The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO033_KOLL CENTER P-C DIST Illlnll IIII III IIIII IIIIIII IIIII II�II IIII III IIII TP0033 COWAISSIONE6'S MIWTES� �. Aoty of Newport B*:; 1,1 F 9 \x a o � °�nma lo May 24, 1979 o Z 2 ROLL CALL INDEX suggested that this item be continued" until the next meeting with direction to t,hhe�'`'staff that pro- perty owners within 300 feet off' he off-site lots be notified so that they may/participate in the public hearing . : Commissioners Frederickson and Balalis stated thei preference to defer�tkis item until it has been given proper publi,d notification . Alex Bowie.app ared before the Planning Commission on behalf .of the applicant, Mr. Manto , to request that th,y�be allowed to present the application at thV9 time . Commissioner Agee stated that hearing this item �t 'this time would necessitate a duplication of efforts that it would be necessary to repeat after the public hearing not ices are sent. Motion x Motion was made that Item No. 8, Use Permit No. Ayes r, icY x x 1908, be continued to the regular Planning Commis- Noes x sion meeting of June 7, 1979 , including a re-no- Absent ' * ticing of the public hearing for said item. Request of California Canadian Bank for the appro- ItEFm, #5 val of a Phasing Plan for the remaining develop- ment on their property in the Koll Center Newport PHASING Planned Community District. - PLAN Location : The most westerly corner of Jambo- APPROVED ree Road and Campus Drive in Koll CONDI- Center Newport. TIONALLY Applicant: California Canadian Bank , Newport Beach Zone : P-C In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek , Richard Hogan , 'Community Development Direc- tor , explained that each property owner has a righ to develop his property up to 30% independent of the other property owners within the specific Plan ned Community, and a Phasing Plan is required for the balance of the 70%. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0ty of Newport Beth F oo � v�s�• ys FP $�vc May 24, 1979 s 2 02 ROLL CALL INDEX The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Pat Allen , Langdon and Wilson , Architects , re- presenting California Canadian Bank , appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to state his concur- rence with the condition . Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make Ayes K K x x x the following findings : Noes x Absent * 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 , and that their contents have been considered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in significant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General .Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between projected traf - fic at time of completion and the capacity of affected intersections . 5. That the applicant has taken into considera- tion in the preparation of his plan , charac- teristics in the design of his development which either reduce traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections in the least congested - direction . 6 . That the applicant has caused to be prepared a Traffic Study of the circulation system in the vicinity of his project, which has deter- mined that the project will generate less than a 2% increase in traffic for any 'leg of the intersection during the peak two and one- half period . -3- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Alify ®f Newport Ach May 24, 1979 s z ROLL CALL INDEX and approve the Phasing Plan for California Cana- dian Bank , subject to the following condition : 1 . That no further development beyond that allow ed by the Phasing Plan shall be allowed on this site. .....n..m w.atr a.+�.ar�wrw.aw�cvwrw.rms:�.'.`ewnw� * * •..�.i�wcwwnn�.,.., Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 19 . 10 Ite #6 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to Condominium Conversions and the consideration AMEND- of an Environmental Document. MENT NO. 629 Initiated By: City of Newport Beach CONTINUED TO JUNE *Commissioner Haidinger arrived at 8 : 3/thisitem 7 , 1979 The Public Hearing was opened regardi,pp and James Gottier, Daon Corporation ,�'appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to o;ter their input regarding this subject. He expr 'ssed his feeling that each condominium project should be reviewed on the basis of its own merits , as each is unique unto itself. He stated hi s/h rther opposition to excluding a, conversion be,oause of factors external to the project, and coney"e"yed his feeling that the vacancy factor discussed in the ordinance is se- vere , and of an arbi,6 ary nature not relating di - rectly to the low-,cost housing problem. A discussion rG:garding Section 20 . 73. 06 was under- taken , and Co ' issioner McLaughlin stated her op- position to,,Oexempting 4 units- or less , as she felt • this would exempt a large number of rental units . CommiWfo ers Cokas and Agee suggested that a cut- off was appropriate , and that they felt 4 or fewer . . dwelling units was adequate. Motion x ;Motion was made that Section 20. 73. 06 be stricken Ayes x x ox� ' from the ordinance, and a straw vote was taken. Noes x x x A discussion regarding Section 20. 73. 10 J , Vacancy .41 Rate , was then undertaken and Commissioner McLaugh - lin suggested that a vacancy rate be determined twice a year rather. than once a year and under- taken by meter or postal count, or similar means R -4- 4` COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �m ft6ty of Newport Alch s vts� 9s as�Z 9G �'s�cmpc� May 10 , 1979 s 2 02 ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Neish then appeared before the - Planning Commis- sion to request a special meeting in t,re near fu- ture to continue discussion of thisO, Motion x Motion was made to continue the Public Hearing on All Ayes Items 9 , 10 , 11 and 12 to a spcial Planning Commis - sion meeting on Wedne-sday, M,a'y 16 , 1979 at 7: 30 p .m. /r Noes x x x Straw Vote was takeZ "e Substitute Motion , whic Abstain x x x x MOTION FAILED.Motion x Motion was then ma.de that no more than 10% of the Ayes x x dwelling units bel"rental units , upon which a Straw Noes x x x Vote was takenev Abstain x x /V Motion x Motion was ; hen made to continue Agenda Item Nos . All Ayes 13 and 1,,•'to the regular Planning Commission meeting of May//24, 1979 , due to the lateness of the hour. r I� /A J " ;4Request to consider an amendment to Title 20, Part Item #1. VII , Chapter 7 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ' to add regulations for condominiums and conversions AMEND- to the Special Use Regulations of the Zoning Code. ENT NO 529 Initiated By: The City of Newport Beach CONTIN- Motion z Motion was made to continue Item No . . 13 to the ED D TO All Ayes regular Planning Commission meeting of May 24, MAY 24, 1979 , due to the lateness of the hour. - 1979 Request of California . Canadian Bank for the approv- Item #1 al of a Phasing Plan for the remaining development on their property in the Koll Center 'Newport Plan- H SING ned Community District. PLAN! Location : The most westerly corner of Jamboree CONTIN- Road and Campus Drive in Koll Center •UED TO Newport. MAY 24 , 1979 Applicant: California Canadian Bank , Newport Beach Zone: P-C -24- YCOMMISSIONERS ,!� Newport,p, �j MINUTES 9cF o �a�� ®B B�1➢�.�YtI��Q'tL I� �'o� 90 Om'A ZC 9GC May 10, 1979 s y ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No . �14 to the All Ayes regular Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1979 , due td the lateness of the hour . * * * Request to establish a take-out facility -with on- sale beer and wine in Lido Village where retail / space now exists . USE PER MIT N0. Location : Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 54-17 1906 (Resubdivision No . 416) located at 3408 Via Oporto , on the easte�rly CONTIN- side of Via Oporto between Fentral UED TO Avenue and Via Lido in Lide Marina MAY 24 , Village. 1979 Zone: C-1-H Applicant: Lido Marina Villag , A General Part- nership , Newport/Beach Owner: Howard F. Ruby, General Partner, Los Angeles Motion x Motion was made to continue Item No . 15. to the Ayes x x x x x x regular - Planning Comm.Yssion meeting of May 24, Absent * 1979 ,- due to the len,,g'th of the regular Planning Commission- meetin/agenda of May 10 , 1979 . Request to efstablish a commercial use consisting Item #i of the outdoor sales of antique furnishings in the C-1-H Dist'rict, and the acceptance of an Environ- USE PER- mental Document. MIT NO . 1907 Lo mt'ion : Lots 14 through 17 , Tract No. 1210 , located at 600 West Coast Highway, CONTIN- on the northerly side of West Coast UED TO Highway , westerly of Dover Drive , a- ,DUNE 7 , cross West Coast Highway from Bay 1979 Shores Zone : C-1-H i i� Applicant: Leon Donald Brodnax , Jr. , Donique ' s , Antiques , Inc. , Newport Beach Y -25- r< r t Planning Commission Meeting May 10 , 1979 Agenda Item No. 14 CITY OF ,NEWPORT BEACH May 1 , 1979 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request of California Canadian Bank for the ap- proval of a Phasing Plan for the remaining develop- ment on their ro ert in the Koll Center New ort _ Planned Community District. Discussion LOCATION: The most westerly corner of Jamboree Road and Cam- pus Drive in Koll Center Newport. APPLICANT: California Canadian Bank, Newport Beach ZONE: P-C Background Information The California Canadian Bank has requested approval of a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No . 9742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No . 514 as it pertains to the Planned Com- munity Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. Attached for the Planning Commission ' s consideration in regard to this request are : a) Resolution No . 9742 b) Amendment No . 514 c) City Council Minutes - March 12 , 1979 d) Narative on Planning Commission : "Test of Reasonable- ness" - prepared by Langdon and Wilson for the appli - cant e) Traffic Report prepared by Weston Pringle and Assoc- iates , dated March 14, 1979 , for the applicants f) Koll Center Newport - Land Use Map g Proposed development site plan h; Negative Declaration Environmental Significance The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re- viewed the project and determined that it will not have signifi - canteetnvironmentadl effect. