely, Duff Evans 116 Crystal Ave Newport Beach, 92662 949-973-8860 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Jon Merry <jmerry@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:40 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residents Attachments: Mayor 154.pdf Newport Beach Planning Commissioners. Support letter for the Koll Center Residents. Regards, Jon H. Merry JM Commercial LLC 3857 Birch Street, Suite 522 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ph 714.390.0777 jmerry@pacbell.net JM COMMERCIAL LLC REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Dear Mayor Muldoon, City Council and Planning Commission of Newport Beach: I live and work in Newport Beach. I grew up in Newport Beach and graduated from Corona del Mar High School in 1980. I currently live at 440 Vista Suerte, Newport Beach. I have leased and sold commercial properties it the airport area for over 33 years. I like the idea of the Koll Center Residents in the airport area. I have consummated many transactions with the Koll Company and appreciate their professionalism and the quality of product they build. They have been building in the airport area ever since I can remember and are very familiar with the City's General Plan. As buildings become antiquated and have out lived their highest and best use, it is time to remove and replace. As the City of Newport continues to grow and prosper they need a project like this to accommodate new businesses and residents without impacting the existing residential areas. I support the development of the Koll Center Residents in the airport area and hope you will also support it as our elected representatives for the Newport Beach. Sinc Jon H. Merry JM Commercial LLC 3857 Birch Street, Suite 522 Newport Beach CA 92660 (714) 390-0777 Jmerry@pacbell.net Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Andy Wolfe <andy@teamcolorscreenprinting.com> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:06 PM To: Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners; dailypilot@latimes.com Subject: Koll Center Residences Dear Mayor Duffield, City Council and Planning Commission: This email is to express my support for the Kell Center Residences. Growth is inevitable and it needs to be controlled and within reasonable limits. I prefer growth in the airport area and not down by the beach where it is already busy enough. I've been a resident of Newport Beach for 45 years and have seen many changes that I have not been able to comment on. I own a home here in Bayview Heights and my wife does as well near Banning Ranch. We are active in the fight opposing the development of Banning Ranch. Her Great Grandparents built the 7th house on Balboa Island back in the early 30's. You have my full support. Sincerely, Andy Wolfe cc: Newport Beach City Council Daily Pilot ANDY WOLFE TEAM COLOR INC. 837 W. 18TH STREET COSTA MESA, CA.92627 PH: 949-646-6486 FAX: 949-646-6594 ondy4leamcolorscree nlodnting.com teamcolorinc.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Richard Kanzler <rkanzler@roadrunner.com> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:24 PM To: Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Shopoff Project Attachments: Koll Shopoff Kanzler.docx Dear City council and Planning commissioners, I have attached a letter for your review. Thank you for your time, Richard IKanzler Richard Kanzler 1912 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-646-3532 January 10, 2018 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Dear Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission of Newport Beach Newport Beach has been a wonderful place to call home. I am a lifelong resident and have lived in various neighborhoods throughout my 55+ years here. I graduated from Corona del Mar High School and my daughter recently graduated from Newport Harbor High School. As someone who was lucky enough to grow up in one of the most iconic homes in Newport Harbor (the lighthouse home on Harbor Island), I care deeply about what our community looks and feels like. I pay close attention to matters in Newport Harbor and potential new development. That is why I would like to express my support for the Koll Center Residences proposal at the John Wayne Airport area. For many years the Koll Company was one of my clients and I know the proposed location in the Airport Area very well. The time has come to repurpose these sprawling parking lots and bring new housing in an area that can withstand additional growth. I like that this plan will provide much needed new housing without increasing traffic in my neighborhood or near PCH. Please support the Koll Center Residences. Sincerely, :ua�rr_w:�ra� rkanzler@roadrunner.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Koll Residences High -Rise Condo Towers - Community Coalition Launches New Website Opposed to Project From: ProtectNB.org [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 8:15 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngftnewportbeachca.gov>; hillary.davis@latimes.com; Sara C@newportbeachindy.com; christopher@newportbeachindy.com; twood@voiceofoc.org; tsears@voiceofoc.org Subject: Koll Residences High -Rise Condo Towers - Community Coalition Launches New Website Opposed to Project A new website opposing the Koll Residences condo tower proposal has gone live at www.ProtectNB.org, A coalition of community organizations, residents, businesses and affected property owners developed the website. The fact that the project is high-rise condo towers rather than a modest residential village seems to have hit a major chord in the community, with tremendous public interest in the Koll condo towers and ProtectNB.org website already within its first few days since officially going live. The website states that it supports the general concept of reasonable and livable residential villages so long as they are properly integrated and compatible with existing uses, but not high-rise condo towers. The site identifies a number of ways the high-rise Koll Residences towers do not comply with the General Plan or the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the Koll property. It remains to be seen if the Planning Commission can guide a potential compromise that allows a residential village in some form but diffuses the substantial controversy growing over the high-rises component. The new website encourages the public to email their input on the Koll high-rise condo towers to the Planning Commission and City Council. Coalition to Save Newport from Overdevelopment www.ProtectNB.org Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 10:58 AM To: Dept -City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. It will permanently change the character of the city we love. Linda Langley 1928 Port Provence Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-922-7438 ****langley@cox.net Submitted: 1/13/2018, 12:07:59 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 10:58 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUne@newoortbeachca.eov> Subject: High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. High rise buildings do NOT belong in Newport Beach. It will permanently change the character of the city we love. Linda Langley 1928 Port Provence Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-922-7438 ****laneley@cox.net Submitted: 1/13/2018, 12:07:59 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 11:27 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Anita Boyd 1 Vista Tramonto Newport Beach, CA 92657 949-640-4116 ****boyd@cox.net Submitted: 1/14/2018 7:16:06 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: NO MORE TOWERS PLEASE!!!!! From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 11:50 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO MORE TOWERS PLEASE!!!!! NO MORE TOWERS PLEASE!!!!! Jennifer Mannon 2601 Bamboo Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 ****mannon@roadrunner.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:47:15 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Absolutely opposed. Enough already. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 12:53 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.aov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.aov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng(@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: Absolutely opposed. Enough already. Absolutely opposed. Enough already. Vicki Ronaldson 506 San Bernardino Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 ***ronald@uci.edu 949-933-2332 Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:39:17 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Strongly against this development From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:13 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUne@newoortbeachca.eov> Subject: Strongly against this development Strongly against this development. We do not need any more traffic and need to preserve Newport Beach's character. This belongs in Miami. Andrew Leguay 1800 Port Carlow Newport Beach, CA 92660 ****leeuav@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 14:04:50 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 1:40 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Phoebe Loos 1105 Granville Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 ****loos@cox.net (949) 644-4146 Submitted: 1/14/2018 15:49:41 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: No more towers. We are too crowded. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 2:20 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: No more towers. We are too crowded. No more towers. We are too crowded. Diana Thompson 8 Villeneuve Newport Beach, CA 92657 ****teach(@cox.net Submitted: 1/14/2018 15:49:41 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Save Newport From Koll High Rise Residential Builidngs From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 2:33 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngc@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Save Newport From Koll High Rise Residential Builidngs ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Linda Davis <***vanah ,yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:31 PM Subject: Contact Decision Makers - Save Newport From Koll High Rise Residential Builidngs To: infona,protectnb.org Comment: I work and have lived in Newport Beach. Jamboree Road and Von Karman are already a nightmare to drive. The traffic, pollution, and being crammed in is already overwhelming. I left Los Angeles several years ago to live in Orange County so I could get away from all of this. There won't be any space left that does not have a building on it and we will all spend our days sitting in traffic rather than enjoying where we work and live. Please stop this monster of a project. We are already overbuilt. Name: Linda Davis Email Address: ***vanahna,yahoo.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 2:58 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Marie Kontos 2907 Catalpa St Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 640-7690 ****marie@gmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 18:38:29 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:11 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Martha Peyton 212 1/2 Fernleaf Ave Newport Beach, CA 92625 (949) 887-2506 ***Peyton 112@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 18:50:55 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: STOP From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:22 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: STOP STOP Sally Corngold 2241 Donnie Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)278-3922 * * * * corngold @gma i I.co m Submitted: 1/13/2018 14:09:37 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I oppose all new high rise construction in Newport Beach From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:32 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I oppose all new high rise construction in Newport Beach I oppose all new high rise construction in Newport Beach Gale Friedman 2001 Port Provence PI. Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-289-4923 ****friedman0(clgmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 7:16:45 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:38 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Lucy Dovey 12 Celano Court Newport Beach, CA 92657 949-376-4407 ***doveyC@cox.net Submitted: 1/13/2018 21:59:35 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Do not wish to have this building built. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:51 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUne@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: Do not wish to have this building built. Do not wish to have this building built. Kathleen Risser 2027 Port Chelsea Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 714-315-9717 * * * * risse r(c@gma i I.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 8:16:55 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: This project impacts the entire city... From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:00 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: This project impacts the entire city... This project impacts the entire city ... traffic, utilities, air quality, local neighborhoods .... peaceful lifestyle. Too much negative influence. Lu Baker Newport Beach, CA 92663 ***lubaker@hotmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 13:04:47 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Not what Newport Beach is about. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:16 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng(@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Not what Newport Beach is about. Not what Newport Beach is about. Jana Mcgrath 29 Vernon Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-640-5331 ****mcgrath@cox.net Submitted: 1/15/2018 15:21:46 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:25 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Carolina Maldonado 408 Jasmine Ave Corona del Mar, CA 92625 714-240-9871 ***maldonadoPgmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 13:29:06 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Another example of developers over -building without any regard... From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 4:42 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Another example of developers over -building without any regard... Another example of developers over -building without any regard for the negative consequences the rest of us would have to endure. Michael Smith 1807 Bayadere Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625-1808 (949)723-1603 ***.cdm@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 16:23:44 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:16 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Lynn Lorenz 434 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)646-2054 ***nierlo@aol.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 20:19:41 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Taylor Fogarty <taylorfogarty314@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:40 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center January 15, 2018 Dear Mayor Duffield, City Council and Planning Commission: I am a CDM high School graduate and as a Vanderbilt University graduate my plan has always been to return back to Newport and begin my career and adult life. While I loved living in the "flower streets" and growing up on Balboa Island I don't see myself moving to either of these areas as a young, single recent college graduate. I do however definitely see myself living in one of the mixed use projects like the Koll Residences in the more urban area of Newport Beach with other young professionals. I do not want to see a lot of new traffic, but I do want to see additional housing be added to the housing stock in Newport Beach. This project builds my preferred style of housing in the airport area and I think this is the best and only place for Newport Beach to grow. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Taylor Fogarty 440 Vista Suerte Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Koll Support Letters Attachments: Koll Support Grover.pdf; Koll Support Pharris.pdf; KCN Support Letter - Newport Lexus.pdf; KCN Support Letter - David Blum.pdf From: Coralee Newman [mailto:cora(cDgovsol.com] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:27 PM To: Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Koll Support Letters Dear Chairman Koetting: Please find attached 4 additional supporter letters for Koll Residences. Thank You, Coralee Newman Coralee S. Newman Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: (949) 717-7944 cora@govsol.com cell: (949) 244-4242 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) January 11, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a resident of Newport Beach living in the One Ford Road neighborhood, I offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Paul F. Grover IV CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Sue Pharris Tallman 977 Bayside Cove West Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 11, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Bayside Cove neighborhood, I offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, /L. Sue Phar 's Tallman CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council January 8, 2018 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) Newport Lexus 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: (949) 477-7000 (949) 477-7010 Fax www.newportlexu s.com As a business and property owner in the City of Newport Beach, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, 3,00 square feet of retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Our business is in the Airport Area and I appreciate the fact that the adjacent Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The Airport Area has many uses, including hotels, restaurants, offices, and commercial enterprises. Adding the additional residential uses at Koll Center as proposed adjacent to the Uptown Newport project will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, David Wilson CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 :Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 1David Bfum NorthMarq Capitaf 500 Newport Center Dr., Suite 650 Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 8, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project: Sincerely, David Blum CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council 9 9 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:45 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Mary Ann Bruce Newport Beach, CA 92660 * * * b ru ce40P gma i l.co m Submitted: 1/13/2018 14:14:18 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Form Submission - Contact Decision Makers - Opposition From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:52 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngc@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Form Submission - Contact Decision Makers - Opposition ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emery Ledger <***mery�a,ledgerlaw.com> Date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:17 PM Subject: Contact Decision Makers - Opposition To: infona,protectnb.org Comment: I oppose. Name: Emery Ledger Address: 5160 Birch Street Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email Address: ***meryAledgerlaw.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: We need to spread housing out and not put any high rises in NB. From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:57 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: We need to spread housing out and not put any high rises in NB. We need to spread housing out and not put any high rises in NB. Nicole Reynolds 1509 Dolphin Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ***revnolds@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 17:37:50 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Koll Center Residences Support Letters Attachments: KCN Support Letter - Aric Evatt.pdf; KCR Support Letter - Debbie Painter.pdf; KCR Support Letter - Michael Arens.pdf; KCR Support -Developers Research.pdf From: Coralee Newman [mailto:cora(cDgovsol.com] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 6:02 PM To: Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Koll Center Residences Support Letters Dear Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: Please find an additional 4 support letters for Koll Center Residences. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Coralee Newman UOVL12NMEN i IVA SOLUTIONS Coralee S. Newman Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: (949) 717-7944 cora@govsol.com cell: (949) 244-4242 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Aric Evatt 430AhsoAve Newport Oeach, CA 92663 January 10, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project. Sincerely, Aric Evatt CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Debbie Painter 730 3fafabar Dr. Corona def9Yar, CA 92625 January 9, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman - Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: I am a Newport Beach resident and reside in the Irvine Terrace area/neighborhood. Please note my full support for the Koll Center Residences project coming before the Planning Commission in the next month. I have reviewed the plans being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe this general plan -compliant, mixed-use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, 3,000 square feet of retail space, and a 1 plus acre park will be a positive addition to our city. I frequent the airport area for a number of business activities, including events and conferences at the Pacific Club, and I appreciate the fact that the Koll Center was developed as, and remains, a vibrant horizontal mixed-use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, a number of restaurants, a variety of offices, and residential. Adding the additional residential units of the Koll Center Residences adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed-use project will add more vibrancy and complete the mixed-use village the city has always envisioned for this area. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences will provide much needed housing in the form of elevator -accessed, single -floor living in the security of three, multi -story buildings. This will provide housing opportunities for Newport Beach senior citizens that desire to remain in Newport Beach, but wish to move from their existing high maintenance, two-story, detached homes using the property tax basis transfer provisions allowed in Proposition 60. For more details, please familiarize yourself with the program as outlined at the county's website http://www.ocgov.com/gov/assessor/programs/55plus. The City of Newport Beach elected and appointed officials should fully support the prospect of providing approval to this project and the building typology. It allows the developer and builder to place density where it can be accommodated in Newport Beach, within the Airport Area, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) which is why the 2006 General Plan update allowing this type of development was approved by our citizens over a competing ballot measure. Approving this project will provide new housing, which will be first-time housing for some and move down housing for other citizens, and will provide for housing stock turnover and result in additional residential property tax revenues for the City of Newport Beach. In a time of increasing municipal operational costs and unfunded pension liabilities, it is prudent to provide the city with opportunities for additional property tax revenues as other sources, such as retail sales tax revenues, continue to decline or see minimal annual increases. I am hopeful you and your colleagues will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive and necessary addition to our city. Sincerely, Debbie Painter CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Michael E. Arens 312 33rd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 11, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: am writing you to urge you and your colleagues to support the Koll Center Residences project. Sincerely, Michael E. Are CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) jo." DEVELOPERS RESEARCH January 2, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: As a business owner, I want to offer you my full support for the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. The project is located in close proximity to our office. I have reviewed the plans as being presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial, and a 1.17 acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Frequenting the airport area for numerous business activities, including a number of events at the Pacific Club, I appreciate the fact that Koll Center was developed, and remains, a vibrant mixed use area. The area has many uses, including two hotels, restaurants, and offices. Additionally, the Koll Center Residences is proposed to be adjacent to the Uptown mixed use project, which will complete the mixed use village the city has always envisioned for this area. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, Developers Research oile— Laura Oldham, Principal CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Please save our beautiful community and not think about making more $$$ From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 6:06 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngc@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Please save our beautiful community and not think about making more $$$ Please save our beautiful community and not think about making more $$$ Elaine Hogue 1710 Santiago Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***hogue@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 7:35:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: No more towers, please! From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 8:13 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngc@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: No more towers, please! No more towers, please! Arlene Cartozian 3 Cormorant Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)737-7554 ***cartozianl(@aol.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 14:42:49 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Enough Is enough! No more high rises! From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 8:23 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUne@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: Enough Is enough! No more high rises! Enough Is enough! No more high rises! Bette Doremus 835 Amigos Way, Villa 15 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***oremus@Rmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 16:56:15 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: We don't need more traffic in an already busy area From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:19 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: We don't need more traffic in an already busy area We don't need more traffic in an already busy area Lynne Koffler 2906 Catalpa Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-351-3458 * * * m rskoffle r(clya hoo.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 15:51:13 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:21 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Lynda Robison 503 Avenida Ladera Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***robison@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 5:35:00 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: No new high density construction From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:26 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng(@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: No new high density construction No new high density construction. Already extremely congested. Consider roads, WATER, AIR QUALITY Hyla Bertea 160 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)640-1982 ***ertea@gmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 6:15:13 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: Way t0000000 dense and way t00000000 tall... From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:31 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng(@newoortbeachca.gov> Subject: Way t0000000 dense and way t00000000 tall... Way t0000000 dense and way t00000000 tall and way t000000000 many units all of which will lead to more traffic that we cannot handle. And no airport workers or clerical workers will have the money to afford to buy these million dollar plus condos. Jo Carol Hunter 4220 Park Newport #210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-640-9600 * **carol Pix. n etcom.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 19:07:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:40 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Our infrastructure is groaning. No more! Our infrastructure is groaning. No more! Kathryn Kendall 2420 Vista Hogar Newport Beach, CA 92660 ****kendall.nbca@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 20:47:03 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:52 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No No Sarah Griffith 2724 San Joaquin Hills Rd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-244-8696 ****griffith86@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 14:00:06 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:09 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Doesn't belong to the area Doesn't belong to the area Roxy Deleonardis 1300 Park Newport Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***vdl@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 13:37:49 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:16 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Caren Laing 1 Tiburon Bay Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-640-0936 ***laing@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 12:22:35 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:29 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter, Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: MAINTAIN A PEACEFUL PLACE! PLEASE STOP THE OVERGROWTH! MAINTAIN A PEACEFUL PLACE! PLEASE STOP THE OVERGROWTH! We need to improve the QUALITY of the area we live in, not make it more insane and stress filled with more density of cars/traffic/people. There is so much stress trying to park and drive anywhere in our area and it only makes people more angry and frustrated with one another. We HAVE to limit the density. No-one came here with the hope to live in a Newyork City style place. Please please focus on quality for our BEACH TOWN. Lori Openshaw 1987 Port Trinity Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-951-5437 ***4OPENSHAW(@GMAIL.COM Submitted: 1/15/2018 23:06:50 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:11 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Put it in Irvine plese Put it in Irvine plese Mark Tabbert 2115 Sherington Place D103 Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-310-5256 ***abbertl5@amail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 17:37:40 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:52 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I strongly oppose these condo towers being built in Newport Beach. I strongly oppose these condo towers being built in Newport Beach KATHY BRONSTEIN 7 Shoreview Newport Beach, CA 92657 949-400-4439 ***onstein7@gmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 0:51:32 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:34 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Beach is being destroyed with multi story residences, Stop this short sighted... Newport Beach is being destroyed with multi story residences, Stop this short sighted high density madness. Janet Clarke 602 Poinsettia Ave Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ***comartini@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 13:44:00 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:03 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: What are they thinking? What are they thinking? Bob Hogue 1710 Santiago Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***hogue@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 7:33:08 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:28 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Stop the high rises. Stop the high rises. Kimberly Kolstad 1821 Port Westbourne PI Newport Beach, CA 92660-5333 949-244-9245 ***kolstad@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 23:03:18 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:38 AM To: tycouncil@newportbeachca.gov; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Mary Peikert 811 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 ***peikert@sbcalobal.net Submitted: 1/13/2018 13:22:49 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:54 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: This project will further impact Jamboree and MacArthur Blvd. traffic which is already strained... This project will further impact Jamboree and MacArthur Blvd. traffic which is already strained particularly at rush hours. Pauline L. Smith 1807 Bayadere Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-723-1603 ****smith@pacbell.net Submitted: 1/13/2018 13:26:17 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:09 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Marilyn Krahe 923 Tiller Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ***he home@fkaild.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 8:32:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:09 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Marilyn Krahe 923 Tiller Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ***he home@fkaild.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 8:32:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Subject: FW: NOOOOO From: Public Comment- Koll Residences [mailto:info@protectnb.ore] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:16 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.eov>; Weigand, Erik <eweieand@newportbeachca.aov>; Dunlap, Bill <bdunlap@newportbeachca.eov>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <I lowrey@ newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Ung, Rosalinh <RUngc@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: N0O000 NOOOOO Debbie Reay 6 Fathom Dr Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-903-5285 ***eav@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 8:59:22 Mackey O'Donnell 409 Cabrillo Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 January 7, 2018 Chairman Koetting & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting: Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ,gCEIVEO &)- COMMUNITY yCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JAN 11 2018 CITY OF 111�,V,OORT 13010111 As a resident of Newport Beach living in the Corona Highlands neighborhood, I want to go on record as supporting the project coming before you known as Koll Center Residences. I reviewed the plans presented by the applicant, Shopoff Realty Investments, and believe a mixed-use project consisting of 260 luxury condominiums, retail commercial and a 1.17 -acre park will be a positive addition to our city. Koll Center Residences is a great project that meets all the goals of the General Plan and deserves your support and approval. It is time to be supportive of projects that meet our stated goals as a community as shown in our 2006 General Plan. I am hopeful you will approve this project as I truly believe it will be a positive addition to our city. Sincerely, ij Macke 'Donnell CC: Mayor Duffield & Members of the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:01 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I have concerns about the increasing traffic flow currently and in the future I have concerns about the increasing traffic flow currently and in the future Nita Tewari 17 Belfort Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-275-4145 ***tewari@amail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 18:09:48 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: John Adams <jsainc@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:54 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PA 2015-24 Study Session Attachments: 20180116135352233.pdf Rosalinh, Please find attached our letter in regard to this proposed project. Thanks John S. Adams John S. Adams & Associates, Inc. 5100 Birch Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 jsainc@pacbell.net Phone (949) 833-1972 Fax (949) 851-2055 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) JOHN S. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5100 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9RBBO (949) 833-1972 FAX (949) 851-2055 January 16, 2018 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Koll Residences Newport Beach PA2015-024 Dear Ms. Ung: I am submitting this letter with comments on the proposed project for the upcoming study session and consideration by the Planning Commission. We are the owners of the office building at 5100 Birch Street which is located immediately adjacent to this proposed project. The General Plan Land Use Element calls for re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and that residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses. The existing Koll Center Newport master planned business park is not an underperforming office property. The property is in fact a high quality, high value, office park. The proposed development attempts to divide the park with three high rise residential towers. These massive thirteen story towers will supplant surface parking, landscaping and open view corridors between office buildings. This development will reduce the aesthetics and appeal of the surrounding business park which has been the key element to its attractiveness to owners and tenants. This project in its current form can only be considered incompatible with the General Plan and the surrounding business park use and should be rejected. Another issue I would like clarified is the required minimum 10 acres for such a development. Looking at the technical site plan and proposed lot line configuration exhibit world indicate only two lots totaling 4.0 acres associated with the proposed residential development and two lots totaling 1.17 acres for a proposed park. All of the other land associated with this proposed development is land existing for the current office buildings, required parking and interior street circulation. These are all components of the existing office park and not associated with the new residential development. It appears as if the attainment of the required minimum acreage for development has been achieved by gerrymandering the lot lines to achieve the ultimate development goal. This is certainly less than the 10 acres required for this development. Is the applicant going to only end up as the owner of the two residential lots and the balance remain part of the already existing office development? Is this the real intent of the General Plan? Thank you for considering these and all the other issues expressed by business owners and residents concerned about the extent of this project. Sin rely, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:27 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Ellen Solaas 1942 Port Nelson PL Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-219-0044 ***esolaas@gmail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 10:50:23 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:14 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Britt Cecil 848 Amigos Way -H Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***fitz@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:26:02 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:11 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Beach can not become a Los Angeles... Newport Beach can not become a Los Angeles, it is one of the most desired places in the world to come and visit! If you allow this it will take away the peace and serenity and vacation like city that Newport Beach is, we moved here four years ago from LA to escape that inner city feel, please keep Newport Beach for what it is: Open, Serene, Clean, Safe, Vacation like and Peaceful, if developers want this monstrosity of living style let them go to Irvine, LA, or San Diego! Newport is to special of a place to allow this Tokyo, San Francisco, China style living! Mindee Childers 2328 Vista Huerta Newport Beach, CA 92660 310-499-3993 ***childers@amail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 12:00:23 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:37 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Just say no to Koll Residences I am emailing in support of stopping the development of the Koll Residences. Please make note of my opposition as a long-time resident of Newport Beach. Patricia Rodewald Newport Beach, CA ***dewald@cox.net Submitted: 1/14/2018 9:13 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:32 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Koll Towers Jamboree and MacArthur I am firmly against this development. The quality of life is being compromised in NB due to excessive traffic on Jamboree and MacArthur. I drive both of the streets daily at various times and have observed a tremendous increase in traffic over the last few years. The proposed development is not in our residents interest. Thank you. Wayne Redfearn 607 Bay Hill Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***learn@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 7:46:12 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:11 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: The traffic flow was not engineered properly for this area already. The traffic flow was not engineered properly for this area already. Condo towers would increase traffic congestion to a standstill. How could the City even consider this! Susan Leal 219 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 714-231-4660 ***@specceramics.