Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS88 CITY OF NE`YPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES December 13, 1993 ROLL CRLL INBEX In response to question raised by U/P 3387(A; Council Member Hedges, the Planning Director stated that he personally has not received any complaints regarding the operation of Alano Club. Also, if enforcement became necessary due to non- compliance with the occupancy load, either a Code Enforcement Officer or ire Department employee would be equested to go to the site and count t e number of persons in the building. Wi h respect to parking, there are only th a parking spaces available off- str et for this particular building and they are at tha rear of the premises with cress from the alley. Steve Dobbie, 423 31st Street, repress ing the applicant, addressed the Coun it in support of the request. He state that since the Planning Commission hearing on October 21, they have worked with the neighbors regarding their conce s and those who addressed the Planning ommission. He also stated that they en ourage their patrons to disperse in a quiet and quick manner from their mae ngs to eliminate noise and converse s that usually follow those meetings. In response to uestion by Council Member Hedges raga in whether or not there was a dance the building this past Saturday evening and if a Special Event Permit was sued for this function, Mr. Dobbie r lied that there was a dance, but he was of aware if the required permit was obta ned. Evelyn Johnson, 410 32nd reet, stated she has operated a barber hop at this location for 32 years and she is not opposed to the request of the Alano Club; however, she would li to have one parking space designated i front of her shop for her business, ina much as parking is such a problem in th area. Hearing no others wishing to addre s the Council, the public hearing was cl sed. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member He es All Ayes to sustain the decision of the Plan Commission and approve Use Permit 3387 (Amended). Council Member Hedges commended the members of the Club in their attempt to "clean up their act" and improve the situation, and he hopes they will continue in this regard. 26. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing regarding PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT (94) 0. 784 - Request to amen t e P ana Community District Regulations for the Corporate Plaza Planed Community, so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes; other Volume 47 - Page 339 1 = CITY OF NMORT BEACh COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �o S December 13, 1943 ROLL CRLL INDEX Motion . x Hearing no other comments, motion was All Ayes made by Mayor Turner to continue this public hearing to January 10, 1994. 2 Mayor Turner opened the public hearing U/P 3387(A regarding USE PERMIT NO. 3387 (AMENDED) (88) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the expansion of an existing non-profit private club associated with substance recovery ocated in An existing commercial uilding which is nonconforming relative t the off-street parking requirement. Th building is located in the "S cialty Retail,, area of the Cannery Vil age/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area Said approval also included the waive of a portion of the required off- stree parking. The proposed amendment involy s a request to modify Condition, No. 2 f the previously approved use permit, o as to permit the use of the ground f or meeting rooms for meetings beginning or ending between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 .m. Monday through Friday and to allow th ground floor portion of the building to ba occupied by more than 64 persons, areas said condition currently pro ibits such use; located at 414 32nd Stre t, on the southerly side of 32nd Street etween Newport Boulevard' and Villa Way, the Cannery Village/ McFadden Square pacific Plan Area. Report from Plane ng Department. The Planning Dire for stated that on October 21, 199 the Planning Commission approved the subject Use Permit (Amended). Th Alano Club is a private facility ssociated with substance recovery and they are operating in a- buildin they own which is non-conforming with aspect to its parking. The Club is currently permitted to occupy on l the second floor for meetings between •00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and 3:.00 p.m. a d 7:00 p.m. Mondays thru Fridays. They are currently permitted to use the second floor area which has an occup t load of 100 persons. Inasmuch as the cater to people who are divided into classes which are made up of peopple w o smoke and who do not smoke, and becaus of the close proximity of the meeting r oms on the second floor, they are raqu sting permission to use the downstairs ma ting rooms so long as they do not emcee the occupant load for the entire buildin of 100 persons during the above-mentio ad time frame. The Planning Commission, n response to several concerns express d at the meeting from adjoining tenants requested that the Club monitor thei activity, monitor their noise and establish a review period in ninety days from the October 21 approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission will be reviewing this Use Permit again on January 20, 1994. Volume 47 - Page 338 � h • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES � ��G�G ROLL CALL Fs December 13, 1993 INDEX miscellaneous revisions to the Planned Community Text and Plans; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 88 - Request to S 88 gprove a traffic study so as to permit ,847 square feet of development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community for medical office use. Report from Planning Department. The Planning Director stated that the Corporate Plaza Planned Community is allowed to have a total of 432,320 sq. ft. of development and they currently have four vacant sites that are designated on the Planned Community Development Plan and they are the last four sites to be built in the Planned Community. The applicant is asking that they be allowed to have a maximum of 79,847 sq. ft. of their existing entitlement allowed for medical office use on these four remaining sites. They are also suggesting that the parking requirement for the planned community area be amended so as to incorporate the. parking pool concept which is allowed in other large office developments within the City. They are also proposing that the medical office use be restricted to one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. gross. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1993, and was unanimously approved. David Neish, representing The Irvine Company, advised that they concur with the findings and mitigation measures of the related environmental documentation. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Watt es 93-96 All Ayes to adopt Resolution No. 93-96 approving Planning Commission Amendment o. 154 and approve the findings an m t gat on measures o t e relarea environments document and iEe findings or Traffic _Study No. 88 as recommended y the Planning Commission. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing Hoag Hospit egarding DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 - Dev Agm 5 Re st to approve an amendment to C-2912 subjec evelopment agreement for the (38) Hoag Hosp Master Plan between the City of Newpor ach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyter located at 4000 West Coast Highway, the northerly side of West Coast Highway een Volume 47 - Page 340 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES fig, t"ss December 13, 1993 ROLL CRLL INDEX Rowport Boulevard and Superior Avenue and 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. Report from Planning Department. The City Clerk reported that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Hoag Memorial Hospital tating that based on the delay in eceiving Coastal Commission legal c unsel comments on the hospital's r uested clarifications on the De elopment Agreement amendments, the hos ital has no objections to continuing thi item to January 10, 1994. Motion x In v ew of the foregoing, notion was All Ayes made continue this public hearing to Janua 10, 1994. PUBLIC CO 1. Dolores ting, 17 Hillsborough Drive, Solid Wast also re eseuting 5 Star Rubbish Disposal Company, ddressed the Council and submitted a letter regarding the regulations for Solid Waste Permits as set forth i the Municipal Code, and questioned by the 30-day notice requirement w s not adhered to in 1992 and 1993. S e also stated that her company was adv sed that they would have graduated'recyc ing rates from 1991 to present, but it as now changed so that in 1994 they wi 1 have to recycle a higher percentag than the State law requires. Madeline Arakelian, representing South Coast Refuse, addr ased the Council regarding AB939S heco' arning recycling requirement s ated she also is involved in the Sol d Waste Permit process and has discuss d her objections with the General Servic s Director, and is waiting for a respons from him. She also stated that the re s, ential refuse taken by the City to CR Tr usfer Station is not being recycled purs nt to State law. The City Manager stated h would be happy to meet with both of the above speakers to review the So id 'Waste Permit process. Dave Neiderhaus, General ervices Director, addressed the Coun it in response to the comments of Ms. , tting and Ms. Arakelian, and stated that AB939 requires that the City reach 2 t by January 1995. This particular yea he was asked not to bring this matter ack to the Council for review because th re was only one minor change being de which was from 20% to 25% in 199 . Letters were sent to 2:3 commercia haulers in late November and earl December notifying of this change, and as of this date he has only had two responses. Within the next two weeks he hopes to present new Solid Waste regulations to the City Manager. With Volume 47 - Page 341 r City Council Ating December 13. 1993 Agenda Item No. 26 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ft FROM: Planning Department`k SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 784 "`��� Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community,so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes; other miscellaneous revisions to the Planned Community Text and Plans;and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No, 88 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit 79,847 square feet of development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community for medical office use. LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The applicant requests to amend the existing Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes; other miscellaneous revisions to the Planned Community Text and Plans; the acceptance of an environmental document; and the approval of Traffic Study No. 88. In accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the City Council Policy Manual review procedures for these applications, are as follows: Traffic Studies are set forth in Chapter 15.40 and City Council Policy S-1, and Amendments to an established Planned Community Development Plan are set forth in Chapter 20.51. TO: Ci$ouncil - 2. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, adopt Resolution No., approving Amendment No. 784 and approve the findings and mitigation measures of the related environmental document and the findings for Traffic Study No. 88 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planningjommission Recommendation At its meeting of November 18, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 784 and environmental document to the City Council. The related item, Traffic Study No. 88, was also approved by the Planning Commission, and will be reviewed by the Council in conjunction with the P-C Amendment. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report and an excerpt of the draft Planning Commission minutes are attached for the-City Council's information. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. nHEWICKER, Director BY �ir y i�. C�uy cI� William R. Laycock �— Current Planning Manager WRL:cb Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of Draft Planning,Commission Minutes, dated November 18, 1993 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 18, 1993 with attachments Resolution No. COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES �fQAp �prCpr � �DrS p��' '�plZt'p 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 18 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the Ci ouncil the revocation of this use permit, upon a determinatio at the operation which is the subject of this use permit, cause ' 'ury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, ort, or general welfare of the community. 9. That this use permit shall expire unless ercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specs in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Co A. Amendment No. 784 (Public Hearin item No.2 Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations A784 for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, so as to establish (Res 1341) medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining ms as 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes to permit other miscellaneous revisions to Approved the Planned Community Text and Plans; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic StudyNo. 