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. Phasing Plan The proposed buildout of the California Canadian Office complex is planned for April 1980. The timetable for the remaining de- I� TO: Planning Commission - 2 velopment is as follows : TIMETABLE January 1978 -Commenced Architectural design of Bank Expan- sion and office. November 1978 -Planning Commission approved Resubdivision No . 583. January 1 , 1979 -Plans submitted for plan check. Plan Check No. 1-79 and 2-79 . May 15, 1979 -Proposed ground breaking. March 1980 -Proposed initial occupancy. May 1980 -Proposed total occupancy. Resolution No. 9742 Attached for the Planning Commission ' s consideration is a copy of the applicant 's response to the Planning Commission guidelines for reviewing the Phasing Plan , as modified by the City Council (page 3 and 4 of Attachment "D" ) . Additionally, a copy of Reso- lution No . 9742 and the City Council Minutes for March 12, 1979 are attached.. Traffic Report A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle and Associates . The Traffic Report examined the 15 intersections identified for analysis in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is summarized below: INTERSECTION NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST 1. Bristol St. (N)/Campus Dr. 0. 20% 0. 00% - 0. 23% 2. Bristol St. (N)/Birch St. 0. 18% 0. 33% - 0. 13% 3. Bristol St. (N)/Jamboree Rd. 0.08% 0. 28% - 0.00% 4. Bristol St./Campus Dr. -Irvine Av. 0. 06% 0.00% 0. 17% - 5. Bristol St./Birch St. 0. 00% 0. 32% ' 0. 15% - 6. Bristol St./Jamboree Rd. 0. 02% 0. 13% 0. 11% - 7. Jamboree Rd./Campus Dr. 0.00% 0. 18% 0.83% 0.06% 8. Jamboree Rd./MacArthur Blvd . 0. 24% 0. 39% 0. 00% 0.03% 9. MacArthur Blvd./Campus Dr. '0.48% 0. 19% 0. 18% 0. 00% 10. Jamboree Rd./Ford Rd. Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal 11. Jamboree Rd. /San Joaquin Hills Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal 12. Jamboree Rd. /Coast Hwy. Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal 13. MacArthur Blvd./Ford Rd. Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal 14. MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin H. Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal 15. MacArthur Blvd./Coast Hwy. Nominal Nominal Nominal Nominal Based on the Traffic Report, none of the critical intersections effect- ed by this project have traffic increases on any approach which would be greater than 2%. If project traffic from committed developments and regional growth were added to the Spring/Winter 1978 traffic r TO: Planning Commission - 3 volumes , the project' s percentage of total traffic woubd be reduced further. Staff Analysis The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing 6 ,0M sq . ft. (gross ) building to 13 ,300 sq . ft. (gross) and the constru- ction of a new 10 ,800 sq. ft. (gross ) office) building : Existing 6,000 sq. ft. Proposed New 18,100 sq ., ft. Total Site 24,100 sq . ft. The proposed uses are consistent with the City ' s General Plan and the Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. Staff has suggested that , if the Planning Commission desires to approve the project, that no development beyond the above be allowed on this site. Suggested Action If desired , accept the Negative Declaration and approve the Phas- ing Plan with the findings and subject to the conditions , as fol - lows : FINDINGS: 1 . That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been pre- pared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 , and that their contents have been con- sidered in the decision on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration , the project will not result in sig- nificant environmental impacts . 3. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan a'nd the Planned Community Development Plan for Koll Center Newport. 4. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation be- tween projected traffic at time of completion and the capa- city of affected intersections . 5 . That the applicant has taken into consideration in the prepar- ation of his plan characteristics in - the design of his devel - opment which either reduce traffic generation or guide traf- fic onto less impact arterials or through intersections, in the least congested direction . TO: Planning Commission - 4 6. That the applicant has caused to be prepared a Traffic Study of the circulation system in the Vicinity of his project, which has determined that the project Will generate less than a 2% increase in traffic for any leg of the intersec- tion during the peak two and one-half period. CONDITION: 1. That no further development beyond that allowed by the Phas- ing Plan shall be allowed on this site. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR By izeelt Fred a ar co Environmental Coordinator FT/gg Attachments : Negative Declaration Letter, Patrick Allen , Dated March 22, 1979 Phasing Plan , Dated March 14, 1979 Traffic Study , Dated March 14, 1979 r r 5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: California Canadian Bank - Phasing Plan The most westerly corner of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive PROJECT LOCATION: in Koll Center Newport PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes the expansion of the existing 6,000 sq. ft. building to 13 ,300 sq . ft. and the construction of a new 10•,800 sq , ft. office building. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has eval-uated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. That no further development beyond that allowed by the Phasing Plan be allowed on this site. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Applicant and CitX of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date: , 1 CP LANGDON s WILSON A R C H I 7 E C T S �`y RCunEIVhL �� AAA h" ROBERT E. LANGDON JR. A.I.A. „may NEWPpa7 ti' .'qf ERNEST C. WILSON JR. A.I.A. C F.!`•G'i• HANS MUMPER A.I.A. `• ROBERT S. KRAFT A.I.A. FILL Co%plf March 22, 1979 DO NOiREM011e Mr. Fred Talarioo Environmental Coordinator Department of Cam=ity Development City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Reference: Resolution No. 9472/Koll Center Newport California Canadian Bank/office Site IF' Dear Mr. Talarico: The following material is being submitted to the Camunity Development Department for the purpose of processing a ,phasing plan for a portion of Koll Center Newport owned by California Canadian Bank. This material is in response to the Planning Cmlmi.ssion Amendment No. 514, the City Council Resolution No. 9472 and the final guidelines for a "Test of Reasonableness" adopted by the City Council on March 12, 1979. ITFM 1: 5 copies of a narrative on the proposed development and response to the "Test of Reasonableness" guidelines. ITEM 2: 5 copies of a traffic report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, dated March 14, 1979. ' ITEM 3: 5 copies of The Troll Center Newport Land Use Map. ITSM 4: 5 copies of a site plan depicting the proposed development. MAILING ADDRESS: P. O, BOX 2440 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 3990 WESTERLY PLACE 714/S33-9193 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 ' LANGDONs *LSON .7 A R C H I T E C T S Mr. Fred Talarico March 22, 1979 Page TWO We Would appreciate any feedback or concerns you might have prior to preparing your staff report. We are hoping that this item can be set for the April 5th or 19th Planning Commission Hearing. Please give me a call if you have any questions or require additional informa, tion. Sincerely, Patrick Allen PA/mre cc: w/enclosures Mr. Robert MCKerroll, President California Canadian Bank Mr. Robert Meserve, Senior Partner, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes Mr. George Anderson, Vice President & Manager, California Canadian Bank Mr. Wade Hampton, Director of Administration, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes Mr. Phil Kennedy, The Grainger Company Mr. Weston Pringle, Weston Pringle & Associates LANGOON t 4SON ! .1.--•. Page 1 of 9 A R C M 1 T E C T S FILE Copy w Gn4:'"�b F� ��! `'M DO NOT REMOVE ` March 14, 1979 PHASING PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE ROLL Cia,=R WiPORT PLANNED 006K NLTY The Planning Camdssion of the City of Newport Beach is requested to approve the following Phasing Plan for a portion of Roll Center Newport designated in the Planned Camomity Develogrent Standards as Professional and Business Office Site F. This site is owned by California Canadian Bank and, thereforet mist be considered as a separate entity fran the remainder of Roll Center Newport. 13AC�GfitlUtID . August 14, 1972 - The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1449 and accepted an acoa panying Enviroimnntal Impact Report. This ordinance is known as the Planned Camnmity Develcrpinent Standards for Koll Center Newport. October 5, 1978 - The Planning Camdssion approved Amendment No. 514 which requires the preparation of a Phasing Plan consistent with the Circulation Elenent of the General Plan for certain P. C. Districts. Novenber 27, 1978 - The City Council adopted Resolution No. 9472 amending the language in the Planned Camunity Districts. March 12, 1979 - The City Council adopted a definition in the form of eight guidelines of the Planning Commission teen "test of reasonableness". OFFICE SITE F STATISTICS Location: Vast corner of Jamboree Boulevard and Camrpus Drive. Site Area: 1.765 acres (76,883.4 sq. ft.) Permitted Uses: Office, Restaurants) and Service Station. Page 2 of 4 Allowable Building Office - 24,300 net square feet Area: Restaurants) - 1.765 acres (No area limit) Service Station - 1.765 acres (No area limit) Density Permitted: Office area to land 31:6% Restaurant(s) - No limit Service Station - No limit 4 Present Development: Office (Bank) - 5,640 Net square feet Restaurant(s) - None Service Station - None PROTPOSEDSE DEVELOPM M STATISTICS Existing Bank 5,640 net sq. ft. Proposed Bank Expansion 6,500 nets sq. ft. Proposed Office 10,160 net sq. -ft. TOTAL 22,300 net sq. ft. Therefore, there will be a reduction in allowable office area of 2,000 net square feet (8.2%) . Also, there