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 11:57:50 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:10 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please consider the quality of life of the current residents before considering such massive development projects. Please consider the quality of life of the current residents before considering such massive development projects. There needs to be transparency as to the pros and cons of the impact before any vote. Signe Keller 20 Chatelaine Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-466-2442 ***keller@cox.net Submitted: 1/13/2018 11:59:07 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:06 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Don't allow it! Please listen to the majority of Newport Beach... Don't allow it! Please listen to the majority of Newport Beach who does not want more high density development. Beverly Moosmann 544 Vista Grande Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)760-8281 ***isesq@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 8:46:07 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Jim Hasty <jhasty@meyerprop.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:12 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: O'Neill, William; Duffield, Duffy; Dept - City Council; Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences Attachments: Rosalinh Ung Itr dated January 16, 2018.pdf Hi Rosalinh: I hope 2018 is going well for you. As you know, our company had concerns about Uptown Newport and we also have concerns regarding Koll Center Residences. In this regard I am attaching a letter addressing the draft EIR for that project. Should you, the Mayor, Council Members or Planning Commissioners have any questions regarding the content of my letter, I'll be happy to meet or talk with you or them anytime during normal business hours. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Regards, P49 James B. Hasty Senior Vice President Meyer Properties 4320 Von Karman Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)862-0500 (949)862-0515 FAX Ihasty(c�meyerprop.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) MEYER PROPERTIES 4320 VON KARMAN a NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 862-0500 9 FAx (949) 862-0515 January 16, 2018 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: The Residences at Koll Center Newport The purpose of this letter is to address the draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR, prepared for the proposed Koll Center Residences development and to express the additional major concerns we have learned of since sending our initial letter of October 10, 2017 to the City. As a brief overview, the core of Koll Center Newport, bordered by Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street is an office park developed more than three decades ago and consists primarily of office buildings set in a campus like environment. All of the office buildings are four stories or less, excepting two high-rise office buildings that are situated nearly a mile apart. There are two, two-story parking structures that are situated about a half mile apart. The remaining acreage is surface level parking and landscaping including a pond which is habitat to many bird species. The buildings have been situated to avoid massing and to create a significant amount of open space which affords substantial light as well as easy pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress. Having read the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Koll Center Residences it is disappointing to see so many statements that are factually incorrect or misleading. One has to question the intent of the author. I will elaborate with a few examples as follows: Threshold 4.1-2: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) January 16, 2018 Per the EIR, "Less Than Significant." This is patently ludicrous. What is now surface parking with substantial landscaping including a variety of trees and plants with a very wide open vista will be obliterated by three massive concrete and glass monoliths that will not only cast substantial shadows on most of the surrounding buildings, they will almost completely destroy the visual character of the existing open view corridors. The proposed project would create a street through the property which will not only impede easy pedestrian movement which has long existed, but this will also minimize the security currently provided by gated access at both Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Of even greater importance is the change in the nature of the use. The introduction of dogs, cats, skate boarders and the like will forever disrupt the calm professional business environment which has existed for more than three decades. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.2-4: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Per the EIR, "Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not cause nor expose persons to significant levels of toxic air contaminants." Once again, this is absurd on its face. The project is closely bordered by Birch Street, Von Karman Avenue and what appears to be an extension of Teller Avenue. Both Birch and Von Karman are heavily travelled streets and the Teller extension certainly will be heavily trafficked as it's a shortcut from Von Karman to Birch and vice versa. In addition, the project will add thousands of vehicular trips in a week and the private aircraft from the airport and which fly near or directly over the project site will add hundreds of fly overs in a week. Moreover, the planes and helicopters are within hundreds of feet of the buildings. One doesn't need a scientific study to know this is a significant impact. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.9-1: Physically divide an established community. Per the EIR, "No Impact. The implementation of the Project would not physically divide an established community." This is probably the most inaccurate and, frankly, dishonest comment I've read so far. The proposed project bifurcates the existing development with a public street. It takes a private, guard gated drive aisle and turns it into a public street, thereby physically separating existing business as well as available parking. Schools 4.12.9 The description of the distances of the project to the schools appears disingenuous. They may be accurate as the crow flies, but not as the car travels. According to Google Maps, Monroe Elementary is not 3.3 miles away, but 4.1 miles (+24%), McFadden Intermediate is not 3.6 miles away, but 5.8 miles (+61 %) and Century High is not 4.4 miles away, but 5.8 miles (+32%). 0 Page 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) January 16, 2018 i THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.14-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. Per the EIR, "Less Than Significant. Based on CMP criteria, the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact." Again, this is misleading at it addresses only one aspect of the Congestion Management Program, CMP, and it fails to adequately address levels of service once the project is fully occupied as well as other standards established by the county CPM. Approval of this project by the city is an affront to existing Koll Center Newport property owners because the residential use is not favored by almost all property owners here nor is it allowable under the existing Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions of Koll Center Newport. Sincerely, Meyer Properties Z?*1 James B. Hasty Senior Vice President CC: City of Newport Beach Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners M Don- 4 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:19 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: It's time to quit trying to look like New York ... we are a Beach Town. It's time to quit trying to look like New York ... we are a Beach Town. Sally and Terry Welsh 2124 Santiago Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-548-6477 ***pa1100@aol.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 7:52:45 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:19 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Currently the congested roads make it nearly impossible to get anywhere... Currently the congested roads make it nearly impossible to get anywhere -they must stop permitting high-rise condo towers. Maintain the current charter! Cheryl Fischer 240 Heliotrope Ave Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-675-3954 ***Ifisch@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 15:26:47 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:13 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No new high rises in Newport. No new high rises in Newport. Candi Hubert Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***hubert@gmail.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 13:43:17 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:21 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No mega high density high rises No mega high density high rises Tina Mulligan Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***isibleone@gmail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 21:24:56 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:07 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please keep Newport quaint! No more high rises, no more big box stores! Please keep Newport quaint! No more high rises, no more big box stores! Lauren Pomeroy Newport Coast, CA 92657 ***colemanb@aol.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 0:08:40 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:36 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: This is not a development which reflects the character of Newport Beach This is not a development which reflects the character of Newport Beach Jean Beek 2007 Highland Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-548-4193 ***Beek@flash.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 18:36:43 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:18 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please help protect the residents of Newport Beach by saying "No!" to this high-rise, high density development. Please help protect the residents of Newport Beach by saying "No!" to this high-rise, high density development. We already have enough gridlock traffic and the excessive environmental pollution associated with it. Our priceless views of the Pacific Ocean, coastal bluffs and local mountains are becoming more restricted with every high-rise constructed. Together, let us all strive to maintain the integrity of our unique and irreplaceable coastal city. Portia Weiss 421 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 ***weiss@gmail.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 21:58:31 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:09 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose this massive proposed project. I oppose this massive proposed project. Don Ronaldson 506 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 940-722-0739 ***sirdar@email.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:41:23 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:47 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: City council needs to do it's job to stop the overdevelopment... City council needs to do it's job to stop the overdevelopment so we don't have to get involved every time! Robyn Ashton 1972 Port Chelsea Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***family@cox.net Su bm itted: 1/14/2018 9:55:06 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:43 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Beach is a treasure that all who live here appreciate. If we want to keep this treasure.... Newport Beach is a treasure that all who live here appreciate. If we want to keep this treasure, we have to say no to high rise developments. Otherwise we will become like Irvine ... once an awesome, quaint town that turned into a city full of high rises and lost all its charm. Bonnie O'Neil 314 Morning Star Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-645-4450 ***oneil@me.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 21:54:57 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:41 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Stop building towers that bring traffic, block views and block sky line. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Stop building towers that bring traffic, block views and block sky line. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Carolyn Macbeth 2752 Hillview Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660-5406 949-675-6528 ***macb@email.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 7:04:59 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:38 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: no more high rise buildings Please no more high rise buildings Please Mia Vloet 1915 Yacht Camilla Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***mia@gmail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 9:31:11 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:36 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Dwight Ryan 11 Lochmoor Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-887-4536 ***rvan@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 11:39:08 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:34 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please stop ruining the character of Newport Beach and adding to our immense traffic problems. Please stop ruining the character of Newport Beach and adding to our immense traffic problems. Do you have the slightest idea the amount of traffic congestion that will be caused by this proposed development? Joan McCauley 542 Santa Ana Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-642-1938 ***mccauleyCoDcsulb.edu Submitted: 1/16/2018 13:00:09 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:52 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: stop high rise building - too crowded already in OC stop high rise building -too crowded already in OC Keri Miller 12 Fairwind Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-275-8855 ****@cvbermillers.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 16:12:42 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:26 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Anita Clark 17 Valore Dr Newport Coast, CA 92657 ***mclark@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 16:58:04 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:21 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: This would be a horrible addition to Jamboree. This would be a horrible addition to Jamboree. The congestion, pollution and gridlock would force my family and I to look for other areas to live and spend our money. David Snyder 5 Appleton Irvine, CA 92602 949-285-3904 ****hdbs@email.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 20:05:25 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:19 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Oppose the building of Koll Residences in Newport Beach Please do not allow the quality of life in Newport Beach to be denigrated; we do not want our town to turn into another Marina del Rey and Miami Beach. I am a Newport Beach native whose family has been in the area for seventy years. We love our area and want it to be protected. Thank you! Courtney Richards ***richards702@roadrunner.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 19:32:07 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:10 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please DO NOT BUILD THESE CONDOS! TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE! Please DO NOT BUILD THESE CONDOS! TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE! ROBYN ZIEPER 6 LIMOGES NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 949-375-2789 ****@ZIEPER.COM Submitted: 1/16/2018 18:40:46 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:49 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: High Rise Dear Sirs, I vehemently am opposed to the planned high rise construction in Newport Beach. Please lets keep Newport a great place to live. High rise units should stay in LA. Thankyou Michael Price 38 Auvergne Newport Coast, CA 92657 ***price2900@gmail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 20:51:12 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:45 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No high density condos. Newport residents have already spoken forcefully - we don't want giant condo towers like this! The Planning Commission and City Council should recognize that fact and deny this project. Deborah Dorf 3735 Blue Key Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ***dorf@mac.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 17:42:16 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:12 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Stop high rise high density housing projects in NB..Koll Residences is one. Please choose not to approve the proposed Koll Residences. Traffic corridors in this area are already jammed. Water is in scarce supply. Recent emergency water rationing could become a full time reality. Noise, pollution and over crowding is not in the best interest of our fair city. You can just say no, thank you. Anne Lindt ***lindt@Rmail.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 15:47:02 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:12 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Please STOP these high rise condo building projects... Please STOP these high rise condo building projects and preserve the beauty and serenity of our beach community. Parissa Haigh 24 Andiamo Newport Coast, CA 92657 714-390-0422 ***hash@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 16:40:36 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:06 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Stop High Rise Project - Koll Residences The Koll Residence project is not a good idea and will negatively impact Newport Beach. The traffic is already a huge issue on Jamboree and adding these buildings will contribute to the problem. Furthermore, Newport Beach residents do not want this city to turn into Miami Beach with high rise building. Keep the charm of Newport and do not approve this project. Deborah Gubernick 124 38th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 ***gubernick@calliensen.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 15:57:48 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:54 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Traffic is currently an issue without increasing density Traffic is currently an issue without increasing density Scott Harada 5742 Kingsford Terrace Irvine, CA 92603 949-677-2940 ***@slb-cpa.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 10:49:56 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:54 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No Shopoff Group and Koll Company development Please do not allow the Shopoff Group and Koll Company develop an ultra high-density condominium project with three massive towers. City of Newport Beach is different then other cities and is against this type of development. The city council and mayor should already know the concerns of its residents. If they don't they should NOT be in office. Richard Eimers 2301 Tustin Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***ers8@aol.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 1:51:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 9:14 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. I am opposed to the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers. Colleen Premer 20 Molino Newport Beach, CA 92660 ***shop@vahoo.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 19:58:06 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 9:13 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: This project will not only generate more traffic, but it will also negatively impact... This project will not only generate more traffic, but it will also negatively impact the charm and character of our beautiful city. Esther Fine 1830 Santiago Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-548-2971 ***fine@surterreproperties.com Submitted: 1/14/2018 23:02:51 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 9:01 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: No to high intensity development. No to high intensity development Eila Ulyett 70 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-375-2297 ***lau@cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 7:05:32 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:49 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose the development I oppose the development Allen Basso 5120 Birch Street #200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-752-060 ***@slb-cpa.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 12:49:52 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:16 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose the condo towers in its entirety. I oppose the condo towers in its entirety. Todd Sincock 2415 Campus Dr. Irvine CA 92612 949-486-7903 ***sincock@patrisk.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 16:10:22 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:05 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: The traffic along Jamboree is already slow... The traffic along Jamboree is already slow and the ADT counts in today's EIR's are already calculated in a "shoulder season" to benefit development. Reasonable calculations would and should not permit such a dense development. Donald Krotee 773 Avocado Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 714-329-3036 ***krotee@krotee.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 7:44:11 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Michelle Black <mnb@cbcearthlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:27 PM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter, Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kleiman, Lauren; Kramer, Kory; Lowrey, Lee; Campbell, Jim Subject: Koll Center Residences Project - Additional Comments from SPON Attachments: SPON Koll GP letter 011718.pdf Good afternoon, honorable Commissioners - Attached, please find additional comments on the Koll Center Residences Project, submitted on behalf of SPON. Please let me know if you have any difficulties with the attachment. Thank you for your attention, Michelle N. Black Chatten-Brown*; R & Carstens LLP CB Enforcing L.ws b P,.f O Colilornio's Environment 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (310) 798-2400 Fax: (310) 798-2402 www.cbcearthlaw.com Phone(a31Beach ) 798-2400 CK Fax: (3101798-2402 Off" San Diego ff Chatten-Brown & Carstens Phone: F 99-0070 J999- Phone: (619) 940-4522 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 www.cbcearthlaw.com January 17, 2018 Via Email nlanniiigcommissioners@ne"ortbeachca4�m Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair And Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Koll Center Residences, SCH No. 2017011002 Honorable Commissioners: Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Michelle Black Email Address: LLPmng6cbcearthlaw.com Direct Phone: 310-798-2400 Ext.5 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) submits these additional comments regarding the City's processing of the Koll Center Residences Project ("Project)". State Planning and Zoning Law and the City's General Plan require that all development approved in the City be consistent with the General Plan. (See, Orange Citizens for Parks and Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 152; De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773; Newport Beach General Plan, p. 13-3.) As discussed below, the Project, as currently proposed, is inconsistent with the General Plan. In order to be lawfully approved, the project must be modified, or the City must prepare and approve a General Plan amendment for the Project. I. The Koll Center Residences Project Must Be Consistent with the City's General Plan. A city's general plan is the "`constitution' for future development" located at the top of "the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773.) All land use approvals must be consistent with the general plan. (Ibid.) Although it is a charter city, Newport Beach has explicitly adopted the requirement that private development be consistent with the General Plan. (General Plan p. 13-3 ["Ensure that Private Development and Capital Improvements are Consistent with the General Plan"].) Implementation Policy 1.1 states: California statutes require that a city's decisions regarding its physical development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As entitlements for the development of private properties are guided by the City's ordinances and Charter requirements, implicitly they must be consistent with the General Plan. As a consequence, it is necessary for Newport Beach to review all subdivision and Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 2 of 10 development applications and make written findings that they are consistent with all goals and policies of the General Plan (see Imp 12.1 and Imp 13.1). If the project is found to be inconsistent, it cannot be approved without revisions of the General Plan and, as necessary, its implementing ordinances. A project is not consistent with the general plan unless it furthers its goals and policies. Accordingly, any project that obstructs implementation of the general plan's goals and policies is inconsistent with the general plan and may not be lawfully approved. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. County of Napa (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342, 378; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 1332, 1336.) The Koll Center Residences Project may only be approved if it furthers the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. As currently proposed, the Project does not further the goals and in fact, is inconsistent with those adopted goals and policies in numerous ways described in more detail below. II. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan and Cannot Be Approved. a. The Project Exceeds Development Limits for Anomaly Location 2. The City of Newport Beach Land Use Element identifies "Anomaly Locations" and specifies Development Limits for each. (Newport Beach General Plan, Table LU2, p. 3-18.) The Koll Center Residences Project lies in Anomaly Location #2, Statistical Area L4, and Land Use Designation MU -H2. The Anomaly Area has a Development Limit of 1,052,880 square feet. Based on our review of the Anomaly Area's existing and proposed development, the Project exceeds the General Plan -specified limit, with and without parking structures. The existing buildings total 567,561 square feet (without parking). Project buildings total 691,162 square feet (without parking, based on architectural plans contained in applications). Thus, with the Project, Anomaly Area #2 would contain 1,258,723 square feet of development, which far exceeds the cap General Plan -specified cap of 1,052,880 square feet. Including parking structures, the total Development in Anomaly Area #2 would be 1,733,633, exceeding the cap by an even more significant amount. The Proposed Project is therefore inconsistent with Development Limits provided by the General Plan. Accordingly, the Project must either be redesigned within the applicable limits, or the developer must file for a General Plan Amendment. The City is precluded from approving a development project that is inconsistent with the General City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 3 of 10 Plan.' Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) b. The Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Element in Additional Respects. Consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan is paramount. The Project DEIR explains: The General Plan Land Use Element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development and provides development allocations for land uses throughout the City. It presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is to be maintained and enhanced and how new development is to be implemented. It is based on and correlates the policies from all the elements in the General Plan into a set of coherent development policies. The Land Use Element policies serve as the central organizing element for the City's General Plan. (DEIR p. 4.9-2.) Goal LU 2 of the General Plan is aimed at creating a "living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and embraces neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique." (DEIR p. 4.9- 11.) It seeks to maintain a diversity of uses to support the needs of residents, sustain the economy, and protect quality of life. (Ibid.) Policy LU 2.4 is specifically aimed at economic development: "Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents." The Project will disrupt a successful business center, the exact opposite of maintaining or enhancing the fiscal health of the area, and is therefore inconsistent with Policy LU 2.4. 'Note: Our analysis was hindered by the lack of consistent information about the Proposed Project. We concluded the square feet numbers in the Architectural Plans are representative of the building square footage for purposes of calculating the development total. The square feet descriptions in the DEIR vary significantly from those in the Architectural Plans submitted by the applicant. Here are the numbers (in square feet) used in our analysis: • Existing buildings without parking structure: TOTAL USED IN ANALYSIS 567,561 • Existing buildings with parking structure: TOTAL: 657,541 • EIR numbers (averages) for KCR buildings only: TOTAL 483,295 • Architectural Plan numbers for KCR buildings only: TOTAL USED IN ANALYSIS 691,162 • EIR numbers for KCR retail: 3,019 (Project Description page 3-5, says TDR up to 3,019) • Architectural Plan numbers for KCR retail: 3,000 • Architectural Plan numbers for KCR parking (# only includes this anomaly area): 381,911 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 4 of 10 Goal LU 3 of the General Plan is a "development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts..." (DEIR p. 4.9-12, emphasis added.) Policy 3.1 is to "Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts." The Koll Center is one of Newport Beach's thriving business districts. There are no other locations available to replicate this type of business -friendly community. The Project, by adding 260 residences to a thriving business district and making the area less desirable for business2, flies directly in the face of Policy 3. L' Policy 3.2 is to "Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character." The Policy specifies, "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 existing Koll Center is stable and performing as intended, and the residential units are not necessary to accommodate projected growth. Nor is there evidence that residents of Koll Center Residences will work in Koll Center and contribute to reducing commuting distances. To the contrary, the price point of the new residences is such that it is unlikely many workers in Koll Center will live in the new units. Accordingly, the Project's change of use is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.2. Similarly, Policy LU 3.3 is to reuse "underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services" in the John Wayne Airport Area. However, the Project would disrupt a vibrant office park and remove much of the office park's common/open space. Additionally, the Project's high-rise buildings will limit sunlight and views currently afforded the existing buildings. As a result, businesses in Koll Center may choose not to renew their leases once the Project removes the existing open space, light, and views. Rather than reusing an underperforming office park per Policy LU 3.3, this Project would create one. The Project also fails to further the development of a cohesive residential z Generating traffic congestion internally and around the Project site, reducing light, air and open space, and in other aspects reducing the quality of life for the existing businesses in Koll Center Newport. 'Moreover, City Ordinance No. 1449, imposing Planned Community Standards on the site, states that the Project area is "most appropriate for commercial and light industrial uses" that have occupied the site for the last 45 years. (See, page 2.) The insertion of residential uses to the site fundamentally changes the character of a successful business center. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 5 of 10 neighborhood. The residential towers will be isolated from all but the 3,000 square feet of retail provided in the building lobbies. There is no description of the type of retail that would occupy the very small retail area of the Proposed Project; thus there is no evidence it will provide essential services to support residential uses and reduce car trips. Surrounding land uses include hotels, office buildings, and fast food restaurants, but the area is devoid of grocery stores, pharmacies, or other components of a cohesive, walkable neighborhood. General Plan Goal LU 4 is "Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting." Policy 4.1 is to accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. As discussed in previous letters submitted on the Koll Center Residences DEIR, the transfer of development rights (TDR) necessitates a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The TDR creates an inconsistency with the General Plan since the Anomaly Table will no longer reflect the actual development limits once development is transferred from Koll Center Site A (Anomaly Location 1) to Koll Center Site B (Anomaly Location 2). The Anomaly Locations Table must be amended, which requires an amendment to the General Plan. Absent a General Plan Amendment, the Project will be inconsistent with the General Plan and inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4.1. Policy 4.3 permits the transfer of development rights when the sites are within the same statistical area, the transfer complements surrounding development, and certain benefits would result. The Project would transfer development rights of up to 3,019 square feet of unbuilt office and retail space from Koll Center Site A to Site B. The Land Use Element permits the transfer of development rights only when the reduced density/intensity at the donor site provides benefits to the city including the "provision of extraordinary open space" and "the preservation of ... natural landscapes." The Project and its DEIR never actually provide the locations of Site A and Site B. As a result, the requested transfer does not appear to provide any specific benefits to the City, and it actually removes existing open space. The Project is inconsistent with Policy 4.3 and cannot be approved. General Plan Goal LU 5.3 is to ensure compatibility among land uses. To that end, Policy 5.3.1 is to "Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles:... Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing." The Project would place three nearly identical 13 -story buildings into the Koll Center. The buildings are substantially taller than and incompatible with surrounding buildings. Instead of visual interest and Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 6 of 10 modulation of rooflines and building locations, all three towers would be the same height and next to each other. The Project is inconsistent with Policy LU 5.3.1. Policy LU 5.3.4 requires "that sufficient acreage be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses." The project includes three, 13 -story residential towers which have no integration or alignment with the existing commercial uses. Additionally, the acreage developed for the Project is insufficient to prevent fragmentation. The Project is inconsistent with this policy. Policy LU 5.3.6 requires that "adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers." However, the Project will remove the existing office tenants' conveniently -located parking in favor of parking that will require shuttle buses to use. The Project fails to satisfy this policy. General Plan Goal LU 6.2 is to provide "residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." Policy LU 6.2.5 is to "Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses." Apart from the park serving the commercial complex, the Project contains no supporting amenities for a residential neighborhood. The proposed 3,000 square feet of retail is insufficient to provide schools, grocery stores, religious facilities, or other key components of a thriving neighborhood. General Plan Goal LU 6.15 is to provide for "A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian - oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability." The Project provides only seven permanent jobs for which the average compensation will be insufficient to afford Project housing. The Project also contains limited pedestrian amenities, and limited access to transit, demonstrated by its low Walk Score4. Policy 6.15.7 is to "Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales." 4 Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, and other amenities. Walk Score measures how easy it is to minimize car use in a given area. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 7 of 10 The project fails to meet this policy. As described by the applicant at the October 30, 2017 forum, it will contain only one housing type (luxury condominiums), available only to high-income individuals. Policy 5.6.2 focuses on limiting abrupt changes in scale and form on neighboring properties. By placing three, identical, 13 -story towers amidst smaller buildings, the Project is inconsistent with this policy. Policies LU 6.15.6 and 6.15. 10 require residential villages to be at least 10 acres in size and centered on neighborhood parks and other amenities. The DEIR's claims that the Project satisfies the 10 -acre minimum are misleading. The 13.16 -acre "Project site" includes common areas, streets, and buildings that are not part of the Project. Exclusive of common areas, the Project site appears to be only five acres, far below the 10 -acre requirement. The Project is therefore incompatible with General Plan policies LU 6.15.6 and 6.1.5.10. Policies 5.3.3 and 6.15.1 require developments to be "integrated to ensure ...compatible land uses" and planned to "ensure compatibility among the uses" The Project fails to fully integrate the residential village with nonresidential uses. The parking structure that will be located near Uptown Newport will serve the office buildings, not residential uses. An office parking structure will likely be empty at night and serve as a barrier between the two residential areas. Pedestrians will be unlikely to cross a deserted parking structure after dark to travel between residential areas. The Project is also incompatible with these policies because the existing uses (hotel, office buildings, and fast food) are not currently compatible with residential uses. Without grocery stores, and pharmacies, the Project will be isolated, not integrated. c. The Project is Inconsistent with the Natural Resources Element. The Project is also inconsistent with the City's Natural Resources Element, which "identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development and wise use." (DEIR p. 4.9-4.) General Plan Goal NR 6 is to reduce mobile source emissions. Policy NR 6.1 seeks to implement that goal by providing for walkable communities. Specifically, the policy is to "[p]rovide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. The Project site does not have amenities such as schools or retail near enough to be considered a walkable community. The 3,000 square feet of retail contained within the Project cannot change that. Tshe Project would place 260 residences in a business park, far from residential necessities and grocery stores. The Project is inconsistent with Policy NR 6.1. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 8 of 10 Policy NR 6.2 is to "support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element..." The purpose of this policy is to reduce vehicle trips by making amenities accessible to the residents in new developments. The policy specifies that jobs, services, and entertainment should be located near residential uses in a mixed-use development. Unfortunately, the Project's limited 3,000 square feet of retail cannot possibly provide the services needed for a successful residential development. Residents will be required to travel outside the Project area, increasing, not decreasing vehicle trips. The Project is inconsistent with Policy NR 6.2 and cannot be approved. d. The Project is Inconsistent with Additional Elements of the General Plan. General Plan Goal N 1 is to minimize "land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities." (DEIR p. 4.9-35.) The DEIR finds that traffic and aircraft will result in the Project experiencing exterior noise levels of 66.3 dB CNEL. (DEIR p. 4.10-27.) The Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element denominates noise levels above 65 dB CNEL as "normally incompatible" with mixed -used residential development. (DEIR Table 4.10-1.) These noise levels also exceed the noise standards of Municipal Code Section 10.26.025. Accordingly, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy N 1. 1, Noise Compatibility of New Development, which requires "that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2." General Plan Goal CE 6.2 is to "reduce automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies." (DEIR p. 4.9-27.) Policy 6.2.2 requires the Project to support facilities for alternative modes of transportation "to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity"... including "preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas ... and bus stop improvements." (Ibid.) The Project's size (260 new residential units) and intensity mean that the Project should provide all of these travel demand management strategies, in addition to areas for rideshare pickups (e.g., Lyft and Uber) as well as implementation of the planned Class II bicycle facilities on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Instead, the Project relies on the pedestrian paths needed to reach the buildings "thereby providing an alternative mode of transportation for residents and visitors" and the provision of bicycle storage. (DEIR p. 4.9-27.) This is wholly insufficient to both reduce and offset the new trips that will be generated by the residents of 260 homes. The Project is inconsistent with Goal CE 6.2 and Policy 6.2.2. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 17, 2018 Page 9 of 10 III. The Project is Inconsistent with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 requires development of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) for residential development in the Airport Area. Future development must be consistent with the ICDP. The ICDP for the Project site was adopted in 2010. During development of the ICDP, the public was told that the Project site would be developed as a mid -rise, mixed-use residential development centered around a park. Any new buildings would be 54 to 90 feet in height. The Project, which consists of three, identical 160 -foot tall towers, is inconsistent with the ICDP vision. The Project fails to vary building heights. Additionally, the Project does not center around a park, as specified in the ICDP; the proposed park would be located across the street. Accordingly, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 and with the adopted ICDP. Conclusion As currently proposed, the Koll Center Residences Project is inconsistent with clear policies and provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan and the development limits set for Anomaly Area 2. Without significant alterations, the Project cannot be lawfully approved unless it is accompanied by a General Plan amendment. SPON urges the City to adhere to its existing General Plan with respect to this Project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, l Michelle N. Black cc: pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov pzak@newportbeachca.gov eweigand@newportbeachca.gov bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov jcampbell@newportbeachea.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Carmen J. Borg <Borg@smwlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:35 PM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Dept - City Council; Campbell, Jim; Ung, Rosalinh; 'derekostensen@me.com'; 'melanie@schlotterbeck.net'; Robert "Pert" Perlmutter; Caitlin F. Brown Subject: Koll Center Residences Project Attachments: Koll Center Supp_ Comment Ltr - 1 -17 -18 -PDF Members of the Planning Commission, Attached are comments we are submitting on behalf of our client, Olen Properties, about the Koll Center Residences Project. Please contact me if you have any difficulties with the attachment. Thank you, Carmen Borg, AICP Urban Planner Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415-552-7272 http://www.smwlaw.com/ SHUTE MIHALY -WEINBERGERu-P 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T:(415)552-7272 F:(415)552-5816 www.smwlaw.com January 17, 2018 Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ROBERT "PERL" PERLMUTTER Attorney perlmutter@)smwlaw.com Re: Koll Center Residences Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2017011002 Dear Chair Koetting and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Olen Properties on matters relating to the proposed Koll Center Residences. We submitted comments on the DEIR for this Project on November 9, 2017. We are submitting these supplemental comments to bring to your attention an additional critical omission in the DEIR. Specifically, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project's inconsistency with the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ("ICDP") adopted in 2010. Indeed, the DEIR affirmatively misleads the public and decision makers on this issue, conclusorily asserting that the Project is consistent with the ICDP. But the vision for the Project site contemplated in the ICDP and throughout the ICDP public process could not be more different than the proposed Project. Throughout the process of developing the ICDP, the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council were repeatedly informed that the project site would be developed as a mid -rise mixed use residential development centered around a neighborhood park, with the residential buildings ranging in heights from 48 to 90 feet. The proposed Project, by contrast, consists of three identical 160 feet high-rise towers, with the intended central neighborhood park shunted off to the side and across a street. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair Members of the Planning Commission January 17, 2018 Page 2 The DEIR's failure to inform the public of this significant inconsistency, standing alone, renders it legally inadequate as an informational document. It also does a disservice to the public and the entire public process of developing the ICDP. Accordingly, we urge the Planning Commission to direct that the DEIR be revised to correct this glaring omission, to evaluate an alternative consistent with the vision of the ICDP, and to direct the applicant to redesign the project in a manner consistent with the ICDP. I. The Project Is Inconsistent with the ICDP. The DEIR acknowledges that the Project must be consistent with the City's General Plan, and purports to analyze the Project's consistency and inconsistency with various specific General Plan policies and goals. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the development of an ICDP as a prerequisite for any residential development, and any proposed project on the site is required to be consistent with the ICDP. However, rather than carefully analyzing the Project's consistency with the ICDP the DEIR simply asserts that the Project is consistent with the ICDP because of the mixed- use and allegedly pedestrian -friendly nature of the Project. DEIR at 4.9-39. This assertion is wholly unfounded. Throughout the process of developing the ICDP, the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council were repeatedly informed that any residential project on the site would be developed with mid -rise mixed- use residences centered around a park. For instance, all staff reports on the ICDP presented to the City Council and the public indicate that the buildings at the site would be mid -rise. Beginning at the July 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the staff report explained that the " [h]ousing types contemplated in the plan [for the Koll Center property] include stacked flats in mid -rise buildings of varying heights in podium or wrap configuration, as well as possible ground floor townhouse units." July 22, 2010 Planning Comm'n Staff Report at 9 (Attachment A) (emphasis added). Two months later, at the September 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, after further public review, the staff report confirmed that the buildings at the Koll site would be mid -rise. See Sept. 9, 2010 Planning Comm'n Staff Report at 5 (Attachment B). The ICDP was then presented to the City Council for approval on September 28. Again, the accompanying staff report before the Council and available to the public contemplated only mid -rise buildings at the Koll site. Sept. 28, 2010 City Council Staff Report at 8 SHUTE MIHALY &T WEINBERGERILa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair Members of the Planning Commission January 17, 2018 Page 3 (Attachment C); see also Initial Environmental Study at 24 (Attachment No. CC 9 to Sept. 28, 2010 City Council Staff Report). These consistent explanations of the vision contemplated for the site are critical because the ICDP was required to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." LU Policy 6.15.11. The Project currently before the Commission directly undermines the ICDP's objectives for a varied mid -rise development centered around a neighborhood park. First, the Project's three 160 -feet high-rise towers undermine the mid -rise height contemplated by the ICDP. Under that plan, Building 1 had a maximum height of 54 feet, Building 2 an approximate height of 70 feet, and Building 3 an approximate height of 90 feet. July 22, 2010 Planning Comm'n Staff Report at 5-6. Although Planning Commission review and public comment should continue regarding whether those conceptual mid -rise heights are compatible with existing buildings, the clear intent of varying heights is to "promote a variety of building masses and scales." ICDP at 2 (citing LU 6.15.7). Instead, the Project drops three, nearly identical 160 -foot towers into the Koll site. This is dramatically inconsistent with both the proposed height outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report and the General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 incorporated into the ICDP.' The location of the park in the proposed Project is also inconsistent with the ICDP. The ICDP contemplates the "creation of a central neighborhood park." ICDP at 4. The illustrative plans featured in the ICDP show the park in the middle of the residential development. ICDP Figs. 1 & 4. The neighborhood park was meant to be "located at the center of the community" with the three residential buildings "clustered around" it. Sept. ' Had high-rise towers been contemplated for the Koll Center property, the Staff Reports for the ICDP would have included this information as it did for the other (Uptown/Conexant) development site in the ICDP, which states that "[h]ousing types contemplated in the plan [for the Uptown/Conexant site] include ground -level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums." Sept. 28, 2010 City Council Staff Report at 8 (emphasis added). SHUTE MIHALY &T WEINBERGERILa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair Members of the Planning Commission January 17, 2018 Page 4 28, 2010 City Council Staff Report at 8; Sept. 9, 2010 Planning Comm'n Staff Report at 6-7. However, the proposed Project pushes the park to the eastern edge of the property, removed from the residences and across a street. DEIR Fig. 3-7. This relocation of the park is dramatically inconsistent with the park -centered community that was contemplated by the General Plan, Planning Commission, and the City Council and that was presented to the public during the ICDP process. The Planning Commission should now inform the Project applicant that its site design is inconsistent with this vision underlying the ICDP. II. The DEIR Should Have Included Analysis of an Alternative Consistent with the ICDP. As we commented in our November 2017 letter, the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR were inadequate to reduce a majority of the Project's significant environmental impacts. Aside from the "No Project" alternative, all the alternatives represent a use that is far too intensive for the proposed area and offers limited environmental benefits. CEQA requires that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project ...." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b); emphasis added. None of the DEIR's alternatives meet this requirement. Moreover, the DEIR did not analyze an alternative that is consistent with the General Plan generally and the ICDP specifically. This alternative should comply with the height limits, density, and design requirements for the site as described in the ICDP. A revised DEIR should include analysis of a substantially reduced height and density alternative that would implement the vision of the ICDP. July 22, 2010 Planning Comm'n Staff Report at 5-6. In addition, the revised DEIR should thoroughly analyze the potential for an off-site alternative. III. A Revised DEIR Must Be Prepared and Recirculated. Under California law, the present DEIR cannot properly form the basis of a final EIR. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines describe the circumstances that require recirculation of a DEIR. Such circumstances include: (1) the addition of significant new information to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR but SHUTE MIHALY &T WEINBERGERILa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair Members of the Planning Commission January 17, 2018 Page 5 before certification, or (2) the DEIR is so "fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." Guidelines § 15088.5. Here, both circumstances apply. Without any information about the City's previously approved vision for the Project site during the ICDP process—and the Project's blatant inconsistency with that vision—decision makers and the public cannot possibly assess the Project's impacts, or even its feasibility, through the present DEIR, which is riddled with errors and omissions. As discussed above, among other fundamental deficiencies, the DEIR fails to evaluate and disclose the Project's inconsistency with applicable plans. CEQA requires recirculation of a revised draft DEIR "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report" after public review and comment on the earlier draft DEIR. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1. The opportunity for meaningful public review of significant new information is essential "to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Sutter County Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 822; City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1017. The revised DEIR will necessarily include substantial new information if it is to include an analysis of a new project alternative and to adequately assess the proposed Project's environmental impacts and identify effective mitigation capable of alleviating the Project's significant impacts. This new information will clearly necessitate recirculation. CEQA requires that the public have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon this significant new information in the form of a recirculated draft supplemental EIR. SHUTE MIHALY &T WEINBERGERILa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair Members of the Planning Commission January 17, 2018 Page 6 IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Olen Properties urges the Planning Commission to direct that the DEIR be revised to correct the glaring omissions regarding the ICDP, to evaluate an alternative consistent with the vision of the ICDP, and to direct the applicant to redesign the project in a manner consistent with the ICDP. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP �r Robert "Peri" Perlmutter cc: Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill and members of the City Council James Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director Rosalihn Ung, Associate Planner Attachments Attachment A: July 22, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) Attachment B: Sept. 9, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) Attachment C: September 28, 2010 City Council Staff Report 961838.6 SHUTE MIHALY C' ---WEINBERGERLLP Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 22, 2010 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner rungpnewportbeachca.gov (949) 644-3208 PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which requires a single conceptual development plan for that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street, prior to residential development in the area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language allowing new neighborhood parks provided for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area with one public street frontage with public parking. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-_ (Attachment PC 1), recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-002; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-_ (Attachment PC 2), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007-002 & 2008-003). Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 2 VICINITY MAP .t GENERAL PLAN ZONING co.r. AO ® \ i MuI* Pt Mu -H2 Mu -112 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Kell Center Newport Business 8 Professional; Research & ON-SITE Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -1-12) Planned Community Development, Retail, Hotel; Restaurant, PC 151 Financial General Commercial Office(CO•G);General Koll Center Newport Business 8 Professional; Research 8 NORTH Commercial (CG);(MU-H2); Planned Community Development, Retail: Restaurant: Public Facilities PF (PC -15) Financial SOUTH Urban and Industrial (Irvine) IBC Mixed Use Irvine Irvine Business Complex (Irvine) EAST Institutional UCI (Irvine) Institutional 6.1 Irvine Vacant/Institutional (Irvine) WEST Airport Office 8 Supporting Newport Place Planned Business & Professional; Research & Development; Retail; Restaurant; Uses, MU -112 8 CG Community (PC -11) Financial Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item NNo.. 6yb Aedddi�tio5n�all �M�aat�errials Received Airport Business Area"Iflieb 666 C5r3(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION: Project Setting: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), as shown on Attachment PC 3, applies to a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street (Conceptual Development Plan Area). The Airport Area generally encompasses properties abutting the western edge of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and the Corona. Del Mar Freeway. MacArthur Boulevard bisects the Airport Area in a north/south direction. The Airport Area is also in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, "high tech" industrial, and visitor -serving uses. In addition, there are a number of buildings occupied by corporate offices for industrial and financial uses. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which covers the area bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road, was adopted and developed in 1972 as a master planned campus to facilitate the development of an office/light industrial park that also includes supportive retail and visitor -serving uses. Other areas surrounding the proposed Plan are developed with a diverse mix of low -intensity industrial, office, and airport -related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses. More recently, residential development has been introduced in the IBC area to the east of the project site. Project Description: To allow residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one conceptual development plan that would "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared to satisfy this requirement. The Plan is a pre -requisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the General Plan. Once the City Council has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City a proposed regulatory plan for their property. The regulatory plans, along with any required environmental documents, will then be subject to a public review process. The proposed Plan has incorporated and complies with the General Plan policies that establish the fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area in all but one nonsubstantive respect. The neighborhood park proposed on the Koll property has Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Ared'[A dbY&9Udpci p(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 4 public street frontage on one side, rather than two sides as required by Policy LU 6.15.14. The Koll Company requests a modification to this policy language, which would allow one public street frontage, which must have public parking, for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Backciround: The General Plan 2006 Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed-use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. Specifically, the General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips. The 550 units, known as "additive" units, may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area is referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, which is identified in the Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram (Attachment PC 4). Within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are two large tracts of assembled property, owned by The Koll Company (75 acres) and Conexant (25 acres). These property owners initially were unable to come to an agreement on a single conceptual plan. The City then requested ROMA Design Group (who had prepared the framework for residential development in the Airport Area as part of the General Plan update effort) to evaluate the conceptual development plans prepared by each of the property owners, in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the City's consideration. The draft conceptual development plan prepared by ROMA was reviewed by the property owners, City staff and the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2008, and recommended to the City Council for approval. Prior to the City Council meeting, questions on the environmental determination were raised, and the matter was tabled. The property owners and staff have refined and revised the Plan since the Planning Commission's last review. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area Klri e- (ddLQr{p(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 5 DISCUSSION: Analysis: Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to: "Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 16.08 - acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures (Figure 1 - Illustrative Plan). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -grained network of pedestrian -friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. Together, the two properties would use all 550 of the additive units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area by the General Plan, remain under the Airport Area cap of 2,200 dwelling units. Koll —The plan for this property includes three residential buildings with parking, one new neighborhood park, enhanced access to the existing parks with frontage on both sides of Von Karman, pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the ICDP and around the existing office buildings, and revisions to the vehicular access. (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Development Program and Figure 7: Koll Site Framework Plan). Building 1 (a "Wrap" product of rental units) contains 88 units on 3.1 acres for a density of 28.4 DU/AC with 4 levels of residential wrapping 5 levels of above- ground parking structure. Also, there is one level of below -grade parking solely for office use which has no direct vehicular access to the above -grade portion of the structure. Included in the at -grade portion of this site are 13 two-story town Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Are leg July 22, 2010 Page 6 homes which front on the 1 -acre park and 10 one-story flats. The residential height ranges from approximately 48' on the Von Karman side to 54' on the interior'Main Street' as to mask the 5 story structure. Building 2 contains 82 units on 1.46 acres for a density of 56.2 DU/AC with an approximate height of 70'. It is one level parking below -grade, one level parking /lobby at -grade and 4 levels of residential plus mezzanine elements above. Building 3 contains 90 units on 1.7 acres for a density of 52.9 DU/AC. Building height is approximately 90'. The building is one level below grade parking, one level of parking/ retail/lobby at -grade and six levels of residential above. Conexant — The proposed project would result in the demolition and replacement of 441,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses contained within two buildings, with a residential and mixed-use development, referred to as the Uptown Newport Village or the Village. The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial/office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian -friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial/office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organization of the Conexant mixed-use village, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a grid of pedestrian -scaled streets that break up the large superblocks of the area and provide connectivity with the existing street system and adjoining commercial properties. • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • Buildings should be massed to provide strong spatial definition along streets, and stepped down to promote a pedestrian -scaled character. • Create ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Parking should be either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid - rise and high-rise apartments. The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.44 x 50 du/ac), of which 290 would be additive units and up to 632 would be replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. _6yb Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area Illte�I�Ud¢n6¢6�(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 7 will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,600 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. To meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements and Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes the addition of up to a maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that they meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the NBMC. The proposed Plan establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit for review by the City a regulatory plan for their holdings. Regulatory plans must be in substantial compliance with the Plan, particularly in terms of the number and density of residential units (except for any additional density bonuses for affordable units), the general location and configuration of residential development, the total amount and general location of open space, the general location of parking facilities, and the network of streets and pedestrian ways. Substantial deviations, or additions to the number of residential units, will require an amendment to the Plan. Lastly, the City has an interest in timely implementation of the Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of this Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area, from a single -purpose business park, to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood. The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6yb Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area K iedrGg dtn(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 8 of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development areas General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LUIS 15.11): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 24.22 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of at least 300 units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 188 to 313 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate- Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item �No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Areall'LUY6&d CtM(PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 9 income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversify of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately one acre, and for an additional 0.3 acres of open space areas on land that was previously used for surface parking. Although the neighborhood park falls short of the single open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8 percent of 15 acres), the plan achieves the total amount of open space required by the General Plan by utilizing and designating the existing lake park amenity as public open space, which is contemplated in Policy LU6.15.11. This is accomplished by interconnecting the existing open space amenities and the proposed one acre park through pedestrian linkages and promenades for a total park area of 2.64 acres. In addition, since the minimum park dedication requirement is not met, payment of an in lieu fee to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as provided in Policy LU6.15.13, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area"I rlie�fa PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 10 will be required. Staff believes that the park dedication requirements of these General Plan policies are being met. However, the Plan as proposed does not fully meet the provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14., which require neighborhood parks "be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park),..." The new neighborhood park shown the in Plan maintains public street access on one side and provides an "urban plaza"/public walkway on a second side. In addition, the existing lake park has a long frontage on Von Karman Avenue. Koll is requesting an amendment to the language of this policy that would apply to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area only. The proposed language would require public street access on one side of the park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely preferred. The Koll proposal would comply with the revised policy language. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1:49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. General Plan Amendment As mentioned, the Koll Plan as proposed does not fully meet the public street frontage provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14. As such, a General Plan Amendment is being requested in conjunction with the ICDP to add the following language to the policy: LU 6.15.14 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area park frontage on only one public street may be permitted. On -street parking shall be provided Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business AreaK LUAf fJdC�P PAzo1s-oza> � July 22, 2010 Page 11 along the street frontage of new parks, and is encouraged where an existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood park requirement. The intent of this policy is to provide parks that are visible and accessible to all residents of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting the General Plan's concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a development pattern that provides private open space that is accessible only to residents of the adjacent residential project. By applying only to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, the proposed policy language is consistent with other General Plan policies for the Airport Area (e.g., 6.15.5, 6.15.6 and 6.15.11), which recognize that infill development in this area will occur differently than redevelopment that completely replaces non-residential uses, including in the provision of park amenities. Staff believes that a park with one public street frontage that provides public parking will be accessible to all residents of the neighborhood and maintain the original policy's intent to provide parks that are visible and accessible to the general public. This General Plan Amendment does not require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423 because it would not increase the number of residential units or the amount of non-residential floor area allowed by the General Plan, nor the number of peak hour trips generated by allowed development. Environmental Review The consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and General Plan amendment is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Staff has prepared an Initial Study (Attachment PC 5) and determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the residential development included in the [CDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language. The amendment does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and meets the intent of the original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to residents of the new residential development and the general public. This change does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area"Acegra edd �gS (PA2015-024) July 22, 2010 Page 12 No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: erald S. Gilbert, Contract Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant PC 1. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment PC 2. Draft Resolution for ICDP PC 3. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dated June 2010 PC 4. Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram PC 5. Initial Study F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008-063\2010-07-22 PC\Koll-Conexant July 22nd 2010 PC Staff Report (Corrected 7-14-10).doc Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 9, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associated Planner rung(a)city. newport-beach.ca. us (949)644-3208 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010- (Attachment PC -1), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007-002 & 2008-003). BACKGROUND: On July 22, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The report for that meeting is attached (Attachment PC -2). After hearing public testimony and discussing the project the Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to address issues and concerns that the Commission raised regarding the project. These issues are the proposed General Plan Amendment which would allow the Koll neighborhood park to have only one public street frontage instead of the required two, the overall size of the Koll neighborhood park, and connectivity between the Conexant Village and Koll Village. Public testimony raised issues regarding the applicants' rights to use of easements and issues regarding codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs). DISCUSSION: Changes to ICDP in Response to Planning Commission Concerns The applicant for Koll Village has redesigned the neighborhood park with frontage on two streets. This meets the requirements of the General Plan. As such, the General Plan amendment as previously requested has been withdrawn and is no longer a part of the project that is under consideration. The applicant also has revised the project site area to exclude office buildings that are not proposed for any redevelopment. With the reduction in area from 16.08 to 12.7 acres, the required neighborhood park area is Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 2 1.016 acres. Koll is proposing a neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement. Additional connectivity between the two villages is demonstrated in new exhibits contained in the attached Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan dated August 2010 (Attachment PC -3). Seven pedestrian connections between the two sites are shown with enhanced paving and new landscaping to define the connections and screen them from parking areas. Where connections end at parks, additional treatment is shown to provide an arrival point or entrance to the park. The vehicular connection at the southerly edge of the project remains unchanged. Both applicants have provided letters addressing issues raised in public testimony at the meeting of July 22, which are attached to this report (Attachments PC -4 and PC -5). Comparison of the November 2008 ]CDP and August 2010 ICDP The ICDP was previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in November of 2008. However, prior to the plan being considered by the City Council, questions regarding the environmental determination were raised, and the Council tabled the plan. During the intervening time the property owners and staff refined and revised the plan. At the July hearing, Commissioner Eaton asked about changes from the 2008 plan; they are summarized below. The areas of change include overall unit count, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the location of development areas. Overall Unit Count - Under the 2008 plan the overall allowable unit count between both villages totaled 974 residential units. The Conexant Village proposed 714 new residential units, with 424 units replacing existing industrial and office uses that would be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be "additive" units. The Koll Village would consist of 260 additive units since no existing industrial or office uses would be removed Under the current plan there would be a total of up to 1,504 new residential units, 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll site. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would still be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. The change in the number of units in the Conexant Village is due to the change in the net developable acres, as well as the inclusion of density bonus units which were not considered in the 2008 plan. Under the 2008 plan there were Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 3 approximately 14.28 net developable acres. The current plan proposes a net developable acreage of approximately 18.45 acres. The increase in net acres is due to the reduction in the area devoted to streets and rights-of-way. There is no change in the number of units proposed for the Koll Village. Location of Development Areas — There is only one notable difference in the areas identified for potential re -use for residential development. This area is located within the Koll Village along its eastern boundary with the Conexant Village. Under the 2008 plan this area was identified as a potential location for future "row" townhouse development. However, after further study it was determined by the applicant and concurred with by staff that this location for residential development was very restricted. Issues included limited and restricted vehicular and pedestrian access to the units, the location and cost of replacement parking, aesthetics of the residential units, relationship with adjacent office building and restricting pedestrian connectivity with the adjacent residential uses proposed in the Conexant Village. Under the proposed plan this area would remain as a parking area. The units would be absorbed into the other development locations within the Koll Village. The remaining development areas in Koll Village as well as the development areas of Conexant Village are substantially the same as the 2008 plan. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation — Pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the 2008 plan and the current plan are similar, following existing walkways and parking lot edges and aisles on the Koll site and the proposed grid pattern of streets and paseos on the Conexant site. The number of connections between the two sites and locations of the connections are also similar. However, the focus has shifted from vehicular to pedestrian connections, with pedestrian connections highlighted by enhanced paving, landscaping and screening from parking areas. The only vehicular connection remaining is located at the southern edge of the project sites. One reason for this change is Koll's elimination of previously proposed townhouses along the eastern edge of its residential area, which removed one vehicular connection opportunity and added an opportunity for a pedestrian connection. Another reason is Conexant's reduction in the number of streets in favor of more pedestrian and resident oriented paseos. In addition, both property owners agreed that it would be unwise to have vehicular through traffic crossing the north -south parking lot on the Koll property, at the boundary between the properties. This facility is not a street, and is not designed for through traffic or cross traffic. Finally, the property owners believe that vehicular access from off site is more important than between the sites. Both the Koll and Conexant sites are designed as pedestrian oriented villages. Residents and workers on one site who wish to use an amenity on the other site are more likely to — and should be encouraged to — walk rather than drive. The General Plan's Policy Overview for the Airport Area states that residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 4 centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways." Staff believes the ICDP's increased focus on pedestrian connections is consistent with the overarching policy for residential development in the Airport Area. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area from a single -purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a 'complete' neighborhood." The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development area's General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6 and LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 5 Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. • Conceptual Development Plan (LU6.15.11): One conceptual development plan is required for the Koll and Conexant properties when residential development is proposed on either property. The plan is to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." Koll - The plan for this village shows three residential buildings clustered around a new central neighborhood park. All of the land Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 6 proposed for redevelopment is currently used for surface parking, which is proposed to be replaced in subterranean structures or, in limited cases, new surface locations. Existing vehicular access from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue is integrated into the plan, with changes internal to the site to provide access to the new residential buildings and neighborhood park. The urban plaza adjacent to an existing office building and the new neighborhood park are integrated into the village with pedestrian connections proposed to be improved with enhanced paving and landscaping. In addition, new pedestrian connections will be added to provide access to existing restaurants on Jamboree Road and new parks and commercial uses in the Conexant Village. Conexant - There is little need to demonstrate integration with existing structures and uses because the proposal is to remove all existing industrial and office uses and replace them with a residential village. As phasing is proposed in the regulatory plan, that plan will need to address integration of new residential uses with existing nonresidential uses during early phases before the entire site is redeveloped. As part of the residential village, a new system of streets and paseos is proposed, which integrate with the existing vehicular access points from Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The plan for the Conexant site takes advantage of its proximity to amenities on the Koll site and properties along Jamboree Road (e.g., future neighborhood park, existing fitness center and restaurants) and addresses integration with those uses through enhanced pedestrian connections. Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.016 acre which meets the General Plan requirement of 1.016 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7 acres = 1.016 acres). This 1.016 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 7 community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on two sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. • Streets and Pedestrian Ways (LU 6.15.17 and LU 6.15.19): These policies encourage the development of streets and pedestrian ways that break up large block areas and that are residentially scaled to improve connections between neighborhoods and community amenities. New streets, as tentatively identified on Figure LU23 (Attachment PC -6), should connect with existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard, preferably at existing signalized intersections. Koll - The proposed residential street on the Koll site shown on Figure LU23 would extend the existing driveway that runs diagonally from Von Karman Avenue towards Birch Street so that it would connect MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street. Most of the area of this street extension is not part of the project area. The circulation plan proposed for the Koll Village utilizes a slightly altered alignment of the existing diagonal driveway, which does connect Von Karman Street with Birch Street and would allow for a future connection to MacArthur Boulevard if the residential village was to be expanded. The proposed street has been placed in a location that satisfies the requirements of General Plan polices. Conexant — The Conexant Village plan maintains a pattern of residentially -scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. Street connections are proposed in locations that are consistent with those identified on Figure LU23, including two connections to Jamboree Road and one connection to Birch Street. One connection is provided to Von Karman Avenue in a more southerly location than shown in the General Plan's illustrative concept diagram. This proposed connection uses an existing Conexant easement rather than converting an existing driveway aisle in an area of the Koll site that is not proposed for redevelopment. The Conexant Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Airport Business Area ItB p deCi�q�s (PA201e-024) September 9, 2010 Page 8 street proposal does not preclude future extension of the north -south spine to the south, as shown on Figure LU23, if the residential village was to be expanded. Environmental Review Staff has revised the Initial Study prepared for the hearing of July 22, 2010 to reflect the withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request (Attachment PC -7). The changes to the [CDP described in this report do not change the conclusions in the Initial Study, and withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request further supports the conclusion of the Initial Study. Consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, staff has determined that the residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: e aId S. Gilbert, Co"a t Panner Submitted by: AI� Sharon Wood, Special Projects onsultant Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS PC 1. Draft Resolution PC 2. Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 2010 PC 3. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan dated August 2010 PC 4. Letter from Allen Matkins on behalf of Koll PC 5. Letter from Manatt Phelps Phillips on behalf of Conexant PC 6. Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram (Figure LU23) PC 7. Initial Study Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ATTACHMENT C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) September 28, 2010 Agenda Item 23 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant SWood(a--)city. newport-beach.ca.us (949)644-3000 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant ISSUE Approval of the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan to implement General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 and allow future residential and mixed-use development on the Koll and Conexant properties within the Airport Area subject to future regulatory plans and development agreements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 - approving the proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Attachment CC -1). PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which requires a single conceptual development plan for any residential development in that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Birch Street, prior to residential development in the area. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) a zk Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 2 VICINITY MAP IIArte/ P+t3110 Kell Center Newport Business &Professional; Research & ON-SITE Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) Planned Community Development; Retail; Restaurant; Financial PC -15 General Commercial Kell Center Newport NORTH Office(CO-G); Planned Community Business & Professional; Research & Commercial (CG);(MU-H2); (PC 15) Development; Retail; Restaurant; Financial Public Facilities PF SOUTH City of Irvine City of Irvine City of Irvine EAST City of Irvine City of Irvine FCity of Irvine WEST Airport Office &Supporting Newport Place Planned Community Business &Professional; Research & Uses, MU -H2 & CG PC -11 Development; Retail; Restaurant; Financial Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) I Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Settin The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), as shown on Attachment CC -2, applies to a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street (Conceptual Development Plan Area). The Airport Area generally encompasses properties abutting the western edge of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and the Corona Del Mar Freeway. MacArthur Boulevard bisects the Airport Area in a north/south direction. The Airport Area is also in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, "high tech" industrial, and visitor -serving uses. In addition, there are a number of buildings occupied by corporate offices for industrial and financial uses. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which covers the area bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road, was adopted and developed in 1972 as a master planned campus to facilitate the development of an office/light industrial park that also includes supportive retail and visitor -serving uses. Other areas surrounding the proposed Plan are developed with a diverse mix of low -intensity industrial, office, and airport -related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses. More recently, residential development has been introduced in the IBC area to the east of the project site. Project Description To allow residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one conceptual development plan that would "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared to satisfy this requirement. The Plan is a pre -requisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the General Plan. Once the City Council has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City a proposed regulatory plan for their property. The regulatory plans, along with any required environmental documents, will then be subject to a public review process. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 4 Background The General Plan 2006 Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed-use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. Specifically, the General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips. The 550 units, known as "additive' units, may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area is referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, which is identified in the Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram (General Plan Figure LU23, Attachment CC -3). Within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are two large tracts of assembled property, owned by The Koll Company (75 acres) and Conexant (25 acres). These property owners initially were unable to come to an agreement on a single conceptual plan. The City then requested ROMA Design Group (who had prepared the framework for residential development in the Airport Area as part of the General Plan update effort) to evaluate the conceptual development plans prepared by each of the property owners, in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the City's consideration. The draft conceptual development plan prepared by ROMA was reviewed by the property owners, City staff and the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2008, and recommended to the City Council for approval. Prior to the City Council meeting, questions on the environmental determination were raised, and the matter was tabled. The property owners and staff have refined and revised the Plan since 2008. On July 22, 2010 and September 9, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). After hearing public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the plan. The Planning Commission Resolution, staff reports and minutes are attached as Attachments CCS, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 5 ANALYSIS Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 12.7 - acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with the existing office buildings and parking facilities (ICDP Figure 1 - Illustrative Plan). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -grained network of pedestrian -friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units, 1,244 on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, 290 units would be additive, and 322 units would be density bonus units. These units may be developed only to the extent that they meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the NBMC. The exact number of replacement units will be determined when the regulatory plans are prepared, along with more precise traffic analysis to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5 regarding no increase in peak hour trips. Together, the two properties would use all 550 additive units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area by the General Plan. Koll — The plan for this property includes three residential lots with parking, one new neighborhood park, existing pedestrian access to the existing open space amenities with frontage on both sides of Von Karman, new pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the ICDP Area and around the existing office buildings, and revisions to the vehicular access. The proposed residential lots are currently used for surface parking for office uses; this parking will be replaced with subterranean parking and a limited amount of new surface parking. In addition to the residential development, Koll proposes to use 3,400 square feet of existing, unused commercial entitlement in Koll Center Newport to provide retail uses to support the new residential village. Conexant — The proposed project would result in the demolition and replacement of 441,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses contained within two buildings, with a residential and mixed-use development. The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial/office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian -friendly environment, with connectivity to adjacent commercial/office areas. In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to I Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 6 11,400 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. The number of replacement residential units has been adjusted to account for this nonresidential development, in accordance with Policy 6.15.5. The proposed Plan establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit for review by the City a regulatory plan for their holdings. Regulatory plans must be in substantial compliance with the Plan, particularly in terms of the number and density of residential units (except for any additional density bonuses for affordable units) and the connectivity between the two properties, and must maintain the easterly access to Birch Street as shown on the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. Substantial deviations, or additions to the number of residential units, will require an amendment to the Plan. Lastly, the City has an interest in timely execution of the Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. The Plan provides that if, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of the Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to the Plan to reallocate additive units. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area from a single -purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a 'complete' neighborhood." The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development area's General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6 and LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 7 Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies, and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/aC), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 8 Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan include stacked flats in mid -rise buildings of varying heights in podium or wrap configuration, as well as possible ground floor townhouse units. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. • Conceptual Development Plan (LU6.15.11): One conceptual development plan is required for the Koll and Conexant properties when residential development is proposed on either property. The plan is to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." Koll - The plan for this village shows three residential buildings clustered around a new central neighborhood park. All of the land proposed for redevelopment is currently used for surface parking, which is proposed to be replaced in subterranean structures or, in limited cases, new surface locations. Existing vehicular access from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue is integrated into the plan, with changes internal to the site to provide access to the new residential buildings and neighborhood park. The urban plaza adjacent to an existing office building and the new neighborhood park are integrated into the village with pedestrian connections proposed to be improved with enhanced paving and landscaping. In addition, new pedestrian connections will be added to provide access to existing restaurants on Jamboree Road and new parks and commercial uses in the Conexant Village. Conexant - There is little need to demonstrate integration with existing structures and uses because the proposal is to remove all existing industrial and office uses and replace them with a residential village. As phasing is proposed in the regulatory plan, that plan will need to address integration of new residential uses with existing nonresidential uses during early phases before the entire site is redeveloped. As part of the residential village, a new system of streets and paseos is proposed, which integrate with the existing vehicular access points from Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The plan for the Conexant site takes advantage of its proximity to amenities on the Koll site and properties along Jamboree Road (e.g., future neighborhood park, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 9 existing fitness center and restaurants) and addresses integration with those uses through enhanced pedestrian connections. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.016 acres which meets the General Plan requirement of 1.016 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7 acres = 1.016 acres). This 1.016 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on two sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acre is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. • Streets and Pedestrian Ways (LU 6.15.17 and LU 6.15.19): These policies encourage the development of streets and pedestrian ways that break up large block areas and that are residentially scaled to improve connections between neighborhoods and community amenities. New streets, as tentatively identified on General Plan Figure LU23 (Attachment C), should connect with existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard, preferably at existing signalized intersections. Koll - The proposed residential street on the Koll site shown on Figure LU23 would extend the existing driveway that runs Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 10 diagonally from Von Karman Avenue towards Birch Street so that it would connect MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street. Most of the area of this street extension is not part of the project area. The circulation plan proposed for the Koll Village utilizes a slightly altered alignment of the existing diagonal driveway, which does connect Von Karman Street with Birch Street and would allow for a future connection to MacArthur Boulevard if the residential village was to be expanded. The proposed street has been placed in a location that satisfies the requirements of General Plan polices. Conexant — The Conexant Village plan maintains a pattern of residentially -scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. Street connections are proposed in locations that are consistent with those identified on Figure LU23, including two connections to Jamboree Road and one connection to Birch Street. One connection is provided to Von Karman Avenue in a more southerly location than shown in the General Plan's illustrative concept diagram. This proposed connection uses an existing Conexant easement rather than converting an existing driveway aisle in an area of the Koll site that is not proposed for redevelopment. The Conexant street proposal does not preclude future extension of the north -south spine to the south, as shown on Figure LU23, if the residential village was to be expanded. Summary Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan will implement this required integration. The Plan also establishes the framework for future Regulatory Plans, which will describe more fully the proposed design of buildings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the proposed development will be provided. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 22, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). After hearing public testimony and discussing the project the Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to address issues and concerns that the Commission raised regarding the project. These Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 11 issues were a proposed General Plan Amendment that would have allowed the Koll neighborhood park to have only one public street frontage instead of the required two, the overall size of the Koll neighborhood park, and connectivity between the Conexant Village and Koll Village. Public testimony raised issues regarding the applicants' rights to use of easements and issues regarding codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs). On September 9, 2010 the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing on the ICDP. As a result of the issues raised during the July hearing, the applicant for the Koll Village redesigned the neighborhood park as well as modified the project area. The park was redesigned and now maintains frontage on two streets which meets the requirements of the General Plan. As such, the General Plan amendment as previously requested was withdrawn and was no longer a part of the project. The applicant also revised the project site area to exclude office buildings that are not proposed for any redevelopment. With the reduction in area from 16.08 to 12.7 acres, the required neighborhood park area is 1.016 acres. Koll is proposing a neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement. Additional connectivity between the two villages was demonstrated in new exhibits contained in the Plan. Seven pedestrian connections between the two sites are shown with enhanced paving and new landscaping to define the connections and screen them from parking areas. Where connections end at parks, additional treatment is shown to provide an arrival point or entrance to the park. The vehicular connection at the southerly edge of the project remained unchanged. After hearing public testimony and discussing the project the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the plan. The Commission also recommended additional language to be included in the ICDP to ensure that future Regulatory Plans must maintain the easterly access to Birch Street as shown on the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. The Commission also requested additional language be added to the ICDP in regards to General Plan Policy requiring a Development Agreement. This language has been incorporated into the Plan provided for the City Council's consideration. Environmental Review The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Staff has prepared an Initial Study (Attachment CC -9) and determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the residential development included in Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan September 28, 2010 Page 12 the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Gerald S. Gilbert, Contract Planner Attachments ZL-�� D4ZOOL Sharon Wood, Speci-aT Projects Consultant CC -1 Draft City Council Resolution CC -2 Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dated September 2010 CC -3 General Plan Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Concept Diagram CC -4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1823 CC -5 July 22, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report CC -6 September 9, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report CC -7 Planning Commission Minutes of July 22, 2010 CC -8 Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 2010 CC -9 Initial Study F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008-063\0928staffreport Village Illustrative Attachment No. CC 1 Draft City Council Resolution Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received - Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) WHEREAS, The Koll Company and Conexant have filed applications with respect to their properties located within a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Birch Street; and WHEREAS, the applications seek approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) for the Airport Area that will implement certain General Plan Land Use policies; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on July 22, 2010 and September 9, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. 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 these meeting, including the evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff, The Koll Company, Conexant, and all interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the Plan and in the full administrative record, including the General Plan and voted to recommend the approval of the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 28, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the City Council considered the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting, including the evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff, The Koll Company, Conexant, and all interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that: 1. The Plan will ensure compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with the existing non-residential structures and uses. �5 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received City Council ResolutiMlW!er Residences (PA2015-024) Paine 2 of 5 2. The Plan is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy LU6.15.11., which requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to developing residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Approval of the Conceptual Design Plan, as required by the General Plan, does not approve any particular entitlement or the development of any specific number of additive or replacement units. Rather, the Conceptual Development Plan is a required prerequisite for the preparation of entitlement documents required by the General Plan. These documents include a Regulatory Plan and a Development Agreement. Subsequent to City Council approval of the Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City the proposed Regulatory Plan for their property. The Regulatory Plans will be subject to an environmental and public review process as required by the City and any additive or replacement units which may eventually be approved will be fully analyzed as part of the environmental review process for the Regulatory Plans. 3. The Plan complies with the General Plan Land Use Plan and implements policies of the General Plan, including policies with regard to residential village size, density of residential development, diversity of housing, pedestrian and vehicular linkages and neighborhood parks. 4. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under P ublic Resources Code Section 21094. T he Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. 5. 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 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received City Council Resoluti6N' NOter Residences (PA2015-024) Paqe 3 of 5 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. 6. No vested right is created in approving this Resolution by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approval of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Sections 21094 and 21166. 2. The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Dated September 2010) is consistent with the General Plan policies and the City Council hereby approves the Plan (Exhibit "A"), subject to the findings stated in this Resolution. 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicants shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicants shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicants shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received City Council Resolutidnlll,Qyter Residences (PA2015-024 Paqe 4 of 5 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the September 28, 2010 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT COUNCIL MEM ATTEST: CITY CLERK M Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received City Council ResolutionlNOjer Residences (PA2015-024) Paae 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 2 Airport Business Area ICDP Dated September 2010 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) a�) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CONEXANT AND KOLL PROPERTIES SEPTEMBER 2010 4N Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES Introduction In 2006 the City of Newport Beath adopted a compre- hensive update to its General Plan, which includes a platy for infill development within the Airport Busi- ness Area, hamedlately east of)ohn Wayne Airport, bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street 'the policies promote the introduc- tion of residential and mixed-use dcvclopment within this industrial and commercial district, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability, The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business Arca. All but 550 of these units most replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots or areas not used for occupiable buildings located cast of MacArthur Book. word. This area referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for the introduction of new residential devel- opment, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -arse Conexant site 'the General Plan requires the property owners in this area to collaborate in the prep- aration of single Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recre- ational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." 'the purpose of this Integrated Development Plan is to allocate the additive units to properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area and to satisfy the General Plan rquiremenrs for a Conceptual Development Plan. Each of the principal property owners has prepared a Conceptual Development Plan for their properties which the City has evaluated in relation to the poli- cies and standards of the General Plan to formulate a recommended Integrated Conceptual Development plan. General Plan Policies The General Plan provides policies for the orderly evolution of the Airport Business Area, from a single - purposed business park, to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport - related businesses. The goal of rhe Plan is to create livable neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and cominour ry—"residential villages centering on neigh- borhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walk- ways (with) a mix of housing types and buildings...at a suficiem scale to achieve a complete neighborhood." In formulating The General Plan policies, there was concem that residential development not occur on a "piecemeal" basis, and that there be sufficient critical mass to enable each new increment of housing to stand alone as a viable and livable neighborhood. This was felt TO be particularly important in the Airport Business Area where them has been no residential development, and where the predominant land use pattern has been commercial and industrial. AIRPORT BUSINE55 AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES p C Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 'the General Plan establishes several fundamental accommodate a range of household types and criteria for rhe configuration and design of new resides- incomes and to promote a variety of building tial villages in the Airport Business Area in general, and masses and scales. (LU6.15.7). in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular: Neighborhood Size. Each residential village shall be at least ]0 -acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -n& -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Concep- tual Development Plan Area' from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LUIS 15.11). Neighborhood Densities: In addition to providing a minimum land arca for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a Sufficient critical mass of residential as is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. The General Plan also establishes a minimum density of 45 units per acre for each five - acre first phase increment of residential develop- ment although the Conceptual Development Plan Area is exempt from this specific numerical require- ment, any first phase increment of residential development should demonstrate an appropriate critical mass (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9). Diversity of Housing. Within the density enve- lope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high rise buildings to Neighborhood Parks: The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a some of commu- nity and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum distension, no less than 150 feet, and requite that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14). Integrated Conceptual Development Plan The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (here- after referred TO as the Plan), provides for the rede- velopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the rcdcvelopment of s 12.7 -act, portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von notion, Avenue with new residential development and open .space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain. Connectivity within and between the Two properties will be provided with existing and new pedestrian ways, improved with parking lot screening, planting and/or enhanced pavings which are compatible between the Knit and Cmamant properties (details of which will be included in the regulatory plans). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighbor- hoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -grained network of structures which will remain (Figure 1: Illustrative Plan). The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential unity, 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Conczant sire and the remaining 260 on the Koll property, All 260 of the new residentialunits on the Koll site wound be'addi- tive units since no editing office or industrial Use; would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 uniawould replace existing industrial and office uses that we planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the ability to Construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite as an incentive in provide affordable housing in addition to that needed m satisfy the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of rhe 550 additive units prescribed for the Concep- tual Development Plan ares by die General Plan. Conexant The plan for the Conarant sire represents a Complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial/ office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for rhe 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian -friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial/office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organi- zation of the Conexant mixed-use vfilage, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a pattern of pedestrian -scaled scree; and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with Community amenities. Cream a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide Community identity and amenity. • Provide for building massing that creates a strong spatial definition along streets, and steps down to promote a pedestrian -scaled character. UNIT ALLOCATION SUMMARY Proper y Additive Replacement Densftv Bonus Totals Koll 260260 18.45 Conexant 290 632 322 1,244 Totals 550 632 322 1,504 • Integrate residential with ground level uses that promom active and engaging stmt fronts. Parking should either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including mw houses, podium mid -rue and high-rise apartments. • Ptovide parking than reflects the min of uses in the neighborhood. Encourage an -street parking to serve the neighborhood park and visitors. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net develop- able residendal land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac), of which 290 would beaddi- tive units and up ro 632 would be replacement unix (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is Consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement unix will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant Property based on traffic analysis to Comply with General Plan Polity LU 6.15.5. CONEXANT SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Conexant Net Area (Acres) Residential (Dwelling Units) Commercial (Gross Sq. Pt.) Totals 18.45 922 11,500 TWw—ity Ronus Units Total(s) 18.45 1,244 11,500 Total Park Area 2.01 RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010 In addition to is residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,500 square Feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. The preciseamount of commecial square footage will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis To comply with General Plan Polay LU6.15.5 To help meet the City!s Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes up to a maximum of 322 density bonus =in. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only m the extent that aSordable housing units are provided to meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Conexant proposal provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, which meas the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential vil [age (i.e., 8% of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is accessible m all residents of the neighborhood and is dearly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground level uses. An additional 0.51 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the Conexant Site. Koll For the Koll property the Plan demonstrates how non- residential uses ran be integrated with residential Uses along with open space, parking and other amenities to create a livable and attractive neighborhood (Figure 4: Kull Sire Illustrative Plan). In seeking ro meet the intention of the General Plan policies for a mixed-use village on the Koll Property, the Plan has established and followed the following principles: • Spatially organize new residential uses with existing office developmrnt in away that creates an engaging neighborhood fabric of useable and defined open spaces, and pedcstrian4riendly stress and promenades. Balance the amount of surface parking with publicly accessible open spaces and sneers, so that an appropriate residential anvironment is created, and the feeling of living in a puking lot is avoided. Provide replacement office parking for displaced surface puking in new structures that an encapsulated or screened Create a network of pedestrian -friendly streets and walkways that counter To existing and future activities within the area, and that give structure and organisation to the village. Create ground level retail and residential uses that promote active and engaging street firms. Create a neighborhood park as a focal point of the village with pedestrian connectivity to existing amenities that contribute m the residential quality of the village. The mixed-use village shown on the Integrated Plan for the KoB Company property exceeds the 10 -ase minimum requirement and can be considered w encompass approximately 12.7 gross acres of land north of Von Karman Avenue and south of Birth Street. The village area would include several existing office buildings and would provide for the conversion of parking lots into residential development parcels along with the creation of new open space amenities and the connection of these to existing open spaces. AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEKANT PROPERTIES �p It also calls for the modification of surface parking areas to create a better balance of buildings and open spaces, link existing and future open space amenities and to create a network of pedestrian friendly streets. The implementation of the Koll plan will utilize land that is currently used for surface parking, which most be replaced to serve the office uses that will remain. Parking requirements will be addressed in the regula- tory plan. The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, and as such will allow for the development of 260 wits based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. fibra development areas comprise the 5.78 acres of residential land. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) To create an active street front, Koll is proposing to include 3,400 square feet of retail development in the village, with existing unused commercial entidemenr in the General Plan and zoning. As existing entitlement, this square footage does not need to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. The Koll Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.0 16 acres which meets the General Plan requirement of 8% of the land area of the residential village (i.e. 8% of 12.70 acres - 1.016 acres) General Plan policies require neighbor. hood parks be public in nature and must have public streea on at east two sides as well as be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. (LU 6.15.3 adn LU 6.15.14) 'Ihe plan as Proposed meets this land use policy. KOLL SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Koll Site Area Residential Commercial (Acres) (Dwelling (Gross Sq. Ft.) Units) Total Park Area 1.01.6 the Plan also provides for enhanced access to existing amenities and destinations, pedestrian access into the existing office buildings, as well as revisions to die site's vehicular access. Implementation The approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan by the City Council Is a pre -requisite for the prep- aration of the entitlement documents, called for in the General Plan. These documents include a Regulatory Plan and a Development Agreement. Once Council has reviewed and approved the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be mapon- sible to independently prepare and submit to the City, the proposed Regulatory Plan for their property. The Regulatory Plans, along with any required coviron- mental clearance documents, will then be the subject of a public review process as established by the City and the basis for action by the City Council. 'Ihe Regulatory Plans will, in substantial compliance with the Integrared Conceptual Development Plan, describe more fully the proposed design of build - Ings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open spaces, and how infrastructure, including parking, required to support the proposed development will be provided. The Regulatory Plans should include suffi- cient detail for the City to determine that the design of infrastructure connecting the two properties is mor- dinawd. Theywill also include provisionsto ensure compatibility with office, indwtdrd and other nomesi- dential wes. The Regulatory Plan will thus provide a description of the location, intensity and density of allowable and Conditional mrs; cite height and massing of buildings; required setbacks and stepbacks; the to= - tion, configuration and treatment of ground level uses; design standards and guidelines for streets, pedestrian ways and open spaces, including requirements for lighting and landscaping; standards and guidelines N for the location of driveways, service and trash arras; a description of how commercial Uses that enhance the residential Uses will be incorporated; and how required parking is to be provided and treated so that it does not detract from the livability of the neighborhood and the quality of the pedestrian environment. They will also describe the proposed phasing of development and linkage of open space, street and infrastructure improvements in relation to development Any me of the City's density boom provisions for affordable homing, or for the ransfer of development rights from other properties, will also be addressed in the Regula- toryPlan. Regulatory Plans mwt be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Devel- opment Plan, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant tesidential villages, and muss[ maintain the easterly acres to Birch Street as shown on Figures 1, 2 and 3 of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. In addition, the General Plan calls for Development Agreements with respect ro residen- rial projects in the Airport Business Arm Each appli- cant shall enter into a Development Agreement for all residential [nits in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Such Development Agreements will "define the improvements and public benefits ro be provided by the developer in Exchange for the Citys Commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units" (LU6.15.12). The Development Agreements will include performance provisions to ensure confor- mance with the Commitments that have been made They will also establish a time fame for meeting the performance provisions, as well u the phasing and linkage requirements of open space and infrastructure improvements. The City of Newport Beach has an intent in timely implementation ofthis Integrated Conceptual Devel- opment Plan to ensure implementation of in Homing Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Element and to provide unwed development oppor- tunities ro property owners who have rhe interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of properrywithin the arm of this Integrated Conceptual Development Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Develop- ment Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt An amendment to this Plan no reallocate additive emits. RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 1010 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 amlkmnuJ: a 125 250 500 emrwnorax:csue�my FIGURE 1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN �Uf ❑ August 19, 2010 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) k t l tJ,{ �.. tL . To, M C % OfFt l- - i3FIGE rte; z-7 r P,itzKiO;G `* `5- "Ff-3C"E..ti " 4SERUCTURE m;.,,, ^y`3 { `r- .tt..:) ?"` � ?. ;; -•A vac. -W t S '. ew t y v U€FE k R a � m ,..3._r.- Alit „..x .IAL ) 1 FskFi{dHIC�E ITjld�r ✓;41 RESIDEN IAL A ' :, M�� . rk sp ` - �i(4r ' L E IAtilr'su-IMA _ R SDEfdTFAL RE IQEtJTN! k e rJrrtG �� � . � 5r'i ��i L°fft�li4wtvN i'�r � �.