88 Public Hearin Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit 79,847 square feet of development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community for medical office use. LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. ONE: P-C PLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach -5- COMMSSIONERs MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �\ November 18, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr.Neish concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 784 All Ayes (Resolution No. 1341) and Traffic Study No. 88, and accepting the environmental document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. A ENVIR AL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental -document, making the 'following findings and requiring the following the mitigation measures: FindW : 1. That based .upon the information contained in the Initial Study,comments received, and all related documents,there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission/City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, .and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an .6. `T COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES pf�opt ClOf S 0�9��o '�t P�o9�oSo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 18 1993 INDEX ROLL CALL adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14, CCR. 3. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 will be met through required compliance with applicable codes, standards, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval adopted in connection with the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for,the project is attached to the Negative Declaration and is hereby adopted. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that in his or her opinion,this requirement has been satisfied. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy,the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive has been reconfigured in compliance with the recommendations contained in the traffic impact study prepared for the subject project (TPO# 88). 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 18, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX will comply with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study,making the findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on four of the eleven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the intersections of East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue, Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive, 'MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, indicates that the ICU values for the A.M. and P.M. peaks will not be altered by the addition of the project, once the widening of MacArthur Boulevard is completed. C. AMENDMENT NO, 784 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1341 recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment 784, amending the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development regulations. -8- l0 Planning Commission Meetin�Tovember 18. 1993 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT': A Amendment No 784 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for the Corporate Plaza.Planned Community,so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes; other miscellaneous revisions to the Planned Community Text and Plans;and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No. 88 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit 79,847 square feet of development in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community for medical office use. LOCATION: Property bounded by East Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications The applicant requests to amend the existing Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use, and to allow the remaining 79,847 square feet of permitted development to be used for medical office purposes; other miscellaneous revisions to the Planned Community Text and Plans; the acceptance of an environmental document; and the approval of Traffic Study No. 88. In accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the City Council Policy Manual review procedures for these applications, are as follows: Traffic Studies are set forth in TO: Plaa•g Commission- 2. Chapter 15.40 and City Council Policy S-1, and Amendments to an established Planned Community Development Plan are set forth in Chapter 20.51. Suggested Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired, Adopt Resolution No. (attached) recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment 784, amending the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development regulations and Approve Exhibit "A", accepting the environmental document and approving Traffic Study No. 88. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Act(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K 3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's .information. The appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial"land uses. The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The site proposed for development is currently occupied by 15 buildings and one building under construction, consisting of approximately 352,473± gross square feet of floor area. To the north of the project, across Farallon Drove is Design Plaza and an office complex. To the northeast and east, is the site of the future Newport Beach City Library currently under construction. To the south, across East Coast Highway, is the Bank of Newport commercial office building and the single family area of Irvine Terrace beyond. To the west, across Newport Center Drive, is a vacant parcel of land designated in the General Plan for open space and'administrative and financial commercial land uses. Amendment No, 784 An amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan is proposed. The amendment is necessary in order to change the land uses allowed to include medical office uses. A number of other revisions are also proposed to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations which are minor in nature, but serve to specifically describe the actual development standards applied to the property. The revisions are as follows: 1. The existing text is modified throughout to include the addition of medical office use as a permitted use The terms related to permitted uses are dispersed throughout the TO: Planning Commission - 3. • text; "medical" office use as a permitted use is likewise added to those areas of the text as applicable. 