will be no development of the permitted restaurants or service station. EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELORM" DESCRIPTION California Canadian Bank purchased and developed Office Site F in the spring of 1976. The development of this branch was to meet the needs of one of the Bank's major customers, The Fluor Corporation. The Bank has made a heavy investment in four (4) automated banking machines located at the Fluor facility in Irvine, which has virtually eliminated the need for Fluor's employees to drive to the Bank. This is allowing over 4,000 Fluor employees to do their personal banking without leaving the Fluor complex. Because of the success of the remote banking service to the Fluor corporation, California Canadian Bank must expand to accommodate the support staff and functions necessary to maintain its off-site automated banking machines and other related services. Restricting expansion may well cause Fluor employees to change banks, thus resulting in increased traffic in the area. in addition to the Bank Expansion, an office building is proposed for the law firm of M_serve, YAmper• & Hughes. This firm is presently located within Koll Center Newport and has California Canadian Bank as one of its clients. By the nature of the clientele and business, law offices do not have a significant impact on traffic. Meserve, MtIImper & Hughes will share a cam-an ` wall with one of their major clients, California Canadian Bank, which will further reduce the need for vehicular traffic. If this phasing plan is not approved, Meserve, Mmmmper & Hughes will relocate elesewhere in the City due to expansion needs. YdCjC � VI 4 {0 The proposed buildout of Office Site F represents the type of development that has built in traffic mitigation. TI FTAME January 1978 - danced Architectural design of Bank Dpansir» and office. November 1978 - Planning Canmi.ssien approved Resubdivisien 583. January 1, 1979 - Plans submitted for plan check. Plan Check No. 1-79 and 2-79. My 15, 1979 - Proposed groundbreaking. March 1980 - Proposed initial occupancy. May 1980 - Proposed total. occupancy. A = OF 1�7FS.S The following is in response to the eight points adopted by the City Council as bendTmrks to be evaluated in conjunction with approving a Phasing Plan. I M I: Examine extent of existing develo�nt and development 9 to cv[n�leted: See existing and proposed development statistics outlined above. IM 2: Traffic flan axis ' development and level t: see attachedtr Ic report prepared by Weston Pringle 5 Associates, dated March 14, 1979. TMI 3: 2% traffic increase: See the traffic report refermmd under Item impact of this project is less than 2% on all intersections. IM 4: Existing Traffic: See attached traffic report. IM 5: Completion of or contribution to completion of needed tra is improvements: Roll Center Newport his made a si ]cant contribution in the widening of MacArthur, Jamboree and Campus, as Well as signilization and interior street improvements, including extending Von Farman to MacArthur. Also, the City of Irvine has funded needed improvements for the Jamboree/Campus intersection. Roll Center has also been a strong lobby for the Von Ranman Overpass and resolution of the Corona Del. Mar Freeway. Furtber contributions in proportion to the smail„rxs of the proposed development are not feasible. ISM 6: DZAF7G'YIIR�G TRAFFIC: All access has been dedicated to the Caty except for one driveway on Jamboree and one driveway on Campus. IM-I 7: Projected traffic at aanpletion of proposed development: The City staff is prep ri g a projection o future develop- ment through 1985. The proposed buildout of California Canadian's Office Site F is April 1980: Projected traffic for 1980 would further reduce this proposed development's percentage of traffic contribution. . Page 4 of 4 I'iFS1 8: Perntanence of Mitigation: The proposed develcpment of Office Site F represents 100% of the possible develop- ment of this site. It would be physically impossible to utilize the 2,000 square foot office surplus or implement the permitted restaurant and service station uses. . The inherent mitigation resulting from California Canadian Badc's remote service to Fluor and the low traffic genera- tion of a law office will be pennanent. CONSIUSION in the case of Office Site F, the P.C. Phasing Plan requirement is mare restrictive than the Traffic Phasing ordinance. The proposed California Canadian Bank expansion is under the 10,000 square foot limit and the proposed office building for Yiese:ve, YAnper & Hughes could easily be modified to be under this limit. Therefore, this project would be exempt under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Also, the allowable office footage for office Site F represents a 31.6% building to land ratio, which is 188..44%pless than d density % density pmEtbed 29% is even •for the majority of Roll Center Newport The- From the information outlined above and the accompanying traffic report, this proposed P.C. Phasing Plan should become the benchmark for a "test of reason- ableness". ' f t ! tl1 % FILE COPN DO NOT REMOVE MIT 77 � 14 ti } a• ., a4 ii !z V` f • As p4O ns pxr h • � I. � ccHuo,1.•1.�•nu • I o u�.wo�t1�Yo��2�•- \ O = P.ta•v j :r.su icrQ Ul•l%i N:•a �-J —.� W £l_%c-re9=L c9!'_a. .._y'__ _ -_- _ • -A�-•r.ava •.. r F -wN L•V•C.CVL_ _l� pt��fi+r i.]3 • _ - I -- ' it p[kwuwY 1 i 1 ._. W W be •A ' �'_ ,U.f✓/ rwv4 Secs ^� • • C4:.� — �{ �. �/ li � I`i .,,-G- K- .--ems=-=, . a : _ ]•.: �j ', / �/-.f� . J A i i �I ' Y - I1 -'R e i s e` �/ /�'�T. j tt�� .�'•Aµ�I+ill I' It R•. pc. s-. . ssr- \ r�i L C vt L_4 r \♦ _I. < ; --ice ,, c � + it mac• a i <. � N •+.trn�+N-.c o •` C _11 bM11 % 1 N•t \ ` ,�� ` t _ ^- III A.v? u 1 I .e• j ..4 tL'• I — —7 1{ 1 I '4 iWiI1Hq ' < .rN CS'w6 Llaos{LtIJc % � \� 1 1 07 A,AFILE. -COPY, y : pp-INOT REMG LAG % � t7 VO w], GRs, � ySNl L• CONE. WR: iP lV.:<F L'aSS:I:L. 1. .01 5�? L�LN,u= 3:5 SSY G•I l{ P•.. — � 3R3{IJL CENC. LIIR33 7P RY/AAIa, S. !'O4 31S^ G0.An„•�. L nY3• !r1 LA!Y. /♦$A� A•6�: 1,.-- �ti\ .oG•YGO AR4A :FO:CA;S. f%n' .-. fIc r+JRL,47 LAYPY Lc I.A.Av.'AY3 c �♦Y}C \ I a z LA.n:..d< � :wrt•Lr:s -_. �:1 I V r p LROEL NA;gw p'l. I,rK:Y5 F " • _I ' a New r.oa. �pW71Fj�,Ln ?LL N�7.a:A� CIYe ,:c�. SFr :v_ R:,-+c; e en . Q 3L6 A0.Y+ INOd0.7l�i ./•%L`71M1L • 'JTI t Cow4TFtlETiPN ?O RCMAW s I' _ GAI.1FGRr111+ G�NA(�dN P�nANi�--� MF1a E.�MuNj i�Ph --- -" N Ewpflo'*�LJ;4--- - -.t'- 0 w +10% w A Wealm Pk*k ad AwdaW TRAFFIC &TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING FILE COPY 11 N March 14 1979 �! p0)NOT REMOVE RECEIVED Community it Dovcoopt. 4 Mr. Pat Allen MAR2 319791M _ 1 Langdon and Wilson Architects CITY OF P.O. Box 440 % NFCALIF SE Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Allen: This 1e summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the proposed letter Y expansion of the California Canadian Bank and adjacent office building in the Koll Center Newport development. The study was conducted to evaluate the cir- culation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number a 9472 requiting an improvement phasing plan for this project. Current traffic volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance was utilized. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Canadian Bank is located within the Koll Center Newport at the southwest corner of Jamboree Boulevard, and Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. Vehicular access to the site is provided by both Campus and Jamboree and both are limited to right turns .in and out. The existing development consists of a 6000 square fout bank building with a walk up window, a 24 hour automatic teller and three drive through facilities. The inside bank tellers operate between 10:00 M1 and 3:00 PM, the walk up window operates between 3:00 PM and 5:00 at and the drive through facilities operate between 8:30 M1 and 5:00 PM Monday through Thursday. All facilities are open untill 6:00 PM on Friday. The California Canadian Bank appears to operate in a rather unique manner in relation to other banks. The largest client of the bank is Flour Corporation, 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (114) 671-2931 _L 15 and their employees. The Flour offices are connected to the bank by computer and all transactions between the bank and their Flour customers can be hand- led without requiring the customers to physically visit the bank building. Consequently this type of operation appears to generate less traffic than would be expected from a typical bank. Proposed development includes an expansion of the existing 6000 square foot bank building to 13,300 square feet. The 34 existing bank employees are expect- ed to increase to an ultimate of 40 employees after the bank expansion. In addition to the bank expansion a 10,800 square foot law office will also be constructed on the site. TRIP GENERATION On Tuesday February 13, 1979 counts were made of traffic entering and exiting the existing bank driveways to determine what traffic was being generated by the bank during the PM peak hours. The PM peak hour was found to be between 4:00 and 5:00 PM which was expected because the walk up window and drive through facilities close at 5:00 PM. There was, however, some traffic gener- ated after 5:00 PM by the 24 hour automatic teller but less than the peak hour traffic. Thirty-four inbound and 34 'outbound vehicles were counted dur- ing the 4:00 FM to 5:00 PM peak. It was assumed that the PM peak hour trips by customers would increase in relation to the increase in employees Which will increase by a factor of 1.18. Multiplying the 34 inbound and outbound trips counted during the peak hour by this factor would give 40 inbound and 40 out- bound trips. The net increase during the PM peak hour would be the 40 trips after exapnsion less the existing 34 trips or 6 trips inbound and 6 trips outbound. The net increase after expansion during the 2.5 hour peak would be 12 trip in- bound and 12 trips outbound. The Bank employees are expected to increase their outbound trips from 34 to 40 during the 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM period for a net increase of 6 outbound trips. Tables 1 and 2 show the generation rates and estimated volumes for the proposed 10,800 square feet of law offices as well-as the estimated trips expected to be generated by the bank customers and employees during the PM peak hour and PM a 2.5 hour period. 