� is �.f'Ak mow,. - ' ne s ,�.. �P't➢,i � u tt ,� .'4Rth i '�. �5'?,.;..x i v» t It , q r IAL EBF ECfT1AL �` � .- y , Rci4'F'ttF7RANi ,i:4tu1€ GREE ROAD CONEXANTSITE AREA'� a 125 250 FIGURE 2: CONEXANT ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN _'V I-lN=N�--—F a r August 19, 2010 �;s Von Kannan Avenue FIGURE 3: CONEXANT SITE FRAMEWORK B AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) SITE BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY EASEMENT PASEO FIGURE 3: CONEXANT SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) .i J •7175l0_ •-M,"-— I FIGURES: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN 7 7 .i J •7175l0_ •-M,"-— I FIGURES: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN Attachment No. CC 3 General Plan Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) E Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 54 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN R" U123 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGESILLUSTRATM CONCEPT DIAGRAM Legend oPPDRTMNSMS PEAPOSED OPEN 5➢ACES 900 NPWAD ESIDENP& REEM MW PROPOSED MSIDENRAL SWErS 114"4 PROMAED PEDESMIAN WAYS ..... 65 CNEL NOSE COMOU W w . CdNCEPfUAL PIAN REAUP.ED •TheMCNELNP®eiAeMVIPehoe w ftehaWe PURa ..dy 8 uea: FOMAIYY@ dwP 4R9JECf3AAER: t95iDe1 fLIe: AQ.49e Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1823 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) RESOLUTION NO. 1823 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. The Koll Company and Conexant have filed applications with respect to their properties located within a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. 2. The applications seek approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) for the Airport Area that will implement certain General Plan Land Use policies. 3. A public hearing was held on September 9th, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. 41} Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Planning Commission Relsolcttiann4l4uerrW2(3A2015-024) Page 2 of 3 2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The Planning Commission finds that: 1. The Plan will ensure compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with the existing non-residential structures and uses. 2. The Plan is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy LU6.15.11, which requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to developing residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area of the Airport Area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan policies and recommends approval of the Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. The Commission's recommendation includes the addition of the following underlined language to the third paragraph of the Implementation section of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan: Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant residential villages, and must maintain the easterly access to Birch Street as shown on Figures 1. 2 and 3 of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. In addition, the General Plan calls for Development Agreements with respect to residential projects in the Airport Business Area. Each applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement for all residential units in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Such Development Agreements will "define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units" made. They will also establish a time frame for meeting the performance Tmplt: 04/14/10 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Planning Commission ReS6fW"h23A201s-024 Paae 3 of 3 provisions, as well as the phasing and linkage requirements of open space and infrastructure improvements. 2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicants shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicants shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicants shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. AYES: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Ameri, and Toerge NOES: None ABSENT: McDaniel and Hillgren BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman M Michael Toerge, Secretary Tnnpll 04/14/10 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 5 July 22, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) E Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 22, 2010 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner rungOnewportbeachca.gov (949) 644-3208 PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which requires a single conceptual development plan for that portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street, prior to residential development in the area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language allowing new neighborhood parks provided for infill rbsidential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area with one public street frontage with public parking. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-_ (Attachment PC 1), recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-002; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-_ (Attachment PC 2), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007-002 & 2008-003). Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CCP July 22, 2010 Page 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION: Proiect Setting: The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), as shown on Attachment PC 3, applies to a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street (Conceptual Development Plan Area). The Airport Area generally encompasses properties abutting the western edge of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree Road and the Corona Del Mar Freeway. MacArthur Boulevard bisects the Airport Area in a north/south direction. The Airport Area is also in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, "high tech" industrial, and visitor -serving uses. In addition, there are a number of buildings occupied by corporate offices for industrial and financial uses. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which covers the area bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road, was adopted and developed in 1972 as a master planned campus to facilitate the development of an office/light industrial park that also includes supportive retail and visitor -serving uses. Other areas surrounding the proposed Plan are developed with a diverse mix of low -intensity industrial, office, and airport -related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses. More recently, residential development has been introduced in the IBC area to the east of the project site. Project Description: To allow residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one conceptual development plan that would `demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared to satisfy this requirement. The Plan is a pre -requisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the General Plan. Once the City Council has reviewed and approved the Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to independently prepare and submit to the City a proposed regulatory plan for their property. The regulatory plans, along with any required environmental documents, will then be subject to a public review process. The proposed Plan has incorporated and complies with the General Plan policies that establish the fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area in all but one nonsubstantive respect. The neighborhood park proposed on the Koll property has Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 4 public street frontage on one side, rather than two sides as required by Policy LU 6.15.14. The Koll Company requests a modification to this policy language, which would allow one public street frontage, which must have public parking, for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Background: The General Plan 2006 Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006. The General Plan Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed-use development within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. Specifically, the General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips. The 550 units, known as "additive" units, may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area is referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, which is identified in the Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram (Attachment PC 4). Within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are two large tracts of assembled property, owned by The Koll Company (75 acres) and Conexant (25 acres). These property owners initially were unable to come to an agreement on a single conceptual plan. The City then requested ROMA Design Group (who had prepared the framework for residential development in the Airport Area as part of the General Plan update effort) to evaluate the conceptual development plans prepared by each of the property owners, in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the City's consideration. The draft conceptual development plan prepared by ROMA was reviewed by the property owners, City staff and the General Plani Implementation Committee. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2008, and recommended to the City Council for approval. Prior to the City Council meeting, questions on the environmental determination were raised, and the matter was tabled. The property owners and staff have refined and revised the Plan since the Planning Commission's last review. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 5 DISCUSSION: Analysis: Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to: "Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses," The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 16.08 - acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Kerman Avenue with new residential development and open space, integrated with the existing office buildings and parking structures (Figure 1 - Illustrative Plan). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -grained network of pedestrian -friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. Together, the two properties would use all 550 of the additive units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area by the General Plan, remain under the Airport Area cap of 2,200 dwelling units. Koll —The plan for this property includes three residential buildings with parking, one new neighborhood park, enhanced access to the existing parks with frontage on both sides of Von Karman, pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the ICDP and around the existing office buildings, and revisions to the vehicular access. (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Development Program and Figure 7: Koll Site Framework Plan). Building 1 (a "Wrap" product of rental units) contains 88 units on 3.1 acres for a density of 28.4 DU/AC with 4 levels of residential wrapping 5 levels of above- ground parking structure. Also, there is one level of below -grade parking solely for office use which has no direct vehicular access to the above -grade portion of the structure. Included in the at -grade portion of this site are 13 two-story town Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 6 homes which front on the 1 -acre park and 10 one-story flats. The residential height ranges from approximately 48' on the Von Karman side to 54' on the interior'Main Street' as to mask the 5 story structure. Building 2 contains 82 units on 1.46 acres for a density of 56.2 DU/AC with an approximate height of 70'. It is one level parking below -grade, one level parking /lobby at -grade and 4 levels of residential plus mezzanine elements above. Building 3 contains 90 units on 1.7 acres for a density of 52.9 Dill Building height is approximately 90'. The building is one level below grade parking, one level of parking/ retail/lobby at -grade and six levels of residential above. Conexant — The proposed project would result in the demolition and replacement of 441,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses contained within two buildings, with a residential and mixed-use development, referred to as the Uptown Newport Village or the Village. The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial/office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian -friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial/office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organization of the Conexant mixed-use village, building on the policies of the General Plan: • Establish a grid of pedestrian -scaled streets that break up the large superblocks of the area and provide connectivity with the existing street system and adjoining commercial properties. • Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity. • Buildings should be massed to provide strong spatial definition along streets, and stepped down to promote a pedestrian -scaled character. • Create ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts. Parking should be either be encapsulated or below grade. • Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid - rise and high-rise apartments. The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.44 x 50 du/ac), of which 290 would be additive units and up to 632 would be replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 7 will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,600 square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street, and adjacent to the central neighborhood park. To meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements and Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes the addition of up to a maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that they meet the standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the NBMC. The proposed Plan establishes the direction for each of the property owners to separately prepare and submit for review by the City a regulatory plan for their holdings. Regulatory plans must be in substantial compliance with the Plan, particularly in terms of the number and density of residential units (except for any additional density bonuses for affordable units), the general location and configuration of residential development, the total amount and general location of open space, the general location of parking facilities, and the network of streets and pedestrian ways. Substantial deviations, or additions to the number of residential units, will require an amendment to the Plan. Lastly, the City has an interest in timely implementation of the Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, owners of property within the area of this Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area, from a single -purpose business park, to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood. The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 8 of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development areas General Plan consistency. Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 24.22 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of at least 300 units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 188 to 313 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Pian provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 9 income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 duiac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately one acre, and for an additional 0.3 acres of open space areas on land that was previously used for surface parking. Although the neighborhood park falls short of the single open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8 percent of 15 acres), the plan achieves the total amount of open space required by the General Plan by utilizing and designating the existing lake park amenity as public open space, which is contemplated in Policy LU6.15.11. This is accomplished by interconnecting the existing open space amenities and the proposed one acre park through pedestrian linkages and promenades for a total park area of 2.64 acres. In addition, since the minimum park dedication requirement is not met, payment of an in lieu fee to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as provided in Policy LU6.15.13, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 10 will be required. Staff believes that the park dedication requirements of these General Plan policies are being met. However, the Plan as proposed does not fully meet the provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14., which require neighborhood parks "be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park),..." The new neighborhood park shown the in Plan maintains public street access on one side and provides an "urban plaza"/public walkway on a second side. In addition, the existing lake park has a long frontage on Von Karman Avenue. Koll is requesting an amendment to the language of this policy that would apply to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area only. The proposed language would require public street access on one side of the park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely preferred. The Koll proposal would comply with the revised policy language. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. General Plan Amendment As mentioned, the Koll Plan as proposed does not fully meet the public street frontage provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14. As such, a General Plan Amendment is being requested in conjunction with the ]CDP to add the following language to the policy: LU 6.15.14 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, park frontage on only one Public street maybe permitted. On -street parking shall be provided Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 Page 11 requirement. The intent of this policy is to provide parks that are visible and accessible to all residents of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting the General Plan's concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a development pattern that provides private open space that is accessible only to residents of the adjacent residential project. By applying only to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, the proposed policy language is consistent with other General Plan policies for the Airport Area (e.g., 6.15.5, 6.15.6 and 6.15.11), which recognize that infill development in this area will occur differently than redevelopment that completely replaces non-residential uses, including in the provision of park amenities. Staff believes that a park with one public street frontage that provides public parking will be accessible to all residents of the neighborhood and maintain the original policy's intent to provide parks that are visible and accessible to the general public. This General Plan Amendment does not require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423 because it would not increase the number of residential units or the amount of non-residential floor area allowed by the General Plan, nor the number of peak hour trips generated by allowed development. Environmental Review The consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and General Plan amendment is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Staff has prepared an Initial Study (Attachment PC 5) and determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the residential development included in the [CDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language. The amendment does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and meets the intent of the original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to residents of the new residential development and the general public. This change does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP July 22, 2010 -Page 12 No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: erald S. Gilbert, Contract Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant FAUSERSIPLN1ShareclTNs\PAs - 20081PA2008-06312010-07-22 PC\Koll-Conexant July 22nd 2010 PC Staff Report (Corrected 7-14-10).doc Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 6 September 9, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) V Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 9, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associated Planner rungCa)city. newport-beach.ca. us (949) 644-3208 Conduct a public hearing; Adopt Resolution No. 2010-_ (Attachment PC -1), recommending that the City Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007-002 & 2008-003). BACKGROUND: On July 22, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). The report for that meeting is attached (Attachment PC -2). After hearing public testimony and discussing the project the Commission continued the item to allow the applicant to address issues and concerns that the Commission raised regarding the project. These issues are the proposed General Plan Amendment which would allow the Koll neighborhood park to have only one public street frontage instead of the required two, the overall size of the Koll neighborhood park, and connectivity between the Conexant Village and Koll Village. Public testimony raised issues regarding the applicants' rights to use of easements and issues regarding codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs). DISCUSSION: Changes to ]CDP in Response to Planning Commission Concerns The applicant for Koll Village has redesigned the neighborhood park with frontage on two streets. This meets the requirements of the General Plan. As such, the General Plan amendment as previously requested has been withdrawn and is no longer a part of the project that is under consideration. The applicant also has revised the project site area to exclude office buildings that are not proposed for any redevelopment. With the reduction in area from 16.08 to 12.7 acres, the required neighborhood park area is Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 2 1.016 acres. Koll is proposing a neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement. Additional connectivity between the two villages is demonstrated in new exhibits contained in the attached Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan dated August 2010 (Attachment PC -3). Seven pedestrian connections between the two sites are shown with enhanced paving and new landscaping to define the connections and screen them from parking areas. Where connections end at parks, additional treatment is shown to provide an arrival point or entrance to the park. The vehicular connection at the southerly edge of the project remains unchanged. Both applicants have provided letters addressing issues raised in public testimony at the meeting of July 22, which are attached to this report (Attachments PC -4 and PC -5). Comparison of the November 2008 [CDP and August 2010 ]CDP The ICDP was previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in November of 2008. However, prior to the plan being considered by the City Council, questions regarding the environmental determination were raised, and the Council tabled the plan. During the intervening time the property owners and staff refined and revised the plan. At the July hearing, Commissioner Eaton asked about changes from the 2008 plan; they are summarized below. The areas of change include overall unit count, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the location of development areas. Overall Unit Count - Under the 2008 plan the overall allowable unit count between both villages totaled 974 residential units. The Conexant Village proposed 714 new residential units, with 424 units replacing existing industrial and office uses that would be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be "additive" units. The Koll Village would consist of 260 additive units since no existing industrial or office uses would be removed Under the current plan there would be a total of up to 1,504 new residential units, 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll site. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would still be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach Draft Zoning Code. The change in the number of units in the Conexant Village is due to the change in the net developable acres, as well as the inclusion of density bonus units which were not considered in the 2008 plan. Under the 2008 plan there were Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 3 approximately 14.28 net developable acres. The current plan proposes a net developable acreage of approximately 18.45 acres. The increase in net acres is due to the reduction in the area devoted to streets and rights-of-way. There is no change in the number of units proposed for the Koll Village. Location of Development Areas — There is only one notable difference in the areas identified for potential re -use for residential development. This area is located within the Koll Village along its eastern boundary with the Conexant Village. Under the 2008 plan this area was identified as a potential location for future "row" townhouse development. However, after further study it was determined by the applicant and concurred with by staff that this location for residential development was very restricted. Issues included limited and restricted vehicular and pedestrian access to the units, the location and cost of replacement parking, aesthetics of the residential units, relationship with adjacent office building and restricting pedestrian connectivity with the adjacent residential uses proposed in the Conexant Village. Under the proposed plan this area would remain as a parking area. The units would be absorbed into the other development locations within the Koll Village. The remaining development areas in Koll Village as well as the development areas of Conexant Village are substantially the same as the 2008 plan. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation — Pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the 2008 plan and the current plan are similar, following existing walkways and parking lot edges and aisles on the Koll site and the proposed grid pattern of streets and paseos on the Conexant site. The number of connections between the two sites and locations of the connections are also similar. However, the focus has shifted from vehicular to pedestrian connections, with pedestrian connections highlighted by enhanced paving, landscaping and screening from parking areas. The only vehicular connection remaining is located at the southern edge of the project sites. One reason for this change is Koll's elimination of previously proposed townhouses along the eastern edge of its residential area, which removed one vehicular connection opportunity and added an opportunity for a pedestrian connection. Another reason is Conexant's reduction in the number of streets in favor of more pedestrian and resident oriented paseos. In addition, both property owners agreed that it would be unwise to have vehicular through traffic crossing the north -south parking lot on the Koll property, at the boundary between the properties. This facility is not a street, and is not designed for through traffic or cross traffic. Finally, the property owners believe that vehicular access from off site is more important than between the sites. Both the Koll and Conexant sites are designed as pedestrian oriented villages. Residents and workers on one site who wish to use an amenity on the other site are more likely to — and should be encouraged to — walk rather than drive. The General Plan's Policy Overview for the Airport Area states that residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 4 centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways." Staff believes the ICDP's increased focus on pedestrian connections is consistent with the overarching policy for residential development in the Airport Area. General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area from a single -purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. Residential opportunities "would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a 'complete' neighborhood." The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development area's General Plan consistency. • Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6 and LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size,wh ich exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. • Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 5 Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground - level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. Conceptual Development Plan (LU6.15.11): One conceptual development plan is required for the Koll and Conexant properties when residential development is proposed on either property. The plan is to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing nonresidential structures and uses." Koll - The plan for this village shows three residential buildings clustered around a new central neighborhood park. All of the land Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 6 proposed for redevelopment is currently used for surface parking, which is proposed to be replaced in subterranean structures or, in limited cases, new surface locations. Existing vehicular access from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue is integrated into the plan, with changes internal to the site to provide access to the new residential buildings and neighborhood park. The urban plaza adjacent to an existing office building and the new neighborhood park are integrated into the village with pedestrian connections proposed to be improved with enhanced paving and landscaping. In addition, new pedestrian connections will be added to provide access to existing restaurants on Jamboree Road and new parks and commercial uses in the Conexant Village. Conexant - There is little need to demonstrate integration with existing structures and uses because the proposal is to remove all existing industrial and office uses and replace them with a residential village. As phasing is proposed in the regulatory plan, that plan will need to address integration of new residential uses with existing nonresidential uses during early phases before the entire site is redeveloped. As part of the residential village, a new system of streets and paseos is proposed, which integrate with the existing vehicular access points from Jamboree Road, Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The plan for the Conexant site takes advantage of its proximity to amenities on the Koll site and properties along Jamboree Road (e.g., future neighborhood park, existing fitness center and restaurants) and addresses integration with those uses through enhanced pedestrian connections. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of approximately 1.016 acre which meets the General Plan requirement of 1.016 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7 acres = 1.016 acres). This 1.016 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 7 community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on two sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. • Streets and Pedestrian Ways (LU 6.15.17 and LU 6.15.19): These policies encourage the development of streets and pedestrian ways that break up large block areas and that are residentially scaled to improve connections between neighborhoods and community amenities. New streets, as tentatively identified on Figure LU23 (Attachment PC -6), should connect with existing streets across MacArthur Boulevard, preferably at existing signalized intersections. Koll - The proposed residential street on the Koll site shown on Figure LU23 would extend the existing driveway that runs diagonally from Von Karman Avenue towards Birch Street so that it would connect MacArthur Boulevard with Birch Street. Most of the area of this street extension is not part of the project area. The circulation plan proposed for the Koll Village utilizes a slightly altered alignment of the existing diagonal driveway, which does connect Von Karman Street with Birch Street and would allow for a future connection to MacArthur Boulevard if the residential village was to be expanded. The proposed street has been placed in a location that satisfies the requirements of General Plan polices. Conexant — The Conexant Village plan maintains a pattern of residentially -scaled streets and paseos that break up the large blocks and provide connectivity within and between neighborhoods and with community amenities. Street connections are proposed in locations that are consistent with those identified on Figure LU23, including two connections to Jamboree Road and one connection to Birch Street. One connection is provided to Von Karman Avenue in a more southerly location than shown in the General Plan's illustrative concept diagram. This proposed connection uses an existing Conexant easement rather than converting an existing driveway aisle in an area of the Koll site that is not proposed for redevelopment. The Conexant Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area integrated CCP September 9, 2010 Page 8 street proposal does not preclude future extension of the north -south spine to the south, as shown on Figure LU23, if the residential village was to be expanded. Environmental Review Staff has revised the Initial Study prepared for the hearing of July 22, 2010 to reflect the withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request (Attachment PC -7). The changes to the ICDP described in this report do not change the conclusions in the Initial Study, and withdrawal of the General Plan amendment request further supports the conclusion of the Initial Study. Consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, staff has determined that the residential developmentincluded in the iCDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCM No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Pian are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City hall and on the city website. Prepared by: e ald S. Gilbert, Co tra t Panner Submitted by: 1 Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated CDP September 9, 2010 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 7 Planning Commission Minutes of July 22, 2010 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Koll Center FG7,&=rww15-024) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ITEM NO. 2 (PA2008-063 and PA2007-170) (PA2008-063 4343 Von Karman Avenue, 4311 and 4321 Jamboree Road and PA2007- 170) The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended to implement General Plan Land Use Continued to Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan Area), which date requires a single conceptual development plan for that portion of the uncertain Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street, prior to residential development in the area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language allowing new neighborhood parks provided for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area with one public street frontage with public parking. Gerald Gilbert, contract planner, gave a presentation. Public comment was opened. Comments were given by the following: Carol McDermott, Government Solutions, representing The Koll Company Geoff LePlastrier, representing Conexant Systems, Inc. Tom Miller, legal counsel for Conexant Systems, Inc. John Adams, President of Courthouse Plaza Association Ryan M. Easter, Law Offices Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm, & Waldron LLP Public comment was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge, seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, after debate, to continue item to a date uncertain, and: request the applicant to provide a conceptual plan that better integrates the two properties, and provides park sites that conform with minimum acreage and provides a minimum of 470 lineal feet of street frontage or the two street frontages as presented in the General Plan. Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and Peotter SUBJECT: Via Lido Interim Study (PA22010-081) ITEM NO. 3 3388 Via Lido (PA2010-081) The application consists of a Zoning Code amendment to apply the Approved Interim Study (IS) Overlay Zoning designation to the subject property and approval of a Study Plan to allow the renovation of an existing 5 - Page 3 of 6 N Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 'A'� Attachment No. CC 8 Planning Commission Minutes of September 9, 2010 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) M Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Z, Planning Commission - Januar 18, 2018 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Item No. 6ldAdc09dQ9/2C 6Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development (PA2007-170 & PA2008-063) An integrated conceptual development plan (ICDP) associated with a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. This ICDP is required by General Plan Policy - LU 6.15.11 prior to the development of residential land uses in this portion of the Airport Area. Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant, gave a brief overview of the staff report with a slide show presentation. Geoff Le Plastrier, on behalf of Conexant, and Scott Meserve of The Koll Company made comments. Carol McDermott of Government Solutions, representing applicant, presented a slide show and made comments. Public comment was opened. Comments were given by the following: Brian Adams, on behalf of properties owner. Bryan Bentrott, property owner of 4200 Von Tom Muller of Manatt Phelps Phillips, tppre; John Adams, of John S. Adams & Ass 160 Rick Aiken, architect on behalf of The Ko11 C Public comment was )OAhrouah 5160 Birch Street Motion made by Commission�e€ Amerr kconded by Commissioner Eaton, to adopt revised resolutror � ane �debate and amendment, as follows: recommending th' City Cou-il approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Planl(Development Plan Nos. DP 2007-002 & 2008- 003); modify Section 4,by inserting the following language to the end of paragraph one to read.:.>,Jtie Commission's recommendation includes the addition of the following' language to the Implementation section of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan: • Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, particularly in terms of the number of additive residential units, and the connectivity between the Koll and Conexant residential villages, and must maintain easterly access to Birch Street as shown in the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. • In addition, a Development Agreement is called for in the General Plan, and will apply to all residential units in the ICDP area (between the property owner and the City) for all projects that include residential units, to "define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, the location of the housing units" (LU6.15.12). The Development Agreement will include performance provisions to ensure conformance with the commitments that have been made. It will also establish a time frame for meeting the performance provisions, as well as the phasing and and infrastructure ITEM NO.4 PA2007-170 8r PA2008-063 Approved Page 3 of 4 -7-7 Planning Corn 18,2018 e ived NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES item No. sb Ad I Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Ameri, and Toerge Noes: None I Excused: McDaniel and Hill ren Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Attachment No. CC 9 Initial Study Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 1 2. Ell 5, 6. 7. 8. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, rung6a newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3208 Project Location: 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California (also refer to Figure 2 [Project Site Location]) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Conexant Systems, Inc. 4000 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: MU -H2, Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 Zoning: PC - Planned Community Description of Project: The Koll Company 17755 Sky Park Circle East Irvine, CA 92614 In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a comprehensive update to its General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the Airport Business Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport, bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The General Plan policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed-use development within this industrial and commercial district, provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 1 46 It Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian -oriented featuKpgge�tidesidences (PA2015-024) open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of community and livability. The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area, referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for the introduction of new residential development, as it includes two large tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the 25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires the property owners in this area to collaborate in the preparation of a single Conceptual Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements with existing non-residential structures and uses." The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the 'Plan"), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 12.7 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office buildings and parking structures which will remain. The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable neighbor hoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer - grained network of pedestrian -friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and could be developed on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be "additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite to provide affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual Development Plan area by the General Plan. The total number of units allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within the limit of 2,200 units that the General Plan allows in the Airport Area. The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is a pre -requisite for the preparation of regulatory plans for each property. The regulatory plans will then be the subject of a public review process, including environmental review, by the City. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surrotMW69. jesidences(PA2015-024) Current Development: To the north: Campus Office Park development within the Koll Center consisting of dusters of office buildings ranging in height from 1 to 4 stories and up to 15 stories are located to the north of the project site and set back by large surface parking Iots.Three fast food restaurants are located at the comer of Jamboree Road and Birch Street Refer to Figure 2. To the east: Across Jamboree Rd to the east is an expanse of undeveloped open space owned by the University of California, Irvine (UCI) referred to as the North Campus Area of the UCI campus. The North Campus area, at its eastern border, is located 150 feet outside of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh (SJFM) Reserve study area. Refer to Figure 2. To the south: Campus office park development within the Koll Center which consists of two high-rise office buildings approximately 20 stories in height surrounded by expansive surface parking lots is located just south of the project site. A Taco Bell restaurant is located along Jamboree Road. The Irvine Business Complex located across Jamboree Road consists of several mixed-use buildings ranging in height from 9 to 15 stories. Refer to Figure 2. To the west: Campus Office Park development within the Koll Center is located to the west of the project site on both sides of Von Karman Avenue and range in height from 1 to 4 stories. Two lakes surrounded by office buildings on either side of Von Karmen Avenue and some open space features are also located to the west of the project site. Refer to Figure 2. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 3 le� 17 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received 5-024) 0 12a. x:,� _• a8.2b� 0 Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 4 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received 5-024) CONEXANIT SITE AREA o igs fm •" August 15,.2019 Conexant Conceptual Site Plan Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 5 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received 5-024) KOLL SITE AREA �� � � Alveus t2y. 2Q166 Koll Conceptual Site Plan Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 6 c Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Agriculture & Forest Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/ ❑ Utilities & Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Circulation Systems Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 7 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on thb°lL�'rWjtdl gs 156111 1,24l least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q 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 all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006 pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Submitted by: Signature Date Planning Department Prepared by: Gerald S. Gilbert, Project Planner Signature Date FAUsers\PLN\Shared\Fomes\New Forms\CEQA\Initial Study.doc Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 8 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ m agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan ([CDP) 9 4� Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ m agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan ([CDP) 9 4� Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received d) Potentially Less Than Less than """ ""'IW "` ❑ Significant Significantwith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact forest use Incorporated C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or ❑ ❑ ❑ p cause rezoning of, forest land (as ❑ ❑ 0 defined in Public Resources Code existing environment which, due to section 12220(g)), timberland (as their location or nature, could result defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned in conversion of Farmland, to non- Timberland Production (as defined agricultural use or conversion of by Government Code section 51104(g))? forestland to non -forest use? d) Result in the loss of forest land or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conversion of forest land to non - forest use e) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? 111. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ p implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ p contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 10 ri Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell CentlgpResiden es (PA2015-024) Significant Significantwith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? C 0 A EM 0 F 0 N N F& e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 11 IV a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction nr nnllanso? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received )tenuaiiy Less I nan . Less man """ "tel 11W ° gnificant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ Incorporated 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 12 I's d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received rovermany Less roan Less man Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation . Impact Incorporated 0 0 El L U A 0 0 0 � Impact Fal I� ❑ m ❑ m ❑ m (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 13 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? rvc nuauy Significant Impact El 0 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated El A Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell entp' esi en es (PA2015-024) Significant Impact 11 FN Impact 51 EMI f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I] Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 14 CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Trials Received (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 15 ueni rvu. vu r�uuni Potentially Less Than Less than Koll Cenf@pRE Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated C) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ Q which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ p water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ ❑ ❑ m flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Q hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? Trials Received (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 15 b) Conflict with any applicable land - use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES 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? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Potentially Less Than Less than nou uenryor« Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 16 0%V Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Kell CentpbResiden es (PA2015-024) f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? FE - u 0 J 51 b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 17 i Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? FE - u 0 J 51 b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 17 i Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? tentially Less Than Less than inificant Significantwith Significant npact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A C X C' FE -1 0 C 0 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received RM 51 (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 18 C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received rownaauy Lass roan LOSS man ^vil Significant Significantwith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ f1 ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 19 RA� f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received vntially Less Than Less than nificant Significant with Significant npact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ u J A 07 0 u A Ail A X J 0 Impact 21 0 (PA2015-024) Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 20 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Earlier Analyses The 2006 General Plan, including the land use plan for the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, was analyzed in the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006. The Plan does not propose any substantial changes to the General Plan's provisions and policies for the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and does not deviate from the number and density of residential units allowed or the amount of parkland required by the General Plan. The Plan does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR, as discussed below. EIR(s) will be prepared on regulatory plans for development in the ICDP area, when additional detail is available to allow for full environmental review. Aesthetics The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts in the areas of obstruction of scenic vistas and change in the visual character of portions of the City, and no mitigation measures were required. The only area in which significant unavoidable impacts due to new sources of light and glare could occur was Banning Ranch, not the Airport Area. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Agriculture Resources Agriculture resources were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the Initial Study for that project found that there was no potential for environmental impacts in this area. The Conceptual Development Plan Area is currently developed with urban uses and there are no agricultural resources on the site. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Air Quality The General Plan EIR found that there would be significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan, construction emissions that would contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, and cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under a national or State standard. All feasible mitigation measures were included in the General Plan EIR, and would be required for development to implement the Plan. The General Plan EIR found impacts to be less than significant in the areas of exposing sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations and creating objectionable odors. The Plan does not increase the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 21 Biological Resources Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status plant and wildlife species; less than significant impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; interference with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or corridors. No mitigation measures were required. The Conceptual Development Plan Area has been developed with urban uses for over thirty years, and has no natural habitat areas or areas identified on a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, or the areas in which development may occur, and and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Cultural Resources The General Plan EIR found that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required. However, significant unavoidable impacts were identified with regard to the potential for the demolition of historic structures. None of the eleven properties identified in the General Plan EIR as being or potentially being historically significant is in the Airport Area or the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Therefore, the Plan does not have the potential to impact these resources. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Geology and Soils The General Plan EIR found that geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan. EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the General Plan, and no further analysis or.revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The General Plan EIR found that hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. Potential impact areas analyzed in the General Plan EIR included oil and gas seeps from oil fields in the Newport Oil Field and West Newport Oil field, both of which are approximately five miles from the ICDP site. Another potential impact was the location of existing hazardous materials sites within one-quarter mile of existing or . proposed schools. The two existing sites identified were Hixson Metal Finishing in West Newport, approximately five miles from the ICDP site, and Big Canyon Reservoir, approximately 3.5 miles from the ICDP site. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the [CDP site. The General Plan EIR identified both the Conexant and Koll sites as EPA -registered large quantity generator facilities. General Plan Policy S7.1, which requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments and, if necessary, to undertake remediation procedures under the supervision of the appropriate agency, Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 22 t Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received was identified in the EIR as reducing impact in this area to a less than significaht11r R� MdP 024) 60q. within the Conceptual Development Plan Area will be subject to this policy. I� The Conceptual Development Plan Area is within the John Wayne Airport land use plan area and within two miles of the airport. The General Plan EIR found that the development of new residential neighborhoods in this area would not result in a significant impact because all development would be required to comply with the JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" (AELUP) and be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. In addition, the ALUC reviewed and certified the General Plan as being in conformance with the AELUP, and regulatory plans for the Conexant and Koll properties will be reviewed by the ALUC. Finally, General Plan policies in the Safety Element were cited as reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Development in the Plan would be required to comply with these policies, and no change to the amount or location of development is proposed in the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality The General Plan EIR found that hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is the same as contemplated in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Land Use and Planning The General Plan EIR's analysis of the Airport Area noted that the introduction of residential neighborhoods could create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. However, the Land Use Element policies calling for the creation of residential villages designed to ensure compatibility with existing uses and the requirement for the preparation of a plan for the Conceptual Development Plan Area would ensure that development is designed to be compatible with non-residential development. Therefore, this impact was considered less than significant. The Plan implements and is consistent these General Plan policies, as discussed below. Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. Koll - The mixed-use village is approximately 12.7 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement. Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 23 X017 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of residential units is cr6AfER9tlr 016*FN1is-024 acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units/acre is also established. Koll - The Plan provides for 5.78 net acres of new residential land, which could allow the development of 173 to 289 units based on the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy. Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du/ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11 % of the base units (101 units) for very low-income households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low-income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate -income households. The precise number of replacement units will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5. • Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums. Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground- level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high-rise apartment/condominiums. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and streets. Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of 1.016 acres, which meets the General Plan requirement of 1 acre or 8 percent of the village land area (i.e., 8 percent of 12.7acres = 1.016 acre). Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 24 'I CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 aLfeggnter*4.491s(PA2015-024) acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; /it is highly public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground - level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open space. The General Plan limits the number of residential units in the Airport Area to 2,200. The total number of units allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within this limit. Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of physically dividing an existing community. The Plan implements the General Plan's policies regarding residential development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and does not propose any changes in the amount, intensity or location of new residential development. Because the Plan implements and is consistent with the General Plan and its policies for development in the Airport Area and Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mineral Resources The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the General Plan, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Noise The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of exposure of persons to substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise increases, and no mitigation measures were required. Significant unavoidable impacts were found in the areas of exposing persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards, exposing persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities, substantial permanent increases in traffic -related ambient noise levels, and exposure of sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. Among the roadway segments that would have a significant increase in traffic -related noise are Birch Street and Jamboree Road, which are adjacent to the Conceptual Development Plan Area. General Plan Noise Element policies require the use of interior noise insulation, double paned windows or other noise mitigation measures, and these policies would apply to development pursuant to the Plan. The Conceptual Development Plan Area is outside the 65 CNEL contour, but within the 60 CNEL contour, for John Wayne Airport, and residential land use is considered a "conditionally consistent: land use in the AELUP. Policy N3.2 in the General Plan Noise Element requires that any residential use in this area maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA. The Plan proposes no change in land use, or location or intensity of development, from that which was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and all General Plan noise policies will apply to development pursuant to the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 25 a Population and Housing Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The General Plan EIR found that the increase in residential units and associated population increase in population allowed by the General Plan would exceed projections by the Southern California Association of Governments, which would be a significant unavoidable impact. The development of 1,504 new residential units allowed in the Plan was included in the General Plan EIR's analysis. These units, in particular the affordable and density bonus units, would assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals. There are no existing residential units in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and the Plan would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people. The Plan proposes no changes to the amount of residential development allowed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Public Services The General Plan EIR found that public services impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Recreation The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts resulting from the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, including as a result of residential development in the Airport Area. Policy LU6.15.13 requires residential developers in the Airport Area to dedicate and develop neighborhood parks. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Initial Study, the Plan complies with this policy. Residential development pursuant to the Plan will also be subject to the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, and contribute funds for the maintenance and preservation of existing park and recreation facilities. The amount of residential development allowed, and the amount of park dedication required, by the Plan is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Trans Po rtatio n/Traffi c The General Plan EIR found that there would be a significant unavoidable impact from a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. All other transportation and traffic impacts were considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The Plan incorporates the same level of development as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required. Utilities and Service Systems The General Plan EIR found that utilities and service systems impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is the same as that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 26 t� Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Mandatory Findings of Sianificance No substantial changes to the development intensity contemplated by the General Plan would occur as a result of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Summary The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan requires no further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006. No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, has become available. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District#8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) 27 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Mackenzie Courtney <mackenziec1186@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 1:27 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Approval of this project would be seriously detrimental to the City of Newport Beach. This area of Newport is already impacted by the current amount of business traffic, let alone adding another 260 families. What schools will children attend? What grocery stores will they shop at? Where will they get gas? Where will they shop? This area was never meant to be a residential area, and it should stay that way. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Peotter, Scott Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 1:14 PM To: Public Comment - Koll Residences; Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh; Hillary.davis@latimes.com; Icasiano@scng.com Subject: RE: City Council does not care about residents I always wondered where you are supposed to sign up for such a retirement fund? Oh wait, there is no such thing... Darn I should have researched that before I ran for election (note to Susan Skinner, the previous comment was made in sarcasm). Of course I would respond directly to Mr Wiegand (who apparently spells his name wrong according to Planning Commissioner Erik Weigand) but, oh, I forgot, Skinner's robot website doesn't pass on constituent's emails so that we can respond directly, perhaps even correcting misconceptions that they may have from Skinner's website about properties, projects, applicant and property owners rights and responsibilities. Not to mention what it means to be a public servant (or does Mr. Wiegand prefer to slander and "misrepresent" the truth)? Or maybe the concept that these dwelling units, that this project represents, were approved by the voters (I know Susan Skinner didn't like the results of that election) but facts are stubborn things and the people have spoken. Skinner has said that she is not against property rights... But I cannot remember the last time she came to the city council to express her support for a project... But maybe my memory is getting bad? These comments from Wiegand may as well be anonymous. This is the response that I would give to Wiegand if I actually had his email Thank you for your input on the Koll Project. Of course, I will give every aspect of this project due consideration if or when it comes before the city council. You should note that the units in question for this project are part of the voter approved General Plan. The thought at the time when this was approved, was that it be traffic Neutral (in other words those trips that are associated with these units are existing trips being relocated here). Also, I remember part of the discussion was that, while the statewide housing crisis was just being realized at the time, that the state would require that Newport Beach provide its "fair share' of new housing. Many were saying that if Newport was going to provide that housing that it was best provided in the Airport Area where the impact on existing residents was minimized. The voters have made it clear that they don't want more traffic in Newport Center So, whatever the form of the project, it will get a scrupulous review by staff, public, commissions and the council as appropriate and as entitled to all property owners whether they own a little condo or you are the largest landowner in town, to make sure it conforms to the voter approved General Plan and the appropriate zoning laws. All projects must mitigate their impacts on schools, parks, roads, and transportation systems in this review process. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Again thanks for your input on this project. NOTE to Skinner. I did NOT take a position on this particular project. I have not reviewed the specifics on the project nor have I heard all the public input (probably not even close to hearing the end of comments from Skinner's robot). I welcome the input. Although I have to admit, I would think that input from a robot site would mean more if I actually received a legitimate email address... SCOTT PEOTTER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL Representing the 6th District If you want to sign up for my political newsletter please use this link: www.tinvurl.com/i)eottersignup From: Public Comment - Koll Residences [info@protectnb.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:47 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: City Council does not care about residents City Council does not care about residents, they want more money for there retirement fund so they can sit on six figure retirements and side dealings while in / out of office. Robert Wiegand 19 Fecamp Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-759-0773 ***iega nd(g2gmai I. co m Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:47:27 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:50 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: We do not need anymore traffic in our city. We do not need anymore traffic in our city. And there are plenty of homes for sale without adding more living place to our city. Trudie Mann 519 Westminster Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663-4128 (949)646-7925 "'nn 11111 (a).aol.com Submitted: 1/15/2018 9:17:51 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:48 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: NO more high-rise building... NO more high-rise building. Eileen Serra 7 cheshire court Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-0424 ***erraCaD,cox.net Submitted: 1/17/2018 11:53:13 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:48 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: City Council does not care about residents City Council does not care about residents, they want more money for there retirement fund so they can sit on six figure retirements and side dealings while in / out of office. Robert Wiegand 19 Fecamp Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-759-0773 ***iega nd(a)amail. co m Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:47:27 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:28 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: We don't need any more residential units that add more traffic congestion! We don't need any more residential units that add more traffic congestion! Karen Odell 1 Monterey Circle Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949-735-5762 ***kodell(a),sbcalobal. net Submitted: 1/16/2018 15:09:30 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:12 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Cannot get down pch or mcArthur for traffic now. Cannot get down pch or mcArthur for traffic now. What about water shortage? Joan Delozier 1415 Seacrest Dr Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949-644-6996 ***ier6()cox.net Submitted: 1/16/2018 8:17:00 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:10 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose the towers! I oppose the towers! Christy Lea Newport Beach,CA 92660 "*gleat7a gmail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 5:04:34 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:09 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: It would be an irresponsible addition to our community. It would be an irresponsible addition to our community. Patricia Peard 1227 Sand Key Carona Del Mar, CA 92625 949-280-7042 ** * o n oea rd lad o m a i I. co m Submitted: 1/14/2018 16:18:26 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:08 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose high rise high density structures... I oppose high rise high density structures that increase the existing traffic and congestion of our local roads. Catherine Sloan Newport Beach, CA 92660 ".msloanc@.sbcqlobal.net Submitted: 1/14/2018 5:44:49 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:21 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: If these buildings go in the amount of traffic will affect all aspects and quality... If these buildings go in the amount of traffic will affect all aspects and quality of lives for those living and working in these areas. We cannot afford any more impact on our roads it is already too bad! We must keep our home at a high quality standard of living and these building would truly harm that objective. Miranda Ault 5 Appleton Irvine, CA 92602 714-604-5640 ***ault@amail.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 16:02:54 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:21 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: We already have too much traffic and we don't have the infrastructure... We already have too much traffic and we don't have the infrastructure to accommodate more cars Too many rats in the cage !!! Dianne Stegmann 1812 Port Wheeler place Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-307-5781 "*diannet7o.me.com Submitted: 1/13/2018 21:34:58 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:22 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I oppose the project because it will forever alter the charm of Newport Beach. I oppose the project because it will forever alter the charm of Newport Beach. Additionally, the traffic is already a nightmare on Jamboree. This will make it much worse. Deborah Gubernick 124 38th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 714-222-8017 ***gubernick@calliensen.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 15:59:17 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:14 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: The sudden over development of residential towers will negatively impact... The sudden over development of residential towers will negatively impact the already congested area and will reverse the quality of life and day to day functioning. It will further over extend the natural, public and community resources. As long term residents we say no! Parissa Blake 16 Riez Newport Coast, CA 92657 ***Imft@cox.net Submitted: 1/15/2018 10:06:55 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:05 AM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Traffic and parking will be negatively effected at the Koll Center... Traffic and parking will be negatively effected at the Koll Center, during and after the project is completed. Cameron Jackson 4340 Von Karman, Suite 370 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-892-5388 ***cameron@ciacksoninvestigations.com Submitted: 1/16/2018 14:59:26 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6b Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Chris Fox <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:48 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Chris Fox chris@gulfcoastalmgmt.com 24661 kings rd Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: John Leehey <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:49 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Support Letter Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. John Leehey jleehey@jzmkpartners.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Dan Kassel <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:07 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Dan Kassel dan@clearwatercommunities.com 5705 Seashore Drive, Newport Beach Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeffrey Klein <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:07 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: I support the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jeffrey Klein jeffscottklein@gmail.com 303 Esquina Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Ryan Ogulnick <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:07 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Ryan Ogulnick ryan@vineyardsdc.com 351 N. La Jolla Avenue Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Steve Cassel <info@ kollresidences.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support Kali Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Steve Cassel scassel l981 @gmail.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: mbaguy99@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:23 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project I oppose the Koll Center project because it is too large and is not in compliance with city codes Herbert W. Karg 44 year resident of Newport Beach/Corona del Mar mbaguy99@aol.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: - <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:33 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Robert Ferrante <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support Kali Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Robert Ferrante ocglobaladvisors@gmail.com 3324 Via Lido Newport Beach Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Laura Oldham <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Letter of Support Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Laura Oldham to@dev-res.com 2151 Michelson Dr Ste 190 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Matthew Clemo <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Project Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Matthew Cleric, matthewclemo@gmail.com 1909 Commodore Road Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Debbi Pack <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences: YES! Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Debbi Pack debbi.pack@icloud.com 1972 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Hailey Rheinschild <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Project Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Hailey Rheinschild hrheinschild@gmail. c om 127 44th Street, Newport Beach, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jordan Cobb <info@kollresidences.ccm> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support Kali Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jordan Cobb Jordangcobb@gmail.com 880 Irvine Avenue Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Scott Porterfield <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support for the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Scott Porterfield sporterfield@inurowem.com East Side Costa Mesa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeremy Mape <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jeremy Mape jeremy.mape@gmail.com 1966 Port Ramsgate Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Ed Meserve <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support for the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Ed Meserve tangaro@sbcglobal.net 1227 Highland Drive Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jodi Estwick <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Support Letter Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jodi Estwick jodiestwick@gmail.com 31 Calvados Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Scott Meserve <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support Kali Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Scott Meserve scottmeserve@gmail.com 1216 Somerset Lane Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Hirad Emadi <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Hirad Emadi 2670 Waverly Dr, Newport Bra g Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeff Rowerdink <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jeff Rowerdink rowerpower2005@yahoo.com 636 via lido soud Newport Beach ca 92663 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Justin Hill <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Justin Hill justin.hill@cbre.com 2919 Calle Heraldo, San Clemente CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Scott Lanni <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support for the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Scott Lanni slanni@lanniinvesttnents.com 2015 Commodore Road Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Colleen masterson <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Letter of Support Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Colleen masterson ctdavidsonl@ginail.com 1830 port wheeler place Newport Beach ca 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: John Abraham <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Support Letter Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. John Abraham johnjabraham@yahoo.com 900 Cercis Place Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Richard Hamm <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support for the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Richard Hamm hammrichard@sbcglobal.net 67 Old Course Drive Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Carl Neuss <info@ kollresidences.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Carl Neuss cneuss@pcgco.com 26162 Hitching Rail Rd, Laguna Hills, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Sean masterson <info@ kollresidences.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Center Residences - Support Letter Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Sean masterson smasterson88132@gmail.com 1830 port wheeler place Newport Beach ca 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Paul Grover <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support Kali Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Paul Grover pg@strategiclandadvisors.com 40 Crooked Stick Drive Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Lindsay Coluccio <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:05 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: I support the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Lindsay Coluccio lindsaycoluccio@hotmail.com 516 1/2 Bolsa Ave, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Dana Haynes <dhaynes@citivestinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:36 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: Adriana Fourcher; Planning Commissioners Subject: Koll Residences Project Attachments: VKCOA Letter to City of Newport Beach.pdf Rosalinh, Attached is a letter from our Owners Association signed by myself as President and then co-signed by many of the other owners in the building. Our letter raises concerns about the project that need to be addressed by the Applicant. Dana Haynes Citivest, Inc. 4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 705-0408 (Direct Office) (949) 212-3237 (Cell) (949) 474-0330 (Fax) Planning Commission -January 18, 2018 It Von Barman Corporate Owners Association 434.0 Von Karman, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 16, 2018 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development. Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: upcoming Study Session, Kell Center Residences Project, SCH No, 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: The members of Von Karman Corporate Owners Association (VKCOA) are equity owners of the building located at 4340 Von Karman and as such have a stake in the outcome of the proposed project in the common area of KCN. We are aware that a Study Session is to be held this Thursday and some of the Members of the VKCOA will be speaking. However, we wanted to Indicate, in writing our opposition to the ](all Center Residences as currently proposed. We would like to strongly urge the Planning Commission to decline the develope?s proposal based upon the following significant imparts and issues. Note that our members are business owners and employers in the City of Newport Beach and also members of the Koi1 Owners Association in Koll CenterNewport, Neither Koli Owners Association nor the Koll Company have provided written reassurances that theAssociationmaintenance fees will not be increased by die proposed changes,to the Association's parking lots. Any project approvals should include such.protectionsto the existing Association Members, who are receiving none of the financial benefits of the proposed development on Association property. The Association should also be compensated for the projected maintenance costs associatedwith the proposed Parking Structure should -this be built. • The elimination of surface paridng spaces and the remote placement of a multi-level parking structure is inconvenient; disruptive and Increases liability for drivers. and pedestrians in KCN. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Koll Center Residences (PA201 • The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parldng structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the (toll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parldng spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose hlgh�rise residential towers in Holl Center Newport. Sin Dana Haynes, resident Von lfarman Cbrporate Owners Association dhaynes@ciltivestinc.co (949) 7050406 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: Vl(COA Members: Name: cc planningcommissioners@newportbeachca,goy citVcouncil@newportbeachca.gov Commission - January 18, 2018 Koll Center Residences (PA201 The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of panting shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the ]Coll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf, However, more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers in Koll Center Newport. Sincerely , 2ana:Haynes, resident Von 1{arman rporate Owners Association dhaynes@ciitivestinc.com (949) 705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Sturounding Buildings Agreed to by: s W plan.ninscommissioners@newportbeachca.gov citVcouncil@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received . _._ ,. .,...------ _.._ ........._..... ., ,. _.... _ __ _. _. _.. ._... .- - -- `Kull Center�Residences (PA2015-�}24) i The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking managemeut plan with i the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, I transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the Kull Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on.an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost: during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed f ti the Association's parking lot. • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existinguses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts,we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers In Koll Center Newport. BE dentrate Owners Association d1iWesCW ciitivesti ncc,com (949)705-0408 Attachment: fleight Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by4. VKCOA Members: cc:.1p a nningccmmissionersOnewportbeachca.goy ritycounciI @newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Koll Center Residences (PA201 • The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the Koll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost daring the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot. • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers in Koll Center Newport. (Sincerely, �C.l Dana Haynes resident Von I{arman rporate Owners Association dhaynes@ciitivestinc.com (949) 705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: VKCOA Members: Wealth Ocean Inc./4340 Von Kansan, Su te260 cc: plan ningcommissioners@newportbeachca.goV citycouncil@ newportbeachCa,koy Planning Commission - January 18. 2018 .�.__—Item'No. 6c Additional Materials Rece4d' Koll Center Residences (PA2015-02 ) • The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the Koll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. Howeveri more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot. • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram), For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers in Koll Center Newport. Sinnccerely, �L.J Dana Haynes, resident Von Korman rporate Owners Association dhaynes0ciitivestinc.cotn (949) 705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: VICCOA Members: Name:�T ls l &jt I I oAtd (9t Zl C-3 CC: p] an ningcomm i5sionerq@ newportbeachca.gov citycouncil@newportbeachca,gov Planning,Commission,-January 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Receiv d Koll Center Residences (P0.2015-0 ) The Roll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the Koll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sE However; more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the eAsting uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers in Koll Center Newport. /Sincerely, �1.J Dana Haynes, resident Von Karman rporate Owners Association dhaynes@ciitivestinc.com (949) 705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: CC: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca,gov citycouncll@newportbeachca,goy Planning Commission - January 18. 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-64) I { • The KolI Company has not shared its detailed parlcing management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface parking. Currently the buildings within the Koll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parking spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking ]at. • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers in Koll Center Newport. Dana Haynes, resident Von Korman rporate Owners Association (949) 705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: VICCOA Members: Jinyan Lu Name:, cc: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received - Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) • The Koll Company has not shared its detailed parking management plan with the owners in KCN in order to address the issues of parking shift, transportation to/from the parking structures and less of surface parking. • Currently the buildings within the Koll Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3.1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parldng spaces are normally needed for office use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis. Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available at no additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any additional buildings are constructed in the Associations parldng lot. • Three, thirteen -story residential towers are incompatible and out of scale with the existing uses (see the attached diagram). For these and many other significant impacts, we respectfully oppose high-rise residential towers In ](oil Center Newport. 2Sinana4 ccerely Haynes resident Von Karman rporate Owners Association dhaynes@ciitivestinc cam (949)705-0408 Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to by: VI(COA Members: ,0�a VW - Name: I ark (4J14 rCJJt CJ(letJ cc: pianningcommissioners a newpoortbeachca.gov citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials. Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) • The Koll Company has not -shared its detailed parking management plan With the owners,In UN in order to address the issues of parking shift; transportation to/from the parking structures and loss of surface. parking. Currently the buildings within the Knll_Association are provided a minimum parking allowance of 3,1 parking spaces/1,000 sf. However, more parking spaces are normally needed for offlee use and under the current policy the Association provides the additional spaces at no charge to each Owner on an as -available basis: Assurances need to be provided that the convenient overflow parking that is now available will be available atria additional cost during the protracted construction period and after any.additional buildings are constructed in the Association's parking lot, + Three, thi,•teen-story rosldetwtial towers are incompatible'and our Of scale With the existing uses (sae the. attached diagrs,tn).. For these and rnany other significant ltnpacts, we respectfully oppose h3ghrlse residentlal towers in Icon Center Newport. Re nt.te Owners Association dhavn ciitivestinc.com (949) 705-0408. Attachment: Height Comparison of Surrounding Buildings Agreed to. VKCOA Members., Name Ah7L!CI-YW ' cc: ;planniin cps mmiss�gners newpnrtbeachca �r � citycowod)ftewpnrtbeachca.so Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Lisa Morsey <lisa.morsey@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:16 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Please don't approve the Koll project. 260 more units in the area is too much. Lisa Morsey 4 Grenelle Newport Coast, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Cheryl K. Livingston <ckinteriors@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:27 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project It appears that after the Museum project was rescinded, it was only a matter of time until the City Council, the planning Department and the Developers behind this project had to try again. This time doubling and size and units. Have any of you actually seen the traffic on Jamboree, Mac Arthur and PCH at any hour of the day? It is insanity and you want to turn Newport Beach into what is happening on Jamboree all the way to the DISTRICT.It feels like a city of high rises on both sides. Is there ever going to be enough buildout? I will personally support this project never being approved or built. Sincerely Cheryl Livingston Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Carrie Christy <cmchristy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:30 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Sent from my Pad Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Sunny Smith <sundialsunny@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:51 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project The beauty and charm of Newport Beach would be destroyed by projects like the proposed Koll Center. There must be adherence to a master plan that maintains the nature of our community. Please do not allow this project to be approved. It would change the city forever and destroy what we love about our community. Sunny Smith Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Michelle Andre <anglfire@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:43 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project As long time residents of Newport Beach we absolutely do not want a large complex like the planned Koll Center Project in our city. This has always been a lovely city to live and play in until the monstrosity of the condos that were snuck in at Fashion Island right under our noses. That complex has already created daily massive traffic on Jamboree and MacArthur that makes trying to do simple shopping a nightmare. We agree with the "Line in The Sand" group that prefer to keep the neighborly atmosphere of a lovely beach side city that Newport Beach should be and not the overcrowded disgusting atmosphere of an overgrown complex. As the voice of Newport Beach residents who voted for the current administration your ears should be listening to the citizens of this city and our welfare should be your prime objective. Not the under the Table bribes that contractors are offering all of you. We citizens will be watching. You had best do the right thing for our community and not the most profitable thing for the private you. Don't let Newport Beach become another smog and crime filled Los Angeles. We all must continue to live here once the contractors take their ill gotten gains and leave us all with a mess. Don't allow another offensive overbuilt residence complex continue to wreck our community. Mr, and Mrs. J.R. Andre 2615 Bunya St Newport Beach 1 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jo Carol <jocarol@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:18 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Hello I try to stay current with developments proposed to my City... especially this major project, the Koll Center Residences. I oppose it in its current size. It's 3 huge 13 story buildings. So dense, so massive, so imposing on other buildings. It also will add a large amount of traffic. There is no way this project fits into the area for which its proposed. I would turn it down. Then I would work with us residents to update the General Plan. It seems both the Planning Commission and City Council don't recognize it after all. Jo Carol Hunter 4220 Park Newport #210 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 6,440 Virus -free. www.avq.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Linda Langley <slkklangley@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:31 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Please do NOT approve any high rises in Newport Beach. It is so far away from the charm that Newport Beach has enjoyed. We do not want to become another generic city which is overcrowded, overpopulated, over priced, and has too much traffic. PLeASE preserve our little paradise here in Newport Beach. Linda Langley Newport Beach (Harbor View Homes) Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Anne Drobka <annedrobka@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:47 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project - OPPOSED • No shopping or neighborhood amenities, i.e. groceries, pharmacy, schools, parks • Residents of these condos would clog up the roads driving to those amenities in an area already affected by heavy traffic • Area already impacted by one high-rise dwelling after another all along Jamboree • Visual blight — Century City, etc. look Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:01 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: The Koll Residences Dear Planning Commissioners I am writing to ask you not to approve the Koll Residences as they are currently proposed. As you know, the Koll Residences have 260 'floating' dwelling units temporarily assigned to them. If they are not built by a specified time, they will return to the floating pool of dwelling units in the airport area. These units were approved in the 2006 General Plan as part of 2200 units allowed to be built in this section of the city. I will point out that virtually no one who voted for the 2006 General Plan had an understanding that these units would be added since the ballot question for this election merely asked voters if they would like to remove traffic and density from the city. Although these units are temporarily assigned to Koll, the decision of how they will be built is entirely up to you. You are certainly aware that this project was intended to be a residential village, but this project is anything but a residential village. The high rise, high density nature of these units makes it more of a fortress than a village, not at all in keeping with the original concept. Virtually all of the surrounding businesses see this project as a detriment rather than a benefit. As there are virtually no amenities in this area of the city, you are creating a silo of housing units with no markets, no drug stores, no schools or other necessary commercial support endeavors. This project will be stacked mansions forming an island of residential units surrounded by a sea of commercial buildings. You are also likely knowledgeable that Mr. Shopoffs Canyon Crest project declared bankruptcy a fewyears ago. Consideration might be made as to how the City of Newport Beach might deal with a bankruptcy mid construction and perhaps a review of the financial solvency of this project is also appropriate. Finally, you are certainly cognizant of political fallout from the Museum House approval a year ago. I would like to believe that you have an ever increasing awareness of the citizen discontent with the steady stream of overdevelopment that is changing the character of our city. This body, and the City Council, needs to decide if they will adopt a paternalistic form of governance or a representative form of governance. This is an unpopular project and I project that an affirming vote for it will cost several councilpersons their seats in the November election. Our leaders, yourselves included, need to decide if you stand with the residents or stand with major developers. You cannot do both. Thank you, Susan Skinner Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Dana Haynes <dhaynes@citivestinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:08 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: Adriana Fourcher; Planning Commissioners Subject: RE: Koll Residences Project Attachments: Height Exhibit as Attachment.pdf Attached is the Exhibit that was referenced in the letter sent previously today. Dana Haynes Citivest, Inc. 4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 705-0408 (Direct Office) (949) 212-3237 (Cell) (949) 474-0330 (Fax) From: Dana Haynes Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:36 PM To: rung@newportbeachca.gov Cc: Adriana Fourcher; 'planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov' Subject: Koll Residences Project Rosalinh, Attached is a letter from our Owners Association signed by myself as President and then co-signed by many of the other owners in the building. Our letter raises concerns about the project that need to be addressed by the Applicant. Dana Haynes Citivest Inc. 4340 Von Karman Ave., Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 705-0408 (Direct Office) (949) 212-3237 (Cell) (949) 474-0330 (Fax) N Z J_ vi w_ m O N vi a � Z N w O Z U w }� O } Z LU N tr p LL J w N vfi w LLQ O z LL U Z a_j O Ul)o N (D O W w O a =D CD CL o °0 U Co CO H U = w r) O w LQ W d O = p0 LU W o IL O LU Nn 0 _ LV O t - U wo Z =of w LLg p 02 N�Ln W 5-- , W X 13 � Lu � Z p LU F- Q m Wp J LU U �z J `n J w Q O 1 J Y ?o Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: GEORGE KENT <gvkent@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:33 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Dear Planing Commission and our Government representatives: Please do not allow the Koll project. Our city does not need more tax revenue and certainly not more congestion. Sincerely, George and Judy Kent, 4627 Gorham Drive Corona del Mar Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Elaine Linhoff <elinhoff@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 9:10 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project I oppose the Koll Towers proposal because the too -tall towers are out of proportion to the surrounding area the city is deficient in affordable housing, not luxury condos traffic is already heavy in that area and we have not even felt the impact from projects under construction Elaine Linhoff Balboa Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Don Harvey <harveydonw@juno.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 8:06 AM To: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: Koll Center project Dear Ms. Ramirez—Please fwd the following to the Planning Commission in time for them to consider it for tonight's meeting—Thanks, Don and Patty Harvey Dear Planning Commission: We oppose the Koll Center project. We believe that Newport Beach needs an updated General Plan that accounts for both the development that has taken place in recent years and the community's vision for the city's future, and we believe all projects like this need to be considered in light of that updated plan—Don and Patty Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge Place, Newport Beach, CA. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: 10 Carol <jocarol@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 8:49 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments - Koll Center Residences - Comment from City Resident Hello I try to stay current with developments proposed to my City... especially this major project, the Koll Center Residences. I oppose it in its current size. It's 3 huge 13 story buildings. So dense, so massive, so imposing on other buildings. It also will add a large amount of traffic. There is no way this project fits into the area for which its proposed. I would turn it down. Then I would work with us residents to update the General Plan. It seems both the Planning Commission and City Council don't recognize it after all. Jo Carol Hunter 4220 Park Newport #210 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Virus -free. www.avo.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Don & Doris <ddstoughton@roadrunner.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:09 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project We are very much opposed to the Koll Center Residence Project!!! As long time Corona del Mar residence (53 years) we have seen enough overgrowth in our surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic is unbearable EVERYWHERE!! Please DO NOT allow this HUGH project to be built!! Sincerely, Donald and Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Don & Doris <ddstoughton@roadrunner.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:13 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Kill Center Residence Project is certainly not necessary for Newport Beach. Just drive along Jamboree from MacArthur to 405 Freeway and see ALL of the condos and apartments being built! Enough high rises in the area!! Enough traffic in the area!!! What happened to our wonderful small town and friendliness???? Enough is enough!! Please vote down this project!!! Donald and Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Charlette Marie <balboatwo@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:44 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project The City Planning Commission is the protector of the residents. this responsibility, disapprove proposed project. Charlette Peterson God Bless the USA! 1 supposed to be Please, with the scale of this Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: normsuker@sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:29 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project This project should be denied or delayed until after the New General Plan is approved Thank you, Norman J. Suker, P.E., T.E. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: David Harvey <dharvey@harveyllc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:30 AM To: Ramirez, Brittany Cc: Don Harvey; pamelaharvey4@aol.com Subject: RE: Koll Center project My wife Pam and I also oppose the Koll Center Project. I am a business owner in Newport Beach (we employ 40 FT professionals) and a long time NB resident as well. Regards, Dave David W.M. Harvey Harvey & Company LLC 5000 Birch Street, West Tower, Suite 9200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Direct: (949) 502-7516 Cell: (949) 887-0487 Fax: (949) 757-0404 www.harvevllc.com/acauisition search dharvey@harveyllc.com 0 Harvey & Company is a leading buyside acquisition advisory firm serving private equity funds and acquisitive corporations. Harvey & Company's principals have initiated over 250 proprietary acquisitions, including a record 30 in 2017, all as the advisor to the buyer. Acquirers choose to partner with Harvey & Company due to our experienced professionals and proven processes that consistently generate strategic and non -auction deal flow. Confidentiality Statement This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the authorized use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure to persons other than the intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank you. From: Don Harvey [mailto:harveydonw@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 8:06 AM To: bramirez@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Koll Center project Dear Ms. Ramirez --Please fwd the following to the Planning Commission in time for them to consider it for tonight's meeting --Thanks, Don and Patty Harvey Dear Planning Commission: We oppose the Koll Center project. We believe that Newport Beach needs an updated General Plan that accounts for both the development that has taken place in recent years and the community's vision for the city's future, and we believe all projects like this need to be considered in light of that updated plan --Don and Patty Harvey, 2039 Port Weybridge Place, Newport Beach, CA. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Byron de Arakal <bdearakal@ocbc.org> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:45 AM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Campbell, Jim Subject: OCBC Communication - Koll Center Residence (PA2015-024) Attachments: OCBC_Letter_Shopoff_PA2015-024.pdf Dear Commissioners, Attached please find correspondence from Orange County Business Council President and CEO Lucy Dunn regarding PA2015-024 on this evening's Planning Commission agenda. Your consideration of OCBC's comments relative to the proposed project are appreciated. Also, we respectfully ask that the letter be included in the administrative record. Sincerely, Byron de Arakal Vice President of Communications Orange County Business Council 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 1 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: 949.794.7210 1 bdearakal(c ocbc.oro GAME CHANGERS OC Leaders Transforming the World Change County Business Council 2018 Join the Leading Voice of Business in Orange County.. Register today for OCBC's 2018 Annual Dinner! www.ocbc.oro and www.LocationOC.com ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1001 Irvine, CA 92614-59041 P 949.476.22421 F 949.476.9240 I www,ocbc.org Sent via Email to: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov January 18, 2018 Commissioner Peter Koetting, Chair Commissioner Peter Zak, Vice Chair Commissioner Erik Weigand, Secretary Commissioner Bill Dunlap Commissioner Lauren Kleiman Commissioner Kory Kramer Commissioner Lee Lowrey City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Dear Chair Koetting, Vice Chair Zak and Commissioners, As you may know, Orange County Business Council is a regional organization recognized as a leading, influential advocate for the Orange County business community throughout California, across the country and around the world. We work to advance Orange County's economic development and prosperity to preserve the county's widely admired quality of life. One of OCBC's core initiatives is to be a leading advocate for the development of new housing to meet the current and future needs of Orange County's diverse workforce. OCBC regularly reviews and supports well-planned residential development proposals throughout the county and its 34 cities. In that regard, we are aware that this evening the Newport Beach Planning Commission will be conducting a Study Session to review Shopoff Realty Investments' application for a 260 - unit mixed-use development within the Koll Center Newport (PA2015-024). It appears Koll Center Residences development plan is compatible with the Airport Area Land Use Goal LU 6.15 and Land Use Policies LU 6.15.1 and LU 6.15.5 of the voter -approved Newport Beach General Plan. Of equal importance to the development proposal's respect for the vision Newport Beach voters conceived for the Airport Area is its contribution to the addition of badly needed workforce housing in Orange County. Orange County, like California, is in the midst of a housing crisis. OCBC's 2015 Workforce Housing Scorecard reported that the county needs an additional 50,000 to 62,000 additional homes TODAY to meet the housing needs of the folks living and working here now. THE LEADING VOICE OF BUSINESS IN ORANGE COUNTY January 18, 2018 Page 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The result of Orange County's housing deficit is, as we all know, historically high and increasingly unaffordable prices that are pushing young professionals out of Orange County and, indeed, out of California. In fact, the county has the second highest rate of millennial out- migration than any other county in the United Sates. We're losing young, talented, highly educated professionals to places such as Austin, Charlotte and Denver. This is a major problem for the business community. Orange County companies are at a disadvantage in recruiting young talent, because that talent simply cannot afford to live and buy or rent a home here. The follow-on danger to that out migration is the loss of companies who leave to find the workforce they need to grow their businesses. We contend the county and its cities should support policies and projects that encourage the development of new residential communities providing a range of home choices to meet the needs of the county's workforce. In this way, we keep next -generation talent close to home, reduce the traffic impacts of long-range work commutes, retain county -based businesses, and expand the county's tax base. To that extent, OCBC contends the Koll Center Residences development proposal is on the right track in support of the region's workforce housing goals and objectives. We look forward to sharing additional supportive comments with you during the Public Hearing process. LD:BdeA:bb Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Lawler, Ray <Ray.Lawler@hines.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:54 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Letter of Support - Koll Center Residences Attachments: Ray Lawler - Letter of Support - Koll Center Residences.pdf Chairman Koetting and Members of the Planning Commission, Attached please find my letter of support for the Koll Center Residences. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Ray Ray Lawler Senior Managing Director Hines 4000 MacArthur Boulevard I Suite 110 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ray.lawler@hines.com P 949.313.2200 Intelligent Real Estate Investment, Development and Management Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) January 18, 2018 Chairman Koetting &,Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Support for Koll Center Residences 4400 Von Karman- Koll Center Dear Chairman Koetting & Members of the Planning Commission: As a resident of Newport Beach, a former member of the Newport Beach Planning Commission, and a business executive and property owner in Koll Center Newport, I am writing in support of the Koll Center Residences. I have reviewed the plans for the project and believe it is well designed, meets all city criteria, and is in conformance with the General Plan. I am in full support of the Koll Center Residences and look forward to seeing the development materialize. Sincerely, 2 Ray Lawler Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Alan Carmichael <acarmichael@alerellc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:56 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Koll Residential Development Rosalinh: I'm writing to support the development of the Koll Residential project near MacArthur and Jamboree. I think this development will benefit the airport areas office developments and the greater city. I work near the development (100 Bayview Circle) and live in Newport Heights. The development would help transform the airport area to "live — work" environment, which will drive more companies to the area and likely reduce traffic in the long run. Thanks, Alan Carmichael 430 Redlands, Newport Beach Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Public Comment - Koll Residences <info@protectnb.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:45 PM To: Peotter, Scott Cc: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Ung, Rosalinh; Hillary.davis@latimes.com; Icasiano@scng.com Subject: Clarification Regarding Mr. Peotter's Email to ProtectNB.org Mr. Peotter, Thank you for your email regarding the Public Comments residents and interested parties have submitted regarding the Koll Residences project through the ProtectNB.org website. A few clarifications regarding your email: • No robots or automated emailers are associated with ProtectN 3.org. As noted on the website, ProtectNB.org was developed by a coalition of more than 15 community organizations, property owners, businesses and residents due to their concern about the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers and the lack of informed public awareness surrounding the project. • We did not anticipate such an enormous response to the Koll Residences issue since launching the website. We were hoping to obtain public comments from 30 or so Newport residents. We have received hundreds of Public Comments in strong opposition to the Koll Residences condo towers since launching the site. We have not been able to keep up with all the opposition comments and hundreds more remain to be sent to the City. Unlike the Developer's website which provides people with specific draft talking points embedded in their form to email the City, our "Contact Planning Commission and City Council" forms do not provide a draft email to send. We leave the comment form blank for the public to write comments on whatever is of interest or concern to them regarding the Koll Residences project. Strong opposition to new condo tower high-rises appears to be a central theme in a majority of the comments. • Susan Skinner is not part of ProtectNB.org or the Coalition who developed the website. She is also not involved with providing the City with Public Comments submitted to the ProtectNB.org website. Like dozens of other residents who are voluntarily forwarding the website to interested friends and neighbors, Susan has forwarded the website address and related communications to friends and contacts. She is one of many residents who have done so. • ProtectNB.org does not officially endorse the views of any of the Public Comments, including the Robert Wiegand email you note below. We are simply forwarding to the City the Public Comments received by ProtectNB.org regarding the Koll Residences to be included as part of the official Public Review process. • We have included the exact Public Comments received and all the information provided to us by the individual in their Public Comments. The vast majority of public included their full names, addresses and phone numbers for the record. We have redacted only a few letters of one item of information -- their email address -- due to widespread spam abuse of emails in the public record. • We will be focusing on submitting the remaining Public Comments received thus far to the City so that we honor the public's expectation that their comments be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the official Public Review process. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Thank you again for your email. Webmaster www.ProtectNB.org On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Peotter, Scott <speotterna,newportbeachca.gov> wrote: I always wondered where you are supposed to sign up for such a retirement fund? Oh wait, there is no such thing... Darn I should have researched that before I ran for election (note to Susan Skinner, the previous comment was made in sarcasm). Of course I would respond directly to Mr Wiegand (who apparently spells his name wrong according to Planning Commissioner Erik Weigand) but, oh, I forgot, Skinner's robot website doesn't pass on constituent's emails so that we can respond directly, perhaps even correcting misconceptions that they may have from Skinner's website about properties, projects, applicant and property owners rights and responsibilities. Not to mention what it means to be a public servant (or does Mr. Wiegand prefer to slander and "misrepresent" the truth)? Or maybe the concept that these dwelling units, that this project represents, were approved by the voters (I know Susan Skinner didn't like the results of that election) but facts are stubborn things and the people have spoken. Skinner has said that she is not against property rights... But I cannot remember the last time she came to the city council to express her support for a project... But maybe my memory is getting bad? These comments from Wiegand may as well be anonymous. This is the response that I would give to Wiegand if I actually had his email: Thank you for your input on the Kell Project. Of course, I will give every aspect of this project due consideration if or when it comes before the city council. You should note that the units in question for this project are part of the voter approved General Plan. The thought at the time when this was approved, was that it be traffic Neutral (in other words those trips that are associated with these units are existing trips being relocated here). Also, I remember part of the discussion was that, while the statewide housing crisis was just being realized at the time, that the state would require that Newport Beach provide its "fair share' of new housing. Many were saying that if Newport was going to provide that housing that it was best provided in the Airport Area where the impact on existing residents was minimized. The voters have made it clear that they don't want more traffic in Newport Center. So, whatever the form of the project, it will get a scrupulous review by staff, public, commissions and the council as appropriate and as entitled to all property owners whether they own a little condo or you are the largest landowner in Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) town, to make sure it conforms to the voter approved General Plan and the appropriate zoning laws. All projects must mitigate their impacts on schools, parks, roads, and transportation systems in this review process. Again thanks for your input on this project. NOTE to Skinner. I did NOT take a position on this particular project. I have not reviewed the specifics on the project nor have I heard all the public input (probably not even close to hearing the end of comments from Skinner's robot). I welcome the input. Although I have to admit, I would think that input from a robot site would mean more if I actually received a legitimate email address... SCOTT PEOTTER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL Representing the 6th District If you want to sign up for my political newsletter please use this link: www.tinvurl.com/peottersignut) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences [info(aprotectnb.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:47 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: City Council does not care about residents City Council does not care about residents, they want more money for there retirement fund so they can sit on six figure retirements and side dealings while in / out of office. Robert Wiegand 19 Fecamp Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-759-0773 __. ieoa nd(a)o ma i I. corn Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:47:27 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Peotter, Scott Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:58 PM To: Public Comment - Kell Residences Cc: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik, Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Ung, Rosalinh; Hillary.davis@latimes.com; Icasiano@scng.com Subject: RE: Clarification Regarding Mr. Peotter's Email to ProtectNB.org So release the emails so that we can respond to our constituents! Yes, your site is a robot site in that it generates emails and delivers them to a broad range of recipients, even if it is at the request of a real person. So release the full email SCOTT PEOTTER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL Representing the 6th District If you want to sign up for my political newsletter please use this link: www.tinyurl.com/oeottersignup From: Public Comment - Koll Residences [info@protectnb.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Peotter, Scott Cc: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Ung, Rosalinh; Hillary.davis@latimes.com; Icasiano@scng.com Subject: Clarification Regarding Mr. Peotter's Email to ProtectNB.org Mr. Peotter, Thank you for your email regarding the Public Comments residents and interested parties have submitted regarding the Koll Residences project through the ProtectNB.org website. A few clarifications regarding your email: • No robots or automated emailers are associated with ProtectNB.org. As noted on the website, ProtectNB.org was developed by a coalition of more than 15 community organizations, property owners, businesses and residents due to their concern about the Koll Residences high-rise condo towers and the lack of informed public awareness surrounding the project. • We did not anticipate such an enormous response to the Koll Residences issue since launching the website. We were hoping to obtain public comments from 30 or so Newport residents. We have received hundreds of Public Comments in strong opposition to the Koll Residences condo towers since launching the site. We have not been able to keep up with all the opposition comments and hundreds more remain to be sent to the City. Unlike the Developer's website which provides people with specific draft talking points embedded in their form Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) to email the City, our "Contact Planning Commission and City Council" forms do not provide a draft email to send. We leave the comment form blank for the public to write comments on whatever is of interest or concern to them regarding the Koll Residences project. Strong opposition to new condo tower high-rises appears to be a central theme in a majority of the comments. • Susan Skinner is not part of ProtectNB.org or the Coalition who developed the website. She is also not involved with providing the City with Public Comments submitted to the ProtectNB.org website. Like dozens of other residents who are voluntarily forwarding the website to interested friends and neighbors, Susan has forwarded the website address and related communications to friends and contacts. She is one of many residents who have done so. • ProtectNB.org does not officially endorse the views of any of the Public Comments, including the Robert Wiegand email you note below. We are simply forwarding to the City the Public Comments received by ProtectNB.org regarding the Koll Residences to be included as part of the official Public Review process. • We have included the exact Public Comments received and all the information provided to us by the individual in their Public Comments. The vast majority of public included their full names, addresses and phone numbers for the record. We have redacted only a few letters of one item of information -- their email address -- due to widespread spam abuse of emails in the public record. • We will be focusing on submitting the remaining Public Comments received thus far to the City so that we honor the public's expectation that their comments be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the official Public Review process. Thank you again for your email. Webmaster www.ProtectN]3.org On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Peotter, Scott <sneotterknewportbeachca.gov> wrote: I always wondered where you are supposed to sign up for such a retirement fund? Oh wait, there is no such thing... Darn I should have researched that before I ran for election (note to Susan Skinner, the previous comment was made in sarcasm). Of course I would respond directly to Mr Wiegand (who apparently spells his name wrong according to Planning Commissioner Erik Weigand) but, oh, I forgot, Skinner's robot website doesn't pass on constituent's emails so that we can respond directly, perhaps even correcting misconceptions that they may have from Skinner's website about properties, projects, applicant and property owners rights and responsibilities. Not to mention what it means to be a public servant (or does Mr. Wiegand prefer to slander and "misrepresent" the truth)? Or maybe the concept that these dwelling units, that this project represents, were approved by the voters (I know Susan Skinner didn't like the results of that election) but facts are stubborn things and the people have spoken. Skinner has said that she is not against property rights... But I cannot remember the last time she came to the city council to express her support for a project... But maybe my memory is getting bad? Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) These comments from Wiegand may as well be anonymous. This is the response that I would give to Wiegand if I actually had his email: Thank you for your input on the Koll Project. Of course, I will give every aspect of this project due consideration if or when it comes before the city council. You should note that the units in question for this project are part of the voter approved General Plan. The thought at the time when this was approved, was that it be traffic Neutral (in other words those trips that are associated with these units are existing trips being relocated here). Also, I remember part of the discussion was that, while the statewide housing crisis was just being realized at the time, that the state would require that Newport Beach provide its "fair share' of new housing. Many were saying that if Newport was going to provide that housing that it was best provided in the Airport Area where the impact on existing residents was minimized. The voters have made it clear that they don't want more traffic in Newport Center. So, whatever the form of the project, it will get a scrupulous review by staff, public, commissions and the council as appropriate and as entitled to all property owners whether they own a little condo or you are the largest landowner in town, to make sure it conforms to the voter approved General Plan and the appropriate zoning laws. All projects must mitigate their impacts on schools, parks, roads, and transportation systems in this review process. Again thanks for your input on this project. NOTE to Skinner. I did NOT take a position on this particular project. I have not reviewed the specifics on the project nor have I heard all the public input (probably not even close to hearing the end of comments from Skinner's robot). I welcome the input. Although I have to admit, I would think that input from a robot site would mean more if I actually received a legitimate email address... SCOTT PEOTTER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL Representing the 6th District If you want to sign up for my political newsletter please use this link: www.tinvurl.com/r)eottersignui) From: Public Comment - Koll Residences [info@protectnb.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 12:47 PM To: Dept - City Council; Kramer, Kory; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Zak, Peter; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Cc: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: City Council does not care about residents City Council does not care about residents, they want more money for there retirement fund so they can sit on six figure retirements and side dealings while in / out of office. Robert Wiegand 19 Fecamp Newport Coast, CA 92657 949-759-0773 —ieaand(a)amaiI.corn Submitted: 1/14/2018 20:47:27 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: normsuker@sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:03 AM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: DorothyJKraus@gmail.com Subject: Proposed Koll Center Project I am a resident of Newport Beach and I am opposed to the subject project. This project should be denied or a decision delayed until after the New General Plan is approved by the City Council. Norman J. Suker, P.E., T.E. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Robert Meyer <rmeyer@meyerprop.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:15 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Gentlemen, Speaking for myself and several friends we want to be very clear this is not a good project for many fundamental reasons and I object. It does not appear to comply with the master plan that I supported some time ago when it was enacted. I await the outcome of the hearing on the 18'. If this project is allowed to go forward we are prepared to commit money to support a change of our government representatives. I am a respectful, long time community member and Newport property owner. Thankyou Robert Meyer 01 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. Sc Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) April 25, 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Support of KOLL RESIDENTIAL Development — 260 Units 4400 Van Karman Avenue- Koll Center .Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms.. Ung: ' CITY oIr +cyORT 1311 Our family recently acquired 4200 Von Karman Avenue, an office building in the Koll Center Newport. With this acquisition, it is our intend to relocate our company's headquarters to this location from Long Beach in July of this year. One of the key attractions that led me to make the purchase within Koll Center Newport was the integration of office and residential properties and the continuation of this direction by the development being proposed just down the drive aisle from our building by Shopoff. As an owner of a mixed portfolio of assets in various markets, I find that a mixed use environment and new state of the art buildings designed by MV&E can only add to the long term value of the community and make it destination within Orange County. The applicant took time to walk me through the specifics of the plan, and I feel confident their proposed project will be an asset to the Koll Center and insure its long term viability. I understand the city is in the process of its evaluation of the project, and that a full Environmental Impact Report will be circulated for public review, but I feel strongly that this is a good project for Newport Beach and the Koll Center. For these reasons both myself and my family are supportive of this development and look forward to its arrival: Yours truly, James M. Otis, Esq. President & General Counsel 700 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite PH -D, Long Beach, California 90802 Tel.: (562) 983-3600 Fax: (562) 983-3603 MADAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES 5000 Birch Street, Ste. 6000 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-955-1500 • Fax: 949-480-0034 March 15, 2017 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SUPPORT - KOLL RESIDENTIAL — 260 Units 4400 Van Karman Avenue- Koll Center Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-001 Site Development Review No. SD2015-001 Tentative Tract NO. NT 2015-001 Dear Ms. Ung: Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) \xecEIVFD er COMMUNITY MAR 2 4 217 o DEVELOPMENT .T �0 fOP NEWPORT Our company, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA"), has its corporate offices located in the 5000 Birch Street building located in Koll Center Newport Beach. The applicant for the proposed Koll Residential project, Shopoff Realty Investments ("Shopoff"), has reached out to our firm to develop a working relationship and to keep our company informed on the progress of their development proposal. A member of Shopoffs project team met with us in our offices last week to review the proposed site plan in detail, including the locations of the three residential towers and a new standalone parking garage. We have given our input to Shopoff on a number of matters which were addressed by the project representative. As a result, we believe this mixed use project which includes a retail component, a one acre city park and 260 high-end residential condominium units, will be a positive addition to Koll Center and the City of Newport Beach ("City"). To be more specific, DTA is a growing firm that hires many recent college graduates, as well as young employees with just a few years of previous experience. The stories that I hear from my staff regarding finding affordable places to live are disheartening. Our starting salaries tend to fall in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, yet these employees often wind up sharing a bedroom with another roommate in order to live within a reasonable commute to our offices. One new employee just rented a one -bedroom apartment in Irvine for $2,200 per month, which even if she earned $75,000 per year would amount to approximately one-half of her take home salary. When you include the repayment of her college loans to her budget, you can see how little she is left with to cover her remaining expenses. As our salaries are competitive with those in the current employment market, I assume that this housing problem is widespread throughout the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine areas. The answer is not to force these employees to commute in from Santa Margarita or Ladera Ranch (where many of my employees already live), but rather to build more housing close to work. While I recognize that the proposed Koll Center residential units are unlikely to be affordable to our entry-level employees, they do represent an increase in the housing in the vicinity of our offices, and Newport Beach - Corporate Headquarters Riverside • San Francisco • San Jose • Dallas Ms. Rosalinh Ung March 15, 2018 Page 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) that in itself will ultimately make more homes available at the more affordably priced end of the market. With all of the additional office space now being built in both Irvine and Newport Beach between MacArthur and Jamboree Boulevards, I believe residential development needs to be encouraged, and these 260 units are a step in the right direction. While we recognize that the City is in the process of its review of the Koll Center residential project, and that a full Environmental Impact Report will be circulated for public review, based on the plans we have reviewed to date and the overwhelming need for more housing near Koll Center, we are in support of the City's ultimate approval of this project. Yours T David Taussig C77 President & CEO Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeanne Conwell <jkconwell@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:43 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Please do not approve another giant building project. It is not in the best interest of the people of Newport Beach and it will be regretted for years to come, if you approve it. The last few years the building has become so massive, residential and commercial, it has taken a toll on our beautiful city. Plus there is never enough parking for any of the projects approved. It is getting to be like LA. Please stop the massive building growth! I have lived in Corona Del Mar for 44 years. Respectfully, Jeanne Conwell Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Rodger & Julie Lowery<Iowerynewport@sbcglobaI.net> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:44 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project I absolutely oppose the high rise development, This sort of building is going on everywhere, tearing down factories, office buildings to build high rise apartments and condos. It's all about the money not quality of life. Developers make big profits building, City has a bigger tax base than with business and factories. Soon, we will all be jammed in gridlock, everyone will have a expensive "Cracker Jack" box to live in, But no where to work, except hotels and restaurants. Everyone will commuting back out to the Inland empire for a real job. Sencerly, Rodger & Julie Lowery Newport Beach, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Kell Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Koll - Joe Stuart From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:11 PM Subject: FW: Koll Center Residences on Birch (Shopoff) Per Joe Stuart's request below, and for the official record. From: Joe Stuart [mailto:stuartstuart44@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:02 PM To: Kiff, Dave <DKiff@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: Koll Center Residences on Birch (Shopoff) Dave, I sent the email below but it landed with technical difficulties at the city and was bounced. If you could forward it to the appropriate place, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Joe Stuart Newport Beach, CA From: Joe Stuart <stuartsmart44aemaiLcom> To: ulanninecormnissionanewoortbeachca.eov, +brmuirez(a,newnortbeachea.eov, +mfoalineinthesandpac.com Cc: Bee: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:57:34 -0800 Subject: Public Comments: Koll Center Residences Project Hello: In recent years it seems like developers are proposing "mega" projects in Newport Beach. I am pro -development, but not pro - mega development. Very obviously, 25 stories of condos in Museum Tower was inappropriate (I realize they tried to call it Museum House). This project's THREE towers of condos is inappropriate. It's also a weird office building location for a sudden massive influx of home owners. We need to stop rewarding the current land owners with (potential) approvals for "mega" projects and thus massive land sale prices. Their land is already worth plenty ---for normal, non -mega redevelopment. I am curious who at the city gave this developer the impression that (and thus the desire to spend huge sums of money to pursue) three giant towers of condos "might" be approved on this site. Long ago, somebody at the city gave this developer the impression they should pursue this giant project in this weird location. I don't think it should be approved. I think the city should tell developers, early in the process, that Newport Beach is pro -development, but is not interested in a sudden shift to "mega" projects. Thank you. Regards, Joe Stuart Newport Beach, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:48 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Comments on PC Item 6 (1/18/2018) Attachments: 2018Jan18_PC_AgendaItem6_Comments_JimMosher.pdf Dear Commissioners and staff, Please find attached a quick response to the City's responses to my previous comments on the project that is the subject of tonight's Planning Commission agenda Item 6. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) January 18, 2018, Planning Commission Item 6 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 6. KOLL CENTER RESIDENCES (PA2015-024) I have previously commented on this project, both during the EIR Scoping and during the DEIR public review period (see DEIR pp. 2-7 and 2-8, and letter starting on page 56 in Appendix A). Among the points raised then that I do not see adequately addressed in the DEIR is the timeliness of the project with regard to the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, which I believe is currently completely fulfilled through October 2021. As a result, my understanding is the City will receive no "credit" towards its quotas for this project. It therefore seems environmentally prudent to defer it until there is a new quota against which it can be used. As proposed, when new RHNA or other state requirements are imposed, this "opportunity" site will have been completely used and the City will be left scrambling for new sites, creating much more impact than necessary. I don't find this mentioned even as an environmental concern in the DEIR. I would, however, primarily like to comment on a few of staff's more explicit new Responses to Comments (staff report attachment PC 2), in the 369 pages of which, my most recent comments are the last, Letter C-23 starting on page 3-325 (handwritten 381 and 335 of 369 in the PDF), with responses starting on page 3-329 (handwritten 385 and 339 in the PDF). [note: I call the responses "staff' responses even though they may have been written by a consultant because my understanding is they are supposed to represent the City's considered opinion.] Comment 1: In what staff denotes as my Comment 1, 1 list a number of indisputable facts regarding delays in the release of the DEIR compared to the schedule found in the publicly posted City contract and express an admittedly speculative opinion based on that. Staff's ungrammatical response is "The commenter's opinions are not based in fact and no not raise a CEQA issue." I'm not sure what "no not" means, but after going to the trouble to carefully document the facts on which my speculation was based, I find the idea that my speculation is "not based in fact" to be insulting. I would suspect many other commenters who went to the considerable time and trouble it takes to research and document concerns about the DEIR, only to find themselves similarly blown off, felt similarly insulted. Comment 2: My comment was that although the General Plan contains a policy allowing transfers of development "rights," that does not explain why, as the result of such an allowable transfer, the limits in Table LU2 don't have to be simultaneously updated through a General Plan Amendment. Otherwise, the permitted development is glaringly inconsistent with the clear letter of the General Plan. Staffs response, cut and pasted at least five times into the Responses to Comments, provides no answer I can discern. The statement that "The City tracks and updates the Anomaly tables as applicable" (without explaining where or how it does that, or how the public is expected to know) begs the question of when an update for "Statistic Area L4" is needed. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The response also appears to provide further misinformation to the public in its claim that "There is currently 457,076 sf of development in Anomaly Location 1." I believe Anomaly 1 contains that plus an up to 471 room hotel! The promised "attached General Plan Land Use Element Figure LUX does not appear to have been attached, at least not this immediate set of responses. Comment 3: Staff's non -answer provides no guidance I can find on how aesthetics are supposed to be evaluated with no simulations of the projects appearance from a variety of public vantage points. Comment 5: Staff's response that the General Plan leaves it at liberty to add neighboring properties to a proposal to help the applicant meet minimum acreage requirements is curious to me. Implementation Program 4 of the General Plan envisions "planned communities' as usually being under one ownership, and envisions much more detail for the "residential villages in the Airport Area" than I see here in staff report Attachment PC 4. Comment 8: Since nothing in my comment suggested that, I find it strange staff felt a need to respond that "The Project Applicant's presentation on October 30, 2017 was not sponsored by the City of Newport Beach." Comment 12: My comment was about the DER labeling elevations of points on buildings with a single number and saying the number is both "Height to Sea Level" and "NAVD 88," when the two systems of measurement differ by about 2.6 feet in the vicinity of Newport Beach. Staff's non -answer to my comment ("Unless otherwise stated in the EIR, references are to height to grade.") does not correct the problem with Figure 4.1-1. The numbers listed are either elevations expressed as heights in the (mean?) sea level system or in the NAVD 88 system, but they can't be both. Does staff know which? I thought the authors of EIR's were supposed to correct the EIR's in response to comments, not ignore them. Looking again at Figure 4.1-1, it is further flawed by listing each of 12 building heights (and 12 building top elevations) as being a precisely exact number of feet with zero inches. The improbably of the number of inches being zero in so many cases (or that one can even define a building height to an inch) strains credulity, and strains credulity in the rest of the EIR. Comment 16: My comment asked if the applicant is invited to participate in suggesting the City's responses to the comments received. I think that is a matter of considerable public interest, and staff's non -answer is not particularly appreciated. Comment 17: With regard to my comment that a large number of errors and discrepancies discovered in a small sampling of DER pages suggests many other errors and discrepancies would be found in a larger sampling, staff tells me "The City disagrees with the opinion of the commenter." They may have misunderstood my comment, but I would respectfully suggest that more than a mere "opinion," the likelihood of many other errors and discrepancies is a logically sound conclusion. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Looking beyond my own comments, I would like to say I am impressed by the recent letter from Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, starting on page 41 of the 194 page "6b Additional Materials Received Public Comments PA2015-024" arguing the proposed 160 -foot towers are inconsistent with the legislative intent, for this parcel, of the 2010 Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. I think that research deserves very serious consideration. Staff's response to what they deem my Comment 14 indicates that in staff's view the ICDP "is not a regulatory document," yet the fulfillment of the ICDP's "vision" is being presented as a large part of the justification for, and one might even say inevitability of, this project — and, as the Shute Mihaly letter indicates the DER assures the public this project is consistent with that "approved" plan. It further says the ICDP would have to be amended to allow the project to be built elsewhere. Something that has to be amended to allow something sounds regulatory to me. (DEIR pages 1-2, 1-3, for example) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: John Meserve <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. John Meserve rmeserve@hotmail.com 1815 Buttonshell Lane, Newport Beach Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Greg Sullivan <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Project Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Greg Sullivan greg.sullivan@cbre.com 1900 Beryl Lane Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Barbara Meserve <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: I support the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Barbara Meserve bmeservet227@gmail.com 1227 Highland Dr Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Leslie Light <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Say YES to Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Leslie Light leslielight@hotmail.com 1822 Coastal Way 92627 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Raymond Lawler <info@kolIresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support for the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Raymond Lawler ray. lawler(ahines.com 1934 Port Carney Pl, Newport Beach, Ca Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeff Clark <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Support The Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Jeff Clark jcinoc@gmail.com 1212 Essex Ln Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Gareth Estwick <info@kollresidences.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: I support the Koll Center Residences Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of The Koll Center Residences, a mixed-use village proposed in the Airport Area. This project upholds our City's General Plan and will help our community prosper. Additionally, I appreciate how The Koll Center Residences is part of a broader urban village that replaces existing uses. This will neutralize issues like traffic. Newport Beach is a beautiful place, created through a history of thoughtful planning. We finally have a project that upholds our vision for the City. Please say YES to The Koll Center Residences. Gareth Estwick garethestwick@hotmail.com 31 Calvados Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Koll - Orange County Business Council Letter of Support Attachments: OCBC_Letter_Shopoff_PA2015-024.pdf From: Coralee Newman [mailto:cora@Rovsol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:16 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.eov>; Ung, Rosalinh <RUne@newportbeachca.eov> Cc: Katie Newman <katie@eovsol.com> Subject: Orange County Business Council Letter of Support Dear Mayor Duffield and Members of the Newport Beach City Council: Please find attached a letter of Support for the Koll Center Residences project from the Orange County Business Council. Sincerely, Coralee Newman Government Relations Consultant To Shopoff Realty Investments I;0VERN MENT V I I I I I I I I I N ti Coralee S. Newman Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: (949) 717-7944 cora@govsol.com cell: (949) 244-4242 ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1001 Irvine, CA 92614-59041 P 949.476.22421 F 949.476.9240 I www,ocbc.org Sent via Email to: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov January 18, 2018 Commissioner Peter Koetting, Chair Commissioner Peter Zak, Vice Chair Commissioner Erik Weigand, Secretary Commissioner Bill Dunlap Commissioner Lauren Kleiman Commissioner Kory Kramer Commissioner Lee Lowrey City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Dear Chair Koetting, Vice Chair Zak and Commissioners, As you may know, Orange County Business Council is a regional organization recognized as a leading, influential advocate for the Orange County business community throughout California, across the country and around the world. We work to advance Orange County's economic development and prosperity to preserve the county's widely admired quality of life. One of OCBC's core initiatives is to be a leading advocate for the development of new housing to meet the current and future needs of Orange County's diverse workforce. OCBC regularly reviews and supports well-planned residential development proposals throughout the county and its 34 cities. In that regard, we are aware that this evening the Newport Beach Planning Commission will be conducting a Study Session to review Shopoff Realty Investments' application for a 260 - unit mixed-use development within the Koll Center Newport (PA2015-024). It appears Koll Center Residences development plan is compatible with the Airport Area Land Use Goal LU 6.15 and Land Use Policies LU 6.15.1 and LU 6.15.5 of the voter -approved Newport Beach General Plan. Of equal importance to the development proposal's respect for the vision Newport Beach voters conceived for the Airport Area is its contribution to the addition of badly needed workforce housing in Orange County. Orange County, like California, is in the midst of a housing crisis. OCBC's 2015 Workforce Housing Scorecard reported that the county needs an additional 50,000 to 62,000 additional homes TODAY to meet the housing needs of the folks living and working here now. THE LEADING VOICE OF BUSINESS IN ORANGE COUNTY January 18, 2018 Page 2 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) The result of Orange County's housing deficit is, as we all know, historically high and increasingly unaffordable prices that are pushing young professionals out of Orange County and, indeed, out of California. In fact, the county has the second highest rate of millennial out- migration than any other county in the United Sates. We're losing young, talented, highly educated professionals to places such as Austin, Charlotte and Denver. This is a major problem for the business community. Orange County companies are at a disadvantage in recruiting young talent, because that talent simply cannot afford to live and buy or rent a home here. The follow-on danger to that out migration is the loss of companies who leave to find the workforce they need to grow their businesses. We contend the county and its cities should support policies and projects that encourage the development of new residential communities providing a range of home choices to meet the needs of the county's workforce. In this way, we keep next -generation talent close to home, reduce the traffic impacts of long-range work commutes, retain county -based businesses, and expand the county's tax base. To that extent, OCBC contends the Koll Center Residences development proposal is on the right track in support of the region's workforce housing goals and objectives. We look forward to sharing additional supportive comments with you during the Public Hearing process. LD:BdeA:bb Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Ramirez, Brittany From: Adam Wood <awood@biaoc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:04 PM To: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: BIA/OC Letter of Support Attachments: BIAOC Item 6 Support - Koll Residences.pdf Please see the attached letter for distribution prior to tonight's study session on the Koll Center. Thank you for your help on this matter. -Adam Adam S. Wood Director of Government Affairs Building Industry Association I Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) 24 Executive Park, Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 553-9500 ext. 860 (949) 777-3860 Direct AWood@biaoc.com Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 06 Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. Bin ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER January 18, 2018 Chairman Peter Koetting Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Item #6 — KoR Center Residences Dear Chair and Commissioners: On behalf of our membership, I write to support the Koll Center Residences. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 member companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. After careful review, the Koll Center Residences achieve the foundations of our mission and garners our support. As you are aware, the project is a mixed-use village that aligns with the City's General Plan. The Center will add 260 luxury condominiums, a 1 -acre park, shopping and new structured parking. All of this in an effort to be a responsible community partner via vibrant new housing opportunity. This exciting development is located in the Airport Area and will therefore have little influence on existing neighborhoods. The Airport Area has been identified as a growing region of Orange County and Newport Beach has the unique opportunity to place their stamp on this growing corner of the region. For these reasons, I hope you will join in supporting the Koll Residences as they are an important and innovative addition to the Orange County landscape. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and dedication to solutions that facilitate housing. Respectfully, Steven C. LaMotte Chapter Executive Officer PRESIDENT MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME VICE PRESIDENT RICK WOOD TRI POINTE HOMES TREASURER/SECRETARY SUNTI KUMJIM MBKHOMES IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT PHIL BODEM MERITAGE HOMES TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION. LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE PETER VANEK FOREMOST COMPANIES MEMBER -AT -LARGE SEAN MATSLER MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP EXECUTIVE OFFICER STEVE LA MOTTE Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: BIA SUPPORT - Koll Residences Attachments: BIAOC Item 6 Support - Koll Residences.pdf From: Coralee Newman [mailto:cora@Rovsol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:04 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.Bov> Subject: BIA SUPPORT- Koll Residences Jan. 181h, 2018 Dear Ms. Ung: Please accept this letter of support we just received from the Building Industry Association. Thank You. Coralee Newman GOVERNMENT `;( ILUTIONS Coralee S. Newman cora@govsol.com Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: (949) 717-7944 cell: (949) 244-4242 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6c Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 06 Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. Bin ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER January 18, 2018 Chairman Peter Koetting Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Item #6 — KoR Center Residences Dear Chair and Commissioners: On behalf of our membership, I write to support the Koll Center Residences. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 member companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. After careful review, the Koll Center Residences achieve the foundations of our mission and garners our support. As you are aware, the project is a mixed-use village that aligns with the City's General Plan. The Center will add 260 luxury condominiums, a 1 -acre park, shopping and new structured parking. All of this in an effort to be a responsible community partner via vibrant new housing opportunity. This exciting development is located in the Airport Area and will therefore have little influence on existing neighborhoods. The Airport Area has been identified as a growing region of Orange County and Newport Beach has the unique opportunity to place their stamp on this growing corner of the region. For these reasons, I hope you will join in supporting the Koll Residences as they are an important and innovative addition to the Orange County landscape. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and dedication to solutions that facilitate housing. Respectfully, Steven C. LaMotte Chapter Executive Officer PRESIDENT MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME VICE PRESIDENT RICK WOOD TRI POINTE HOMES TREASURER/SECRETARY SUNTI KUMJIM MBKHOMES IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT PHIL BODEM MERITAGE HOMES TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION. LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE PETER VANEK FOREMOST COMPANIES MEMBER -AT -LARGE SEAN MATSLER MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP EXECUTIVE OFFICER STEVE LA MOTTE Hermosa Beach Office CK Phone: (3 0) 798-22400 Fax: (310)798-2402 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 www.cbcearthlaw.com January 18, 2018 Via Email rungga,newportbeachca.gov Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6d Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Michelle Black Email Address: mn b(a-)cbcearth I aw. com Direct Phone: 310-798-2400 Ext.5 Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the Koll Center Residences Project; SCH No. 2017011002 Dear Ms. Ung: SPON submits these comments on the final environmental impact report (FEIR) prepared for the Koll Center Residences Project (Project). Based on its review of the document, SPON believes the EIR remains an inadequate basis for approval and must be revised and recirculated before the Project may proceed. CEQA requires the City to respond to the public's comments and questions with "reasoned, good faith analysis." (CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment raises a significant environmental issue, the lead agency must address the comment "in detail giving reasons why" the comment was "not accepted." (Ibid.) "Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." (Ibid; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1124.) The level of detail of responses to comments must be commensurate with the level of detail of the comments. (Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 878 ["the determination of the sufficiency of the agency's responses to comments on the draft EIR turns upon the detail required in the responses"].) This requirement for good faith, reasoned analysis "ensures that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not swept under the rug." (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal, App. 4th 715, 732.) The courts have held that inadequate responses to comments — alone — can be grounds for voiding a project's approval. (See, Env. Protection Information Center. v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 604, 627.) Failure to respond to a single comment is sufficient to invalidate approval of a FEIR. (Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel by - the -Sea (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 603.) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6d Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The Koll Center Residences FEIR failed to respond adequately to comments raised in SPON's past comments, including, but not limited to: • Comment B -3b(3) pointed out the DEIR's shifting description of the Project as either "condominiums" or "luxury condominiums." The comment also pointed out that the 3,000 square foot retail use was only likely large enough for a coffee shop, but not large enough for the amenities that would be needed to create the walkable residential neighborhood that is the basis for the EIR's analysis. In response, the FEIR states that SPON is incorrect about the Project including affordable units, noting, "Because the commenter's understanding of the Project is incorrect, the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient." SPON never asserted the Project planned to include affordable units. The response also states, "The commenter's opinion on the definition of a neighborhood, mixed-use development, and walkability are noted but do not raise an environmental issue." No information is provided about how the Project would satisfy the definition of a mixed use Project or contribute to a walkable neighborhood as claimed throughout the DEIR. The comment is non-responsive and fails to satisfy CEQA. • Response 4 states that CEQA does not require disclosure of Development Agreements because they are not associated with environmental impacts. This is incorrect. Development Agreements often contain vital information about Project phasing that impact the accuracy of the environmental analysis contained in the EIR. Development Agreements also may contain information about funding of Project mitigation that is vital to decisionmakers in determining whether a Project's mitigation measures are concrete and enforceable, or merely speculative. SPON will supplement these comments as it continues its review of the FEIR and Responses to Comments. However, it is clear the EIR remains inadequate. The FEIR does not correct the DEIR's failure disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project's likely impacts related to airport safety, noise, and the inconsistency of the Project with City land use plans. As described further in SPON's previous letters, the Project is incompatible with the General Plan and the Airport Area's Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. Finally, SPON notes that the agenda prepared for the Planning Commission study session directs staff to prepare any resolutions that will be needed for Project approval. However, the City has not yet made the required Development Agreement public. Without the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission and the public will be denied the opportunity to evaluate the whole of the Project, as required by CEQA. The Development Agreement must be made available to the public. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6d Additional Materials Received Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) City of Newport Beach January 18, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion Thank you for your consideration of these comments. SPON respectfully requests that the City revise and recirculate the EIR once adequate responses have been provided to all comments submitted by the public on the Project, including recent supplemental comments that have raised important issues. SPON further urges the City to carefully consider the Project's compatibility with the City's General Plan and Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michelle N. Bla c -1. 1- W, wk ' : t a .^ ^ ^•� , -- - 1 fly t, ate • n t _ • t ,'F. J7 `�` L 5. • 1, .. -rr � �, mow" - '��*�'i�! n. -.�' � � �> �� .. ol �...w � f i ✓ � -+ i +-r ///gyp 4p Igo tll _' y l".I r• `' iU- - b k+ " n1'"i�+ ; l'�A d f f lt. fpt Ion + r G AV i I'rL rte' ...._ 7�1 CO,�:_ aT �f.�rMyi�',y'sjt f in -14 rr. Q'look, TV - 3M ..,� � � 6"�w a :.� -.. -`� � Y _,\ - �• n .-ham .(° -. - ~- +x* H `� '(u fir_. r r<� r p� y r'"PON taw= •. V t za„..,.., ,.,n.+iMv uy_"-------'-....-e..-•:-.M....,•..»1.,�......�.. ,.._...ate..-_..._�_tt �A��..,. .. � : _. ...xns.......:*ws�- a ^ -err n AM rl I _ I , ~A _ • o s..,J B1RC��ST �EET r: a b MOW k I � -,' • � is � :a + aJ,'• � _ •`- 1 I II K 1 :iss't.owl ./ t 1 ao w ` ,.,- p :;.W ♦:mss r�M q,. ,:. e,h , ll YYe H , I- ILL •,.. � ,fie' y �h .� l '. ^e T ♦ Y' 4 Az ��+ � `•� I '. mis 54 � \\ -�/ ,, ,� ,q 1 ? ♦�1�., ami t aL � _' . ' ria' ' �} ~ a' �. "Sy4• ' r' � � r S - - JI 'te i r _ — j� - e K • kr� `v` ( 'l l.- '. 5. dML. Ilf J '� l a Birch Street 4490 Von Karnsui .No 7 ' (- ito � r � ISI 1 u 4910 Wirth Street rte• ® t e ✓` A �_— r � r \ it / 4440 Von Karman �I Avenue _J I t Building 3 I �L Buildi�cn 2 n I ( �• 2 Limit of Work. 4350 Von Karman Ave ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN Limit of Work &iming Parking Garage Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. Be Additional Materials Received at Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) 5000 Birch Street rte.; fi V fry I- I 4490VON KARMAN AVE-IrM- 4910 BINCH ST 4440 VON KARMAN AVE 9 V ,l l PUBLIC ACCESS OFFICE ACCESS �1 O' 5000 BIRCH ST 5000 BIRCH ST PARKING GARAGE Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 5e Additional Materials Received at Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) CIRCULATION Birch Street PEDSTRIAN CONNECTIVITY r Uptown Newport c Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6e Additional Materials Received at Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) I �j_r77 Av 77 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) John Wayne Airport Area Residential Development Overview Planning Commission January 18, 2018 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE Land Use Element Policy LU 3.3 John Wayne Airport Area: Re -use of underperforming commercial and industrial properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services. 3 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) WHY RESIDENTIAL? Visioning preferred revitalization and income producing uses Broad consensus on mixed use and residential Urban in character and different Accommodates housing needs near jobs Additional density and traffic congestion considered more acceptable 4 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.5 2,200 residential units 1,650 units to replace existing uses 550 new units added A Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) STATISTICAL AREA L4 FIGURE LU22 AIRPORT AREA 0 nceptuizil %- ,. ,Ran Arezi Land UseDelineaW a . �1 ��Ill plp Lim �nS III""-N� Highway 65 CNEL Noise Contour Refer to anornaly table , V�u P , 0011 ­7 sae \ /1 �\ \I n \ \ .•• LAN POLICY • USE Uses 0 Residential0,using and Mix�Use (with Guidelines lbr .-gr and. 0 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 10 -acre villages 30-50 dwelling units per acre Conceptual development plan Regulatory plans required Development agreement required Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Neighborhood parks, recreation and open space Connected and walkable streets Building massing Parking Sustainability Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ICDP) • Approved September 2010 • Illustrative Diagram • Purpose is to allocates units Does not convey rights to develop • Not a regulatory plan • Does not specify development standards • Substantial compliance with intent of ICDP 0 b e lv .I �ddJ ' N-�ON Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) IN I LUNAI LU UUNUtNI UAL UtVtLUYMtNI FLAN 0 a 125 250 Sao p ❑ -- h" 19, 2010 10 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) Site Composite Plan 11 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 6f - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Koll Center Residences (PA2015-024) KOLL RESIDENCES SHOPOFF LAND FUND Planned Community Development Plan Transfer of Development Site Development Review Traffic Study Tentative Parcel & Tact Map Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report 12