2. The Statistical Analysis section of the text establishing allowed allocations is modified to include specific square footage limitations to the general office use and the medical office use. The development standards are governed by the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan. The development standards originally established make no provisions for medical office uses. The proposed changes in this case establish that the maximum square footage devoted to medical office use will not exceed 79,847 gross square feet of entitlement and will only be allowed on Building Sites No. 8, 9, 11 and 22. No other Building Sites will be permitted to allow medical office use. 3. The definitions as they pertain to 'Entitlement Floor Area" and 'Parking Floor Area (Gross and Net)" are included in the revisions to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations. The definitions included are consistent with the definitions,as currently found in the Municipal Code and are included in this text for clarity. Staff has no objections to the request. 4. The section of the text establishing parking requirements is modified to include speciftc parking requirements for general office use (exclusive of medical office use) utilizing a parking pool concept; and parking requirements for medical office use is also included. The proposed changes in this case delineate the means of determining the parking requirements for Corporate Plaza based on specific parking requirements based on the particular uses (general office and medical office uses). It is the opinion of staff that including the specific definitions of parking will make the Planned Community text more complete and understandable. It should also be noted that the parking requirement for the medical office use is more restrictive. These parking requirements are consistent with parking requirements as apply throughout the City by the Zoning Code. 5. The Corporate Plaza Vicinity Map, Setbacks Site Plan, Sight Plane Plan and the Grading Plan are all modified to include reference to medical office uses and to de,f ne the permitted pad elevations for Building Sites No. 8, 9, 11 and 22 The above mentioned exhibits establish developmental standards for setbacks and heights, and are consistent with the setbacks and heights previously established in the Corporate Plaza Text. Traffic Study No, 88 The proposed development will generate a significantly higher traffic volume than the general office use allowed under the current Planned Community text. Therefore, a traffic study was required to determine the compatibility of the proposed project under the guidelines of-the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1 to examine the consistency and conformity of the project with the City's Circulation Element. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1998. The City 9 TO: Planning Commission - 4. Traffic Engineer identified the following eleven (11) intersections for detailed evaluation in the,traffic study. 1. East Coast Highway at Dover Drive/Bayshores Drive 2. East Coast Highway at Bayside Drive 3. East Coast Highway at Jamboree Road 4. East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue 5. East Coast Highway at MacArthur Boulevard 6: Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive 7. Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road 8. Jamboree Road at Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road 9. MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive 10. MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road 11. MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road The first step in evaluating an intersection's traffic volume capacity is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taldng into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects that the City has granted approvals. If the project's generated traffic is less than one percent traffic volume on all approach segments to the selected intersections during the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, then the project's traffic impact is considered insignificant and in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirement. In the event that the project's generated traffic exceeds the one percent traffic volume analysis on any approach leg to any of the selected intersections,then further analysis would be required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and four of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test. East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue, Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive, MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road exceeded 1% of the intersection traffic volume; therefore, further ICU analysis for those intersections became necessary. The ICU analysis indicated that the intersections of East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue,Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road are operating at acceptable levels of service for both peak periods. The peak period traffic is estimated to generate 240 trips during the a.m. peak period and 525 trips during the p.m. peak period (2-1/2 hour periods). The Traffic Study for this project indicates that the proposed medical office use would generate an increase of 155 trip ends per day at the p.m. peak hour with no significant increase in the a.m. peak period. In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity.utilization of 0.90 for the year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the attached traffic study, the intersections affected by the project operate at acceptable levels; however, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive will exceed the 0.90 limitation. As stated in the Traffic Study, the City of Newport Beach contemplates the widening of MacArthur Boulevard from 2 travel lanes in each direction to 3 travel lanes in TO: Planni'ng - 5. • each direction, to occur in 1994/95 and estimates that those improvements will be completed prior to the subject project construction. As a part of that widening, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive will also be widened to include a free turning southbound right turn lane. This will mitigate the Intersection Capacity Utilization from the projected 0.91 to 0.79, well within acceptable limits as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The ICU analysis is contained in Appendix B of the Traffic Study report.The appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A'. Specific Findings Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code sets forth specific findings which must be made in order to approve a Traffic Study. It is the opinion of staff that the project meets all the specified criteria for approval of this project. While no specific findings are set forth in the Code for the approval of an amendment to Planned Community District'Regulations and Development Plans, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed changes are consistent with the General Plan. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Traffic Study No. 88, Amendment No. 784 and the acceptance of the environmental document, the actions, findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit"A" are suggested. No exhibit for denial has been provided,inasmuch as staff is of the opinion that no findings may be reasonably made in support of the denial of these applications. However, should information be presented at the public hearing which warrants a denial of these applications, the Planning Commission may wish to take such an action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B41ra� vier S. G rcia Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Resolution recommending Approval of Amendment No. 784 to the City Council Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Traffic Study No. 88 Draft Revised Planned Community District Regulations TO: Planning Commission - 6. EXEIIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 88 AMENDMENT NO. 784 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document,making the following findings and requiring the following the mitigation measures: Findines 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, substantial evidence that the ro'e as and all related documents, there is no subs p � cts conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission/City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been,conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record,this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. 3. The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 will be met through required compliance with applicable codes,standards,mitigation measures, and conditions of approval adopted in connection with the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached to the Negative Declaration and is hereby adopted. MPITGATION MEASURES: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. /owl TO: Planning Commission - 7. is 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive has been reconfigured in compliance with.the recommendations contained in the traffic impact study prepared for the subject project (TPO# 88). 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the,applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. B TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on four of the eleven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the intersections of East Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue, Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive, MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, indicates that the ICU values for the A.M. and P.M. peaks will not be altered by the addition of the project, once the widening of MacArthur Boulevard is completed. AMENDMENT NO, 784 1. Adopt Resolution No. (attached) recommending to the City Council the approval of Amendment 784, amending the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development regulations. I3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO.784) WHEREAS,as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared;and WHEREAS,Section20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Codeprovides that amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on .1993,at which the this amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Standards was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan;and WHEREAS,the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specificprocedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach;and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community is necessary in order to allow medical office uses on the subject property;and WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA,Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in Traffic Study No. 88 in making its decision on,the,proposed amendment. NOW,THEREFORE,•BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to the CorporatePlaza Planned Community designated as Planning Commission Amendment No.784. p �f ADOPTED this_day of . 1993,by the following,vote,to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Harry o. Merrill, CHAIRMAN BY Anne K Gifford, SECRETARY -2- s i VICINITY MAP Y • 1 `. WA— A .. r n u. ,•. Y... �'° trr 1» _•, 1.1 n ,'' u � . nee x '•/ M Y M ' N F-ri 1 APF`H Y•. t .Y •{ 1 � li 11 t Y � /J 2 �� � • GRpIrN 1 ap Jr � - n �`M o ifl1i8 1 � S v�� `�CfY 11 s �w/ •T"Rn NYY 1 t N .. n .:SI n u Y la n I�p � "}• T j1 .y1 N 11 12 N I/ Y Y n l W �/ 11 }I'Yn 111 TY11 ;�ee`E A SEi71NG SUN. Y it to n \ y lV ' rn�Yw Inl 41 �Mn iT}11 kP T2 N M F-C jl L 1 BgREGR 1.Y .hl .� r ,rl d .•� ��� �� N 1p �rn.�. 9 r Ga�rrAUO ., � 0 A 1 Aw Z MM ~ {21T81 t R 8 P-C o ` < CANE 1 u 0 1 PC Y CGVA � RX IF N� �� � � —NEWPOR —C DISTRICTING—MAP-CITY—OF T—BEACH INIIMN 111 YnIMI RPII Mn,ll •a�n � Y .. w. • ' Y[YY 0.01111 IGINPI.I ant WM Y•11•n P:M M NN1M Nll NAn '•i1 ;tR'•51 a"' NIM 1•N•n Mli"N N1NI Pint an NNP• •xr�/1 Ln.JY•aKNIrt•r xl. HIGH � 'ur ���y .'x i. M x OPeYN Y��,�)q'.aln NII.1• MH rtYn'"'I FN Ifni YRs111/N�INI.ry.V NI-rl gr�Yt trip Maa ....u.�r�n.x. YIUM MMfP UNN1 �R,Yn 'Y"Ac"M.O�► YONn11 nWPIP•t1On�NMMn .`II`n Ilu lYl xn wn«•+ .,yrtnMIN 11l.'Wl (04111t ,WYnII N��an'1tW I.Y�n pn1Y•}wMl /NIYx InY6PrM N11 N1 ('' tjiMllrlP N•Wl N i rvii dY «'i:na•.r 117Pd1 .I..n i.0 N un NNI• 11�� Nv1�1VK/�M��f N{M'1''alt n Wnt rt3�'.1°.gl• • Y.PNN Herr Rli✓�lIINM<M II..��lnri'Ii �rt1�1411M tM( • '�I r nmu No In ul•I.n IA AMENDMENT NO. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 88 16 CI OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 FILED POSTED Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 OCT 281993 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OCT 28 1993 GARY Prom: City of Newport Bdkch Oue�Cler To:GARYL. ANVIg Count Cler�cR Planning De artmcnt ice o annm an csearch 8 P ~ -� -- - DEP11 _R 1400 Tenth 4ZlrnnnB?0Wh 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 U Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box838 Date received for fling at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Publicreviewperiod November 17, 1993 Name Of'Project: Corporate Plaza Planned Community Amendment No. 784, TPO # 88 Project Location: 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California Project Description: To convertthe remainder of the allowable development of 79,847 sq.ft. in the Corporate Plaza Site from general office use to medical office use. 