3 IG? Table I PM Peak Hour Trip Generation California Canadian Bank Net Volume IAND USE Rate Volume Increase In Out In Out In Out Office (10,800 SF) 0.6 1.7 6 18 6 18, Customers —. 40 40 6 6 Employees _ 0 0 0 '0 Totals 46 58 12 24 Table 2 2.5 Hour Trip Generation California Canadian Bank Net Volume IAND USE Rate Volume Increase In Out In Out In Out Office (10,800 SF) 1.2 3.4 13 37 13 37 Customers _ _ 80 80 12 12 Employees _ _ 0 40 0 6 Totals 93 157 25 55 17 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution developed in previous studies involving Koll Center Newport has been used in this study and is illustrated in Figure 1. This dis- tribution is for outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be. the same percentage generally in the opposite direction, although because of one-way streets and the right-turn-in/right-turn-out situation at the bank site, the inbound traffic may take different routes than outbound traffic. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 15 intersections iden- tified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were ex- Amined. For this examination the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" form from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Appendix A contains the data for nine of these intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. The remain- ing 6 intersections at Jamboree/Ford•, Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills, Jamboree/ 'Coast, Mac Arthur/Ford, Mac Arthur/San Joaquin Hills and Mac Arthur/Coast were not included because they are expected to have nominal traffic from the project. The inbound and outbound traffic expected to be generated on both Jamboree and Mac Arthur southerly of Bristol are 1 vehicle and 3 vehicles, respectively, during the 2.5 hour period which is relatively insignificant. Those intersections which would have increases in traffic volumes of two per- cent or greater on any approach during the peak 2.5 hour period are considered critical. The two percent level was based upon determination by the Newport Beach City Council on March 12, 1979. None of the intersections effected by this project have traffic increases on any approach of greater than 2%. In fact the greatest increase expected at any intersection is 0.83% which is on the eastbound approach of Campus at Jamboree. CONCLUSION'S None of intersections effected by traffic generated by the proposed development have increases in volume greater than 2% of any approach. Therefore, none of I$ 25% 10% 25% _ Q —r 5% W PROJECT SITE J J W r LO � y+ in 9C q9 9 q N w D CL m x O U K m 20% BRISTOL ST. NORTH BRISTOL ST. 5% 5% 5% TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 'I Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUtM1ARY California Canadian Bank INTERSECTION PERCENT TRAFFIC INCREASE Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound • Bristol NorLb at Campus 0.20 0 _ 0.23 Bristol North at Birch 0.18 0.38 — 0.13 Bristol North at Jamboree 0.08 0.28 _ 0 Bristol at Campus 0.06 0 0.17 — Bristol at Birch 0 0.32 0.15 Bristol at Jamboree 0.02 0.13 0.83 — Jamboree at Campus 0 0.18 0 0.06 Jamboree at ?lac Arthur 0.24 0.39 0.18 0.03 Mac Arthur at Campus 0.48 0.19 0 ZD the intersections are considered critical and further investigaLion is unnec- essary. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINCLE AND ASSOCI.ITCS Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:RB:cd 9060 zi "PENDlx 2.5 Hour Intersection Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IS DRI E - kt�kAEOW. (Existing Traffic Yolumes based on verage inter/Spring'197_) Existing 1X of Existing Project Approach Peak is Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2 Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volumc Northbound 1504 15 E thbound 3705 37Otbound --tboUnd 4790 48 PUI Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing {CAI Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PkOJELT , 23 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Hinter/Spring 1978) ; Existing 1% of Existing Project rastbound Peak 2h Hour Peak 2;, Hour Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Voltw 552 6 O-/8 90 2120 21 8 0.33 70 -- -- stbound 3053 31 4 0.1370 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' f INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM I PROJECT: • � 1 i zy 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volume's based' on Kverage 'Wiriter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project DirectionApproach Peak 2k u Hour Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vol Northbound 5153 52 ¢ 0. 0820 outhbound 2811 288 0.2890 Eastbound -- -- egtbbund 0 O M Project Traffic is estimated to be less than2% of Existing IW Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization - (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INT[RSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD _.. _. ---• FORM I PROJECT: ' 25 17. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/WIPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Hinter/Spring 1979) Exiting 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak R2 Hour Peak 2': Hour Peak 2'; Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume — Traffic :olu nx - i O.O<o 90, Northbound. 1606 _ 16 —_ outhbound 3164 32 O � Eastbound 3027 30 estbound -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 23z Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization " (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. INT«SECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: z4 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street Birch Street (Existing Traffic Vo owes based on verage Winter/Spring 1978) Existing l of Existing Project F)irection Peak 2's Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VoluffK 223 3 DO 943 10 3 0.32 astbound 2656 27 4 O•/5�O stbound ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Bristol FORM I PROJECT: 7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STRF T/1gMRORFF ROAO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1.97g) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2l, Hour Peak 23, Hour Peak 211 Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vol O,02 90 orthbound 4996 50 1 outhbound 2359 24 astbound 2778 -28 stbound -- {pi Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing ILA! Peak 2►z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. INTFPSFCTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROALI : 0 z� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD. CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) --------------- Existing lx of Existing Project Eorthbound Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic r Peak 21� Hour Peak Volur • o 0 3417 34 to O. /890/*7 0.83O, O(o 90 {p1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing {eI Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume n Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 9% of Existing L-1 Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: l ,y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Vo unes based On Average inter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2h Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2� Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vo u orthbound 1681 17 outhbound 2814 28 0.39TO O O astbound 2923 29 stbound 3037 30 0.03% / ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing ElPeak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) MacArthur Blvd. is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Vera e N rater/Spring 19k) (Existing Traffic Yo umes dse on 9 Existing 1% of Existing ProPeak ject [Pre Traffic Voluume Traffic Volume FTraffic Volur 2888 29 3129 31 0.N70 1693 17oda7o 2004 20 O {C71 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing WI Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than?% of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilizatiorr (I-C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT; LANGDON & WILSON A R C H 1 T E C T S ROBERT E. LANGDON JR. A.I.A. ^ ERNEST C. WILSON JR. A.I.A. HANS MUMPER A.I.A. RECEED CommunttIV ROBERT S. KRAFT A.I.A. Development 3 Dept. 01 MAYY 1979b- .a cITY OF May 1, 1979 6 N PCA IF.EACH, S ti Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Reference: Resolution No. 9472/Koll Center Newport California Canadian Bank/Office Site F Dear Mr. Talarico: Enclosed is the completed Environmental Information Form for the project referenced above. For your reference, this proposed project is consistent with the original Koll Center Newport Environ- mental Impact Report NB 72-005, dated December 19, 1972. Per our telephone conversation the staff report and agenda will P Po g be available late Friday afternoon, May 4, 1979, and the Planning Commission Hearing will be Thursday, May 10, 1979. Sincerely, Patrick Allen PA/mre cc: w/enclosures Mr. Robert McKerroll, President California Canadian Bank Mr. Robert Meserve, Senior Partner, Meserve, MmVer & Hughes Mr. George Anderson, Vice President & Manager, California Canadian Bank Mr. Wade Hampton, Director of Administration, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes Mr. Phil Kennedy, The Grainger Company Mr. Weston Pringle, Weston Pringle & Associates MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 2440 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 3990 WESTERLY PLACE 714/833-9193 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 APPENDIX H Date Filed May 1, 1111 Environmental Information Form (To be completed by. applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: California Canadian Bank, 340 Pine Street San Francisco_ 941Q4 _ 2. Address of project: 4699 Jamboree Blvd. N rt Bea Assessor's Block and Lot Number 45-124-06 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Patrick Allen/Landodn & Wilson chitectG- 3990 Westerly Place Newport Be h ^-"` "^"" "1A` 4123 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: KCN-P.C. Text Phasing Plan Approval and P.C. No. 's 1-79 and 2-79 s an escr a any o her related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: r, - 6. Existing zoning district: P. C 7. Proposed use of site (Project for .which this. form is filed) : Bank Expansion and Office PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 1,765 ac. 9. Square footage. 5,640 s.f. existing bank, 6r500 s.f. bank exp. 10r160 s.f. office 10. ?;-.;-.iber of floors of construction.one + basement. 11 . ,, pant of off-street parking provided. 12 . Attach plans. See Phasing Plan Submittal. 13. Proposed scheduling. Start construction June lst 1979 and Occupancy by February 1980. 111 . Associated projects . 15. Anticipated incremental development. N/A. ' 1 82 16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. N/A. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. Neighborhood/City oriented. 18. If industrial•, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. N/A. Are the following items applicable to the project or• its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO X 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, " — beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lauds or roads. X 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general `— area of -project. X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water —� quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change 1n existing noise or vibration _ levels in the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. H3 r YES NO X 30. Substantial change .in demand for municipal services ' (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) - X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption -- (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) . X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING * 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures. on the site, and the use of the• structures. Attach photographs- of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. N/A * 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, ets. ), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc. ) Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. N(A CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished a ove an in the attached exhibits preset.t the data and infor mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented ' are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief'. Date 30 April 1979 na ure l.4 , For r=n__ p9do&u, i nT tests— * This Project falls within the development limits of Ordinance No. 1449 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on August 14, 1972 and its accompany- ing EIR. Also, the existing site is fully developed with a building pad, hardscape and landscape. The sites adjacent to this project are also fully developed. •7 .i i. <h.c�. N APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent WttfiMs" (&yPAt.t+Al Qb%K%f— 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent y340 Ptwc ie t S&IJ Pmve"40 riettl_ ACAJP-IJ 33—Wil 3. Date of Checklist Submission 6111-191 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Ng4it t" 1BejV4A% 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Nish II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? K b. Disruptions, displacements, com— paction or overcovering of the soil? k . c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? n d. The destruction, covering or modi— fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ 73 • • YES MAYBE NO it 1 g. Exposure of people or property to II geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground ^ j� failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration'of ambient air quality? _ b. 1he creation of objectionable odors? wC c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates•, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ c. Alterations to the course of flow of / flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? E e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ` •f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi— tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of 'water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 PPE-2A:22 • • / YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: i a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any •species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, K crops , and aquatic plants)? — i b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species K of plants? — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? — d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? — 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise X levels? 7. Lipht and Clare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? k 75 e 7 YF.S MAYRF_ NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Y( b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? K 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? K 12. Rousing. Will- the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the ( proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? K d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to notor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have .an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : u 76 PPE-2A:24 . • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? -� b. Police protection? K NC c: Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e.. Maintenance of public facilities, X including roads? X f, other governmental services? 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a j need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? —�- C. Water? - - d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f, solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? --- b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically -offensive site open to public view? _- 9 YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? K 20. Archeological/Historical. Will tbn proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical K site, structure, object or building? 21. 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 periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage ^ of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— ! ' term impacts will endure well into the I ' future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination ^ (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 78 , e YPE-2A:2b • • 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. Q 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have .been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will i be prepared. Q I find the proposed project MAY have a significant •effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is r quired. ski l7� - i Date Sign I, For �I • (Note: This is only a sugge sted form. Public ag nci a are free to devise • their own format for initial studies.) • � I a ; 79 r , + • P A Weofo� Pni�tgee ad J400� TRAFFIC &TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I March 14, 1979 r Mr. Pat Allen Langdon and Wilson Architects P.O. Box 440 Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Allen: This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the proposed expansion of the California Canadian Bank and adjacent office building in the Koll Center Newport development. The study was conducted to evaluate the cir- culation needs in response to the Newport Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing plan for this project. Current traffic volume data compiled by the City for the Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance was utilized. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Canadian Bank is located within the Koll Center Newport at the southwest corner of Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive in the City of Newport Beach. Vehicular access to the site is provided by both Campus and Jamboree and both are limited to right turns .in and out. The existing development consists of a 6000 square Loot bank building with a walk up window, a 24 hour automatic teller and three drive through facilities. The inside bank tellers operate between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, the walk up window operates between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM and the drive through facilities operate between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Thursday. All facilities are open untill 6:00 PM on Friday. The California Canadian Bank appears to operate in a rather unique manner in relation to other banks. The largest client of the bank is Flour Corporation 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FPLLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931 y M y 0 and their employees. The Flour offices are connected to the bank by computer and all transactions between the bank and their Flour customers can be hand- led without requiring the customers to physically visit the bank building. Consequently this type of operation appears to generate less traffic than would . be expected from a typical bank. Proposed development includes an expansion of the existing 6000 square foot bank building to 13,300 square feet. The 34 existing bank employees are expect- ed to increase to an ultimate of 40 employees after the bank expansion. In addition to the bank expansion a 10,800 square foot law office will also be constructed on the site. TRIP GENERATION On Tuesday February 13, 1979 counts were made of traffic entering and exiting the existing bank driveways to determine what traffic was being generated by the bank during the PM peak hours. The PM peak hour was found to be between 4:00 and 5:00 PM which was expected because the walk up window and drive through facilities close at 5:00 PM. There was, however, some traffic gener- ated after 5:00 PM by the 24 hour automatic teller but less than the peak hour traffic. Thirty-four inbound and 34 outbound vehicles were counted dur- ing the 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM peak. It was assumed that the PM peak hour trips by customers would increase in relation to the increase in employees which will increase by a factor of 1.18. Multiplying the 34 inbound and outbound trips counted during the peak hour by this factor would give 40 inbound and 40 out- bound trips. The net increase during the PM peak hour would be the 40 trips after exapnsion less the existing 34 trips or 6 trips inbound and 6 trips outbound. The net increase after expansion during the 2.5 hour peak would be 12 trip in- bound and 12 trips outbound. The Bank employees are expected to increase their outbound trips from 34 to 40 during -the 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM period for a net increase of 6 outbound trips. Tables 1 and 2 show the generation rates and estimated volumes for the proposed 10,800 square feet of law offices as well as the estimated trips expected to be generated by the bank customers and employees during the PM peak hour and PM 2.5 hour period. -3- t Y Table 1 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation California Canadian Bank Net Volume LAND USE Rate Volume Increase In Out In Out In Out . Office (10,800 SF) 0.6 1.7 6 18 6 18 Customers — 40 40 6 6 Employees — 0 0 0 '0 Totals 46 58 12 24 Table 2 2:5 Hour Trip Generation California Canadian Bank Net Volume LAND USE Rate Volume Increase In Out In Out In Out Office (10,800 SF) 1.2 3.4 13 37 13 37 Customers _ _ 80 80 12 12 Employees _ _ 0 40 0 6 Totals 93 157 25 55 -4- • TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The geographic distribution developed in previous studies involving Koll Center Newport has been used in this study and is illustrated in Figure 1. This dis- tribution is for outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would b& the same percentage generally in the opposite direction, although because of one-way streets and the right-turn-iri/right-turn-out situation at the bank site, the inbound traffic may take different routes than outbound traffic. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 15 intersections iden- tified for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were ex- amined. For this examination the 1'1% Traffic Volume Analysis" form from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized. Appendix A contains the data for nine of these intersections and the results are summarized in Table 3. The remain- ing 6 intersections at Jamboree/Ford, Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills, Jamboree/ Coast, Mac Arthur/Ford, Mac Arthur/San Joaquin Hills and Mac Arthur/Coast were not included because they are expected to have nominal traffic from the project. The inbound and outbound traffic expected to be generated on both Jamboree and Mac Arthur southerly of Bristol are 1 vehicle and 3 vehicles, respectively, during the 2.5 hour period which is relatively insignificant. Those intersections which would have increases in traffic volumes of two per- cent or greater on any approach during the peak 2.5 hour period are considered critical. The two percent level was based upon determination by the Newport Beach City Council on March 12, 1979. None of the intersections effected by this project have traffic increases on any approach of greater than 2%. In fact the greatest increase expected at any intersection is 0.83% which is on the eastbound approach of Campus at Jamboree. CONCLUSIONS None of intersections effected by traffic generated by the proposed development have increases in volume greater than 2% of any approach. Therefore, none of • 25% 10% 25% a t' —5% ' M w PROJECT SITE J J ' W F LO c; qc y,Q 9 q o cn TyG� y9 W w W a o �• m a � _ - O U m 20% BRISTOL ST. NORTH BRISTOL ST. 1 1 T 5% - 5% 5% TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE I WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Table 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY California Canadian Bank T.NTERSPCTION PERCENT TRAFFIC INCREASE Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Bristol North at Campus 0.20 0 0.23 Bristol North at Birch 0.18 0.38 -_ 0.13 Bristol North at Jamboree 0.08 0.28 _ 0 Bristol at Campus 0.06 0 0.17 _ Bristol at Birch 0 0.32 0.15 _. Bristol at Jamboree 0.02 0.13 0.83 — Jamboree at Campus 0 0.18 0 0.06 Jamboree at Mac Arthur 0.24 0.39 0.18 0.03 Mac Arthur at Campus 0.48 0.19 0 1 • -6- the, intersections are considered critical and further investigation is unnec- essary. We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport a' Beach. If you have any questions or require-additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, W,,ESSTTO/ON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. S,%SP:RB:cd <.`- 9060 - 1 APPENDIX 2.5 Hour Intersection Analysis 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E - IRYINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring-197_) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2k Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2: Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu Northbound 1504 15 3 a 207 Eas uthbound 3705 37tbound -- // p• 23� , stbound 4790 48 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Z% of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street North/Birch Street i (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach . Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2z Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic VoluuK orthbound 552 6 outhbound 2120 21 8 O.33 astbound -- -- estbound 3053 31 4 D./3 9 �71 Project Traffic is-estimated-to be- less than 2% of Existing (LEI Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 23i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity UtilizatioA (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Bristol Street North/Birch Street FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD v (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project [asthound Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Traffic -Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu 5153 52 ¢ 0. 0870 g 0.08% 2 -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than2 % of Existing Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 21Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization . (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979) Existing 1% of Existing Project Approach Peak 2'= Hour Peak 21: Hour Peak 21_ Hour Direction Traffic Volume Traffic Volume _Traffic Volu lm 16 ' -- O.Ol� �o Northbound 1606 —— outhbound 3164 32 O � Eastbound 3027 30 estbound -- -- 71 Project Traffic is estimated to be less thane % of Existing 1bJ Peak 232 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is 'required. INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DRIVE - IRVINE AVE. FORM I PROJECT: ' t I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol Street Birch re ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2h Hour Peak- 22-Hour-- Peak-2;j Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Vol orthbound 223 3 O O _ outhbound 943 10 3 0.32 astbound 2656 27 4 stbound ® - Project -Traffic-.is estimated_ta•be-less than2% of Existing Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume I--� Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing LJ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION Bristol t FORM I PROJECT: I Imo_ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRI�TOL C_RFET/1AMRnRFF ROAn (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197,8) r Existing 1% of Existing Project pproach -Peak 2t; Hour Peak- 2y7 Hour Peak 242 Hour irection Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Traffic Volu / 0, 027S outhbound 4996 50 outhbound 2359 24 3 O. !3 astbound 2778 '28 stbound -- Project Traffic is estimated-to be--less than 2% of Existing VNI Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume aProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than?_1 of Existing Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. INTEPSECTION BRISTOL STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD FORM I PROJE(.T: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BLVD (CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) t' Eing 1% of Existing PT t pproach 7Peakx2:k Hour Peak 22 Hour - PeaHour irection fiolume Traffic Volume Trafolu - O orthboundouthbound3417 34 O. !8 to astbound / o, oco 90 stbound Ifi ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION JAMBOREE BLVD./CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis (1) Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. (Existing Traffic Yo umes based on verage Winter/Spring 1978) ExistingT1% of Existing Project pproach Peak 2 Houreak 2 Hour Peak.2 Hour irection Traffic Volumaffic Volume - Traffic Vol 0.2¢�o orthbound 1681 17 4 outhbound 2814 28 /l 0.3970 astbound 2923 . 29 O D - stbound 30 3037 Project Traffic is- estimated to be less than 2% of Existing ® Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume DProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic-Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. (1) MacArthur 'Blvd. is assumed north and south INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD/MacARTHUR BLVD. FORM I PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 197�) Existing 1% of Existing Project FasLb2u2n94d Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume Traffic Volume - Traffic Volu 2866 24 /4t 0,48 yo 31 3129 169317 2004 20 O O fO Project -Traffic -is estimated to be less than 2% of Existing 4NI Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 2% of Existing Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION MacARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DRIVE FORM I PROJECT: Page 1 of 4 LANGDON E WSON • A R G H t T Elp T S March 14, 1979 PHASING PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED CONA4R M The Planning Camdssion of the City of Newport Beach is requested to approve the following Phasing Plan for a portion of Koll Center Newport designated in the Planned CaRmmi.ty Develogmnt Standards as Professional and Business Office Site F. This site is owned by California Canadian Bank and, therefore, mast be considered as a separate entity from the remainder of Koll Center Newport. BACKGFj= August 14, 1972 - The City Council adopted ordinance No. 1449 and accepted an accoapanying Environmental Impact Report. This ordinance is known as the Planned Caammity Develogrnnt Standards for Koll Center Newport. October 5, 1978 - The Planning Co m fission approved Amendment No. 514 which requires the preparation of a Phasing Plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for certain P. C. Districts. November 27, 1978 - The City Council adopted Resolution No. 9472 amending the language in the Planned Camnnity Districts. March 12, 1979 - The City Council adopted a definition in the form of eight guidelines of the Planning Caanission tern "test of reasonableness". OFFICE SITE F STATISTICS Location: West corner of Jamboree Boulevard and Campus Drive. Site Area: 1.765 acres (76,883.4 sq.-ft.) Permitted Uses: Office, Restaurant(s) and Service Station. Page 2 of 4 Allowable Building Office - 24,300 net square feet Area: Restaurant(s) - 1.765 acres (No area limit) Service Station - 1.765 acres (No area limit) Density Permitted: Office area to land 31.6% T Restaurant(s) - No limit Service Station - No limit Present Development: Office _(Bank) - 5,640 Net square feet Restaurant(s) - None Service Station - None PROPOSED DEVELOPMERr STATISTICS Existing Bank 5,640 net sq. ft. Proposed Bank Expansion 6,500 net sq. ft. Proposed Office 10,160 net sq. ft. TOTAL 22,300 net sq. ft. Therefore, there will be a reduction in allowable office area of 2,000 net square feet (8.2%) . Also, there will be no development of 'the permitted restaurants or service station. EXISTING AND PROPOSED MIMOPM M DESCRIPTICN California Canadian Bank purchased and developed Office Site F in the spring of 1976. The development-of this--branch--was to meet the needs of one of the Bank's major customers, The Fluor Corporation. The Bank has made a heavy investment in four (4) autamted banking machines located at the Fluor facility in Irvine, which has virtually eliminated the need for Fluor's employees to drive to the Bank. This is allowing over 4,000 Fluor employees to do their personal banking without leaving the Fluor ccnplex. Because of the success of the remote banking service to the Fluor Corporation, California Canadian Bank must expand to acccnnodate the support staff and functions necessary to maintain its off-site autanated banking machines and other related services. Restricting expansion may well cause Fluor employees to change banks, thus resulting in increased traffic in the area. In addition to the Bank Expansion, an office building is proposed for the law firm of Meserve, Mumper & Hughes..--.Thies firm is presently located within Roll Center Newport and has California Canadian .Bank as one of its clients. By the nature of the clientele and -business;-law offices .do not have -a - - significant impact on traffic. Meserve, Mumper & Hughes will share a cMMM wall with one of their major clients, California Canadian Bank, which will further reduce the need for vehicular traffic. if this, pil s plan is not approved, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes will.relocate elesewhere--in the City due to expansion needs. Page 3of 4 The proposed buildout of Office Site F represents the type of development that bas built in traffic mitigation. TIMETAT�F January 1978 - Commenced Architectural design of Bank Expansion and office. November 1978 - Planning Commission approved Resubdivision 583. January 1, 1979 - Plans submitted for plan check. Plan Check No. 1-79 and 2-79. May 15, 1979 - Proposed ground breaking. Mitch 1980 - Proposed initial occupancy. May 1980 -. Proposed total. occupancy. A T%V OF RE .ffi� The following is in response to the eight points adopted by the City Council as benctmarks to be evaluated in conjunction with approving a Phasing Plan. ITEM I: Ermine extent of existing developmnt and development rxma=g— to be anpleted: See existing and proposed development statistics outlined above. IIIri 2- Traffic from existing development-and proposed development: See attached traffic report prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, dated March 14, 1979. ITW 3: 2% traffic increase: See the traffic report referenced under Item Y. The impact of this project is less than 2% on all intersections. ITEM 4: Existing Traffic: See attached traffic report. ITEM 5: Ccmple.=,of or contribution to completion-of needed traffic EFmvemsnts: Koll Center Newport has nude a significant contribution in the widening of MacArthur, Jamboree and Campus,- as well as signilization and interior street improvements, including extending Von Kauuan to MacArthur. Also, the City of Irvine has funded-needed improvements for the Jamboree/Carpus intersection. Koll Ceater has also been a strong lobby for the Von Yarman Overpass and resolution of the Corona Del Mar Freeway. Further-contributions in- proportion to the smallness of the proposed development are 'not-feasible. " ITEM. 6.. DIRDCIMG maAFFICz _ All access has -been .dedicated to the - City except for.one :driveway on Jamboree and o4e:driveway on Campus: ITh31 7: Projected traffic at ocapletion_of.proposed :developmnt: The City -staft'as- preparing.a.projec�ion of future develop- ment through 1985. =3'he proposed buildout of California Canadian's Office Site T is April 1980. Projected traffic for 1980 would further reduce this proposed development's percentage of traffic contribution. Page 4 of 4 IT M 8: PeIIn3nence of Mitigation: The proposed development of Off oe Site F represents 100$ of the possible develop- ment of this site. it would be physically impossible to utilize the 2,000 square foot office surplus or - implement the permitted restaurant and service statibn uses. The inherent mitigation resulting from California Canadian Bank's rex)te service to Fluor and the low traffic genera- tion of a law office will be permanent. LION In the case of office Site F, the P.C. Phasing Plan Mquiremmt is mare restrictive than the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposed California Canadian Bank expansion is under the 10,000 square foot limit and the proposed Office building for Meserve, Y mgaer & Hughes could easily be modified to be mrier this limit. Therefore, this project would be exempt under the Traffic Phasing ordinance. Also, the allowable office footage for office Site F represents a 31.6t building to land ratio, which is 18.44%pless�than�dethe 50%nsity of en ity Permitted �'maj�tY of Roll Center Newport• From the information outlined above and the ac= panying traffic report, this proposed P.C. phasing plan should become the benclmkzrk for a "test of reason- ableness". CITY OF NEWPORT BENCH[ December 13, 1978 Frank Stiefel 4440 Von Karman $ui_te 330' Newport Beach, CA 926.60 Re: Traffic Consultants Mr. Stiefe1 : Pursuant to our conversation on December 13, 19.78, I have enclosed a copy of the traffic consultant list concurrently'be.Tng used in the administration of the City'Is Traffic Phasing Ordinance.. The City looks forward to working with, you on your project, Respectfully, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By Fred TalarfcT- Environmental Coordinator FT/dt Enclosure City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. r • IL Ir AP milly III _ VAN Connected twin S 10-story buildings containing i 370,000 square feet - with on-site parking. •. IIIIIIIIII �_. � �� III II IIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII� \�bt V • I. i�llll I I I I i i i r, ,vim .1 � '' •111li Alf 011, PF 1 i �) / •�•�� ///V - / trey;;/�' �,' ,r �. !/ of 3� r rr 3%'' �3. ,' 1 i MM IVA \I.Uil / 7I � I�,I t' I c , .,.:4'%/' / �, J� y�/ �� /-. ��. .� / � .� ) ✓�fj�.J/'�/� � 71 -• • • �• • • - - � rti 'y 'k lqd �ij� / + . - V �/. y l��s�� a ` , `Itl �� • •- � 1. T � MY. / 1 1 �1�� / IN �r J � � •�� _ • . -• • • • � III, i � �� 'I I I � � �� /��'�/� l��l� ; �� _• - - ��iir��,lglr G ' 1�r �- , r ,/,1n, � �' t,IVJ ��,,,i>[// i/. /� - • • o • ••• • • - /�� ,�'� �� (I I/ � �1 � i11 I ° 'l i� � I+ �/ Il�r i ��111�� v/i , � 1� IJ'% 11 • 111 • • - -- !i�'I,/ I,,,.� t�l: ' � I �, �/- � ,� I p ull� , ��i� �" .1'1 - • • - • • • • r1'��_� / / 1Y1 (/�1'� 1 ' '{I �'I � � % �ii � ;�� .� Iy � (� � I!. � / �� '�r„ :�,.�� fl �1 �� r�/'�� ... ♦ � -• • • • - • • • � � l� � � I.�� r � 1 _ /1 "1 �/ ' �i I / i *1 I�/�'� { �I�1� III t /�� 11FAM�'� '/' I I //l i / I '1�� •`G' �/� � � � ,ry �i rl� +rl{r��ll � � � �"/�� •-• - • • - • - I q ,, r/n , 'I 'JAI �i'! fw. • v � l �P I,r , �I I �,(�/'- • • -• • �� '�f'�� i , I 1 I /Y''�I �� S� �a. - ��> �_'I//� � /�(�� /�, ' �;,�h•' / /' qb�H �� 'l ' Ir N�/ r/ - • - • • - • 0 4.y1. �'.! r {�' � %�'! , I .t �r !� �� r�,� �Jrf(� ' 11�{v� �� •,i!�� _{LYI:s! 11 !�j/ � . }►/ , ' �j to {�H�r,f� � ,� c �s 1. �! �-, I`1. )) • I 1 1 Y .lr,, • • • •-_ • -• • �+ I / w Ill r+! r �a+ '' 1 ��,'. / / rJ!, � I I I I" �� !) ' 'q �Ifa 117 fi �I � { �. .i � � .y7/ / �,�+i5. ��'.�ll� , �� I r I•i' , n ►,y r, ?i1' YI inr ;'I �l{ � _ �; ,. �� ls�, fa... .G�%, �� 1 I; Ili y,�t. - • • • • - • - • - ///r n 1 �� { / ti:i �/ /..� � � r yy� /� � Imo/ >pl �V I'.�,� I I f� r � • • -- • ••• o• '�J�fni � ', � �Irol i� �uV� a►.��,��/L" y��`�`�kl/r.�,,�� '��'� ��'��i(� .�/'III.,�'F -II • '��'I 'Vl ��ltl�� ,�i�� , it '� �I�/h "fir �i I. 111 �! ,/.,a l r E ' f Illf/'{, a•�1L t' 'vl f'•�- I tl a�,',� ( 11 it ll,�. ( if l� r� JU 'T�� _ _ _ • • _ • __ tiau /l „ r,n� u. II/Y& llll I I �r � � �1 I i r I I �y MAIM_ 7111I / q' I WTI YI I'' e�Yf n J:.a •. JI li.lb, si'{ .mCY! �� ,� .nl : , � �i I�l , I ' �" 1 � -� / i '/' lam- 4Y W'u ■ ) '. a• • • • Y './ /hiu v. � � � /'i I S , � I II� i I , „M_,. .. • • • •• • - � r' / �� I I II 11 � ( (YiW1l� I Y w .�• � 7 � : ryJ �' Y . �i � �I i I��f'i .'��'� a • • -• •- • ;n 11�� i Vr7i0/ll �I,u6/�I r�l Iir�J-1 � / I S`I i vl�Y f'. � ----ilfjj4� • I yU I l'}.'riI �1�111{I.� , �� Ayr'f _ P �,il f1,al,J{� !I t� �rll/I(I�'�zItI�J��III;j ;,Ulf '_I ��J■��" � �i�/'� , )�i� /I�yJ fi/f��f r , /t '�A. d..f1�41. , I+I1,1.1yI itH IJI llil/IIl„eI iff dl1'1/IC6I �. I OY AWN ;. ZMA __ _ _ ___ �� . :: —= i,- �Jr u�j� It ��`� II'.r'I q4. lIj}�'1� .1 777�� '/ (�111,, tl ( r r • ' ,�d;.r�' l t r {/ �. --- -_ -- - t I Il r• / �f �'� l,el III I A. ll':'l,l r Il,..�, ., s -- --�_ ___ —� L.J�t � _-err, z :r;F� ^ {tiR� ;i;i/ ,/. /v/„!' i; .,i '� ' •!li�l'/ III --_=_—=--_ _ -__ MEN� VE=-======== on ----- — rr _ -- — — — — — -- -- --_==s====__�= — -- - Y — i. { ! 1 —� I ' I �i �'`/i 1,�;1�. Oi41,1F,D, II ./ I,1►�. � / 1 , II •.:. �_ r. .•'�._ds •-.. •-^-:,. .- ��' ...,..,na._ =''c`-�i � *'� ♦_ ._... -^^�......^-^-^.-.-�"2--^^-"•-`.�--'t'--`-..----�.-..�,,,,_�>.:�-.-_-: - - - �.:.�:�i-�.- - _ - _ _ ____ .._- -_ �-„z"`t.�,-•i-v��.M�-:.:.�;^.�j i+•.� _ �,'•,w '.�,ro�.." . ,•4't�tg��, -.C`.i_ Q-ly1'�1"�, - - ='-:w�: -- �>,�-ti ��`�`r -C��"�'.,,✓11f� • - _ -_.�? ._ - �L^ - - "��}•'ice ..P•�� ty- -Ar • -� "'""_`d`f�.� 5 ® �, 4;�a�� Q•C.a-.... -.,.w r:�-6� ---'--` .�w- �'�''q - z - ``•._`'...... .. -�`^ � �.• 'e .u.� -' � _ �� J 1 y��p -�-__ Ta _ � _� �^'_L ...-r't , ~ �~�1-• 4 - TM �:_.N .� ri.�. ) �,� �_� • a �'°1,ct�`"` ^ �—� --"--c'-`- �'"Js•&.. �" _ ; ''P! �• - �_��-�_-� µr 91„�..o-.. r` ��/a�� \ ,\•1N1 .s-l.J. o ,.I,a "'^b' _ ua♦ ♦ v \\ ::�,.., . . - d- _— � � �, `_f'g.t�,_ .,,;.r'�...✓-vim ,y 5� o Cf'�' _��Lr" ww-..-.,,_�s`r^ -= - C _ .. — =�ti� - - ~�- a '-a^#•� L�'--. Zrt-"," :'...� •.. K �'°'� .�� w�_. ��5•'+- 'Fb ♦ o °� � y�...a....__�o � .�� - 's' -S' �r i, iAA•%��yi�d � =°. '/�� z"3•Iti..�'®1. '' �_ ._. -J.:'.• � .�_��.1�'l�'�irvr'-y_'1��1; '�^�'��_ � �'• . - P��-� _,"} d. J' So"<, +• �. ,-... _ ata•. c?' -S � 'n, i "�'�..rv_'��.-..., --..- ..- 'ri♦ ( \ �a / o I"� f`✓\,.,5'' s _- nl. 1. ""••' h- - S�.O "" :-,• r� _.i r, _ � - - .., „ -4 i � .("j - ':.>,y.v-w �\r ,,�M-r•..�'`�n".��ry S`S+F S~fdr�o - �...J �<r.� ..aa .�m��v ��'s 1`• _--�. �` . - �_i�•,I 1: f .. \f� a.` •I .. .• !'' •.� b"• � -%ars Ns q `"1..• ,.£� _ �'t ' `�J•n•�r_� L/�v'} f e u •� _ �\��.. ...� _ _ r��Y,/{ J7 s L 999 i,..., e'r• `•' -`do - 1 s"• o 's r NI�IiPUVW'io it Wn\IP\N♦♦♦ufo\♦o'ri,n; .. 4M."� -� �0�:...a 4__ .�__ _-�-- q\VIA\ \ U\l� 1 a\I;M i ♦1 _ .. . __ _ . _ ._ -�— _ _ : _ _ . ... _ � t11}.. ,r p♦ `C F`�c•�" -l. 4 � 1c o�� _ �'-'_ -� . . _. --__ _ - :.- -' J .- ='i- - _ .- -. ,. . _ _- rL (''"�LN ��Y�✓�f-_,'{�•j"L�,f. Kn �o rne��(5 ��1f �'1(1.• O jj � \ r.' � ^•^;� ,�' r�s;r'�✓`�' - � c✓ ('�//^^^1�� vtr� ram. 1��;-` \\ .. :i{, '�.!' -fit�rE '..♦9M.)` ... �900 •� � �' (..✓��,(�}�$`� ,o C��5�5 +- w --r _Z rd -"1 G,I.N,rlr. •. 4r r•. ~ .-. � - - 1 , 1 University of California, Irvine w e _ _ 4 a Coun ty ty Airport - �INI Lea pq ---------------- - Koll Center Newport is an exciting corporate - Orange County Son Bernardino County < office park development combining �� Scale in Miles o 5 environmental excellence and complete ,T, a master planning. 55Minutes Los Angeles 50 Minute5 Location • In Newport Beach/ Irvine area between long L,A. and San Diego, serving entire Southern Lo ach California Market• Centrally located to other 3 Santa Ana ` 10 Minutes Buena Pd major business areas in Orange County Newport Beach Buena Pa k Center ak rv;ne '. a Intlushial Laguna Beach •Knolls Complex Transportation Systems• Excellent freeway system Cypress A Couege■ �g_ \R0 P P surrounding KCN area• Orange County Airport has San Clemente cypress a\` 0 tlJc,�oo �s direct service to 47 cities in 7 western states and A1° O F= 2 Mexico• Half-hour and hourly commuter flights to Oceanal°• LAX• Railroads serve industrial areas and AMTRAK passengers• Orange County Rapid Transit bus San Dtegs a 75 Mil tft as+ ,P system serves entire county ♦� Bp ar 0� Labor Force e Numbers over 700,000 in Orange e,B}, 'B Center ,o 10 story x z `-' - '.o cos Newport u.cl. o „g q, County• Approximately 600,000 within 30 minutes /F,��?ti G� driving time to KCN • Less freeway congestion for commuters • Less turnover of personnel than in congested urban areas Tax Structures *The maximum business license tax in the City of Newport Beach is $75.00 per year. gym° Industrial Community • Over 6,000 acres now o = G00ce D occupied in Irvine alone • Presently the Irvine n rt Industrial Complex headquarters over 600 firms \ h a •�a.�•\\ ono Residential Community • Over 600,000 housing - -- 1 F a* e° units in the County • More than 100,000 within 10 Ne`"por Ha n n Pao Ga�`�cS minute drive to KCN • More than 350,000 within U— 20-minute drive to KCN • An average of 25,000 units are being added each year 2 Story n 1o208sgft Commercial Retail Community * Orange County Beach ranks 2nd In state in retail sales• Over 50 major o, shopping areas, including 12 regional centers Coo� • Fashion Island and South Coast Plaza are within 10 minutes drive to KCN U U Area Recreation • Distinctive Mediterranean —� climate • 42 miles of coastline • Newport Harbor with over 8,000 boats• County tourist attractions Dona Point Fla draw 13,000,000 visitors annually rL�n Airport u UA Hotel A& Shopping Center �� °� ■ University or College c SFces Hospital r _ /J Q --� �� • %90 The Kite • The completed portions of•park '9 consist of individually designed office buildings, J �� 9� 'nly restaurants and 25 acres of landscaped greenbelts cos 2/ G and wandering bicycle trails. Within the 125 acres of KCN, The Koll Company in joint venture with Aetna cce°�o��te 9� 190 Life Insurance Company is developing a totally LU r F master planned office park to contain in excess of LU FL 1,000,000 sq. ff. Here you may lease a single � �iF �� office or an entire building or you may m Jamboree own your own corporate headquarters. c Plaza G it n Der Wlenershnitzel �U OCePa\pC D 0° a,°o0 Office Building Site �o\`� Commercial Site Q 8.13 Acres 'Cramp°c 14.472 Acres Go d BIRCH STREET . . . °� 16 15 13 12 do �Q 0 r5 vslosgfr s,osgn oQ Scale In feet 100 200 300 O lr aJ boo ` 0 V V•! 17 J R,Sg,. �J 14 8 10 11 Z 18 17,068 sq n 11.150 sq fl 14.750 sq n 8,050 sq n - W 658 sq o n Q t2.oss sq n 7.850 sq ff C LIJ 20 8,068 7 6 4 _J sq ft 12.650 sq n 8.050 5 i.150 sq W sq n � 24 21 14,450 sq f1 s 7,858 sq ft 12,2 22 sq flit 11,458 sq f 3 2 1 Goy. 2 ILs.6.58 7.c50 sq n 12,050 sq p � sq n sg" oc �•°J�`m tls� _ Q CAMPUS DRIVE Brochure produced by Carlos Diniz Associates OITY OF NEIWPORT BEACH • DEPARTMMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPi:E1'1T PLAN REVIE11 REQUEST Date March 26, 1979 U<DVANCE PLANNING DIVISION gPLAMS ATTACHED (PLEASE P,ETURhi QPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Q_T�FFIC ENGINEER [JpLAMS .ON FILE IN ZOM'ING AND II FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION QPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION IIPAP.KS E RECREATION DPOLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY DGENEP,AL SERVICES APPLICATION OF Californian Canadian Bank FOR A QVARIANCE []USE PERMIT QPESUBDIVISION 01marxXIAR Traffic Phasing Plan ON A REQUEST TO ` consider a •phasing plan to comply with Resolution No. 9.742 of the Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 of' the Newport Beach,Municipal' Code and the acceptance of an Environmental 'Document: - ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS Koll Center Newport REPORT REQUESTED BY_ 4/ 6/79 COMMISSION REVIEW 5/10/79 ' C0MMIENTS SIGtiATURE - • DATE CIT'! OF tIE:JPO�-; EEACN DEPA _tlT OF C0 alUtl3TY DEVELGOENT PLAN P,EVIEW PEQUEST Date March 26, 1979 B�A'OVAmCE PLANNING DIVISIO?l -gPLANS ATTACHED {PLEASE P,ETURI ' OPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ❑TRAFFIC ENGINEER QpLAOS" .ON FILE IN 70MING AND ❑ FT RE ❑EARRTtIEtIT ORDINANCE ADMINISTP,ATION [jPLAiI REVIEiv DIVISION DIVISIO;4 0PAP:GS 8 P,ECP,EATION ❑ POLICE DEPAP.TMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY DGENEP,AL SERVICES APPLICATION OF Californian Canadian Bank FOR A [IVARIANCE ❑USE PEP,ttIT QRE.SUBDIVISION 01MR 'XXIAR Traffic Phasing Plan Ot{ A REQUEST TO consider a •phasing plan to' comply 'wi•th Resolution No. 9742 of the- Newport Beach City Council and Amendment No. 514 of the Newport Beach.Municipal' Code and ' • ' -the acceptance of ari Environmental 'Document: - ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS oll Center Newport P,EPORT REQUESTED BY 4//96/79 - COtitIISSION REVIEW 5/10/79 COt•1MENTS u SIGNATURE 7 a� •A T E • I� WCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IIEPARTi•iENT OF COr;'IUNITY DEVELMMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Til Date Ed RA) ft. blADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION JAPLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE P,ETURt • [(PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ®,TRAFFIC ENGINEER [IPLANS ON FILE IN ZONING AND D FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATION OPLAN REVIEW DIVISION DIVISION LIPARKS ?, . RECREATION ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ MARINE SAFETY DGENERAL SERVICES APPLTCATiOri OF L°ctl�For�1�n1J CaKadil�lJ (3r�N� FOR A QVAP,IANCE []USE PERMIT aPESUBDIVISIO?V RTn,-rrzT—rr;,=TcrtF�ii, attu�l�aN ON A REQUESfT TQ • �ct• •. �1`l- —L ,c . VCnr N .�»nnt' Rrni• � i '�.lh�%1• Qnr"�Alc�, AS.1CI� / . • � • 6l�•4•' �,� ��,��iW�ooeT• ��uc�.• ``�uNiugA� �no�e. ;x.�1C�• �•. - ENtJ1C4N NT7J\ ON LOT BLOCK TRACT ADDRESS P.EPORT REQUESTED BY Foa' COMMISSION REVIEW COMMIENT5 T .. SIGt(ATURE DATE I x'.e' c' tJ.e- It!-e' .rr scx , ;S.!!w•T , F- 1n95' I j 'RtNN4 2 exc% u4Ni ^fo h.t'. brS I wi-.w. 4 Rs.eu2F As eNax,l.- etti t. 1 �Rnall^Jrrc Yi � I F I � { �H G'fwY:.PC:.•- � I _ - _ I � = I .R6 T•MFN tsuT. AC fAvl•ly� Jt.1d ' Na.•Y'/•Y r AX sq Ftw .c. J -�( N.s. / / 1 at 1 LL•b:.6 3 — ' —� a Y -� • �I'a`.Lr _ .'a/ A:,ORf:s`!�: t n � ... ARIA a Ij P:F - p<t ow r „ lit , -" A•TcP tx.%n} ° r� ¢oRxr-JP � E t faMa x d I I a+'eY e 1 � � ir.WA., _ U Sa / ,x -•IY I •• � ,<, eus:sls -.ea+cT,.y j rANo-_ca.rlJq � !'� I f A f N N. 4!• Sl'zc• t. ^St.t3__ d 1 TL'_O !YI^ PAIIF Iiil#. .f40 Vw ki IIS'- o' i '_Ito'_O CANR f-W I i ,ll O I O Ntw c' Lolc. wR= ;o,w-TcF =x15TNc,. 1. fox srfe U T I:ITits set 5.t4( ¢•1 k P-S. L7 exLTI•:y elNe. CJR85 T, K4MAI,1. S. rag 9rm C,RN t4 le D4'S• �+`e Sti!Y. M:u? A-L3. ��• fOL-?tD A IN jFD:CAi e5 Ow e• FOR Ax favWy To #+,48 txlvrlNg- set SMT M.P. Q CRD%3 {iA,GAFO ARtA IFDIGAiPS k. p^fao(d-4� • I � � . c1 il. ow toa. Il ! Sf. l � A:- 5K: lq?'- C:tAR ARIA IFOIGATtS �x1511Ny AS PRt?A<4D �•; �r RT! G!tA\?L kK+%a'%. f( !u 5^A'Ir�.�. OR DDKSTR'ATaN TO R:'MNN. \ I AREA� 3YUNAµ I J \ • � .f41YtR tpGi / INit i/ � I "�� u.Hw is s•.�i� A. 1 Illtl•♦ �� r ;i _ / I • ` /�� J � � ;��• .. , 1, �� i�� c. ` ' �7— ` I'. \'• • _ _�1___. O/fICL R) 0Ar1AWf LANODON 4 WILSON LAND USX I NtNMMTM AI.fAYRItNI.. ; I 4YlN�NNN•.NOa! ' BOLL CENTER NEWPORT