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 his evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. Ifyou wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. _ Date 10-28-93 John .D uglas,YFP Env¢ me tal CoMinator RWv d, Q92 NMENTAL ANALYSIS' CFffiCKLISTO CITY of NEWPORT BEACH I, 1ACKGROUND l.' Application No: Traffic Study No. 88 2. Project name: Corporate Plaza 3. Project location: 550 New ort Center Drive Newoort Beach 4, Applicant: The Irvine Com an II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations) Yes Maybe 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction �[ or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features2 0� d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — e. Any increase in wind or water erosion �[ of soils, either on or off the site? — y 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? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ' — -- 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? - a-. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — Environmental Analysis checklist age 2 es Maybe 3. Water. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of 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 or flow of flood waters? d. change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — 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 water? — g. change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions 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? _ q. Plant Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species 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? —" �9 Y�' 11 Environmental Analysis CheckA - Page 3 'I ee Maybe ILO S. An Life. Would the proposal result in; a. Change in the diversity of species, or Animal numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ -- C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? -- d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise leveler or exposure of people to severe — noise levels? 7. T•icht and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? g. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? g. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — 10. Risk of Accident. Would the proposal involves a. 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? A- b. possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growthXr rate of the human population of the area? — 12. Nousine. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — — Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 • 0 Yes Maybe 7Lo, 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parkinv. Would the proposal result ins a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? .— — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — XV f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? -- -- Y b. Police protection? — 7t C. Schools? "— d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? V f. other governmental services? IS. Ener . Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — 16. Utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? -- + t b. Communications systems? — -- X- C. Water or wastewater? — — X d. Storm water drainage? -- -f`y'1'c e. Solid waste and disposal? "yam A.� Environmental Analysis Checkl# - Pago 5 • yes Maybe 7j_o 17. aaman_ R_ a=lth• Would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ 18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public -- 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -- 20, cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? --' C. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. 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 eelf- 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 pro-history? _- 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve abort-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 endure well into the future.) Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 6 Yee Maybe -0 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limitede t may cumulatively impact considerable? (A project y ave an 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 in significant; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? —- IV. DETERMINATION 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 thin case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION KILL BE PREPARED- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONKMAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz M. Aslami ( Associate Planner ) Date: 10-27-93 lA� Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations F:\ ..\FORKS\CHECKLST. Revised 12/91 O� 1,7" ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Corporate Plaza Traffic Study No. 88 Planned Community Amendment No. 78h Pr9ject Description The proposed project is a request to amend the Corporate Plaza Planned Community regulations to convert the remainder of the allowable development in Corporate?laza Site from general office use to medical office use. The site is located within the parameters of Coast Highway to the south, Newport Center Drive to the west, Farallon Drive to the north, and Avocado Avenue to the east (see Exhibit A). The City's General Plan has a total development allocation of 432,320 sq.ft. for Corporate Plaza site. Currently the site is developed with several buildings that contain 348,136 square feet according to the City's Building Permit Records. The remainder of the approved allocation of 79,847 sq.ft:(total allocation 432,320 less current development 348,136) has not been developed. The proposed project, if approved, would allow medical offices and medical related services within the remainder of development of The Corporate Plaza Site. The subject site encompasses approximately 47.8 acres of land. Surrounding Land Uses Newport Village, the site of future Newport Center library, a museum and ropen space, is located to the east of the site. To the north and west of the project are professional offices, financial institutions,,retail services and medical office buildings. To the south of the site, across Coast Highway, there is an office buildings, Bank of Newport and Newport Terrace residential area. The immediate vicinity of this project is predominantly,professional office buildings and financial institutions. Fashion Island is a block away to the north of Corporate Plaza. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. 1. Earth No known active earthquake faults are located on this property. Construction of the remaining buildings in Corporate Plaza would entail grading and site •preparation, Which will be required to comply with the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140). Compliance with code requirements will minimize the potential for soil erosion and unstable conditions,therefore no significant impacts are anticipated: Corporate Plaza PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist,Explanations Page t 4� 2. Air Construction Impacts Potential effects on air quality during construction would result from dust generated during grading and construction and exhaust emissions from construction machinery. According to the 1993, AQMD CEQA Handbook, the amount of development remaining in Corporate Plaza is considered potentially significant, therefore mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. These mitigation measures are contained in the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403, therefore no significant impacts would be expected. Operational Impacts Potential operational air quality impacts will be mitigated through required compliance with AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). 3. Water The project would not directly affect any drainage patterns or bodies of water. Any future construction would be required to provide adequate drainage facilities as required by the City's building code, therefore no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise The proposed project, if approved, would allow medical offices and other medical related services. No noise-sensitive uses are located in close proximity to the site. Corporate Plaza PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 2 a-5' Construction noise impacts All construction activity is required to comply with the noise limitations in the City's Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28)and would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays. This restriction, combined with the temporary• nature of construction noise will reduce potential construction noise impacts below the level of significance. Qperational noise impacts Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. Since projected traffic generation is within the level assumed in the General Plan, no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Sound attenuation The project will be required to comply with Uniform Building Code standards,which limit interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources to 45 db in any habitable room. 7. Light and Glare The project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect nearby residential properties if exterior lighting is required. The following mitigation tenor lighting is de signed ned such that potenti al measure would ensure that any ex g g g Po impacts from nuisance glare would not be significant. M tipation Measure #] Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. 77te plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied 8. Land Use Thesite is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is a Planned Community Corporate Pfau PC Amendment initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 3 District. The proposed use of the remaining development allocation of 79,947 sq.ft. as medical offices would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone and Coastal Permit is not required. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset Since the proposed use is medical office, there is a potential that hazardous or infectous wastes could be generated by the project. This potential impact will be minimized as a result of the waste disposal requirements contained in Title 6 of the Municipal Code, as well as State and Federal laws, which require special handling of toxic or infectuous waste materials. 11. Population The proposed project would not directly cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. 12. Housing The project would be estimated to result in approximately 160 additional employees in the Newport Center area. This increase in employment would be expected to generate an increased demand for housing, but this increase is not considered significant. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Site Access and Circulation System Impacts The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for medical offices and facilities are higher than general office use during the afternoon peak hours and a traffic study is necessary to evaluate the impact of the subject proposal on the City's existing circulation system. The Traffic Engineer selected eleven intersections that would be affected' by the proposed project, and a traffic study has been prepared as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and four of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent Corporate Pima PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 4 • i volume test. Coast Highway/Avocado Avenue, Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive, MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive and Mac Arthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road exceeded 1%of the intersection traffic volume,therefore,further analysis of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) was conducted for those intersections. The ICU analysis indicated that the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive is projected to have an ICU value of 0.91. The other study intersections would all have ICU values at or below the 0.90 level,as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. With the mitigation measure recommended by the traffic study for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive, the ICU value can be reduced to an acceptable level of service as required by the TPO. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any significant affect on the City's circulation system network. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the Intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive has been reconfigured in compliance with the recommendations contained in the traffic impact study prepared for the subject project (TPO# 88). Access to the site is provided via Avocado Avenue, Coast Highway East, Newport Center Drive and Farallon Drive. The layout of the facility indicates that adequate and safe internal circulation will be provided. Parkin There are 1,160 existing parking spaces in Corporate Plaza. With the remaining development the site would be required to provide a total of 1,390 parking spaces. Based on designated areas of the site planned for parking, a total 1,509 parking spaces can be accommodated,which would exceed the amount of parking needed for employees and customers. 14. Public Services Public or governmental services would not be affected by the proposed project. Corporate Plan PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 5 15. Energy No significant change in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The site is adequately served by existing utilities and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility systems is anticipated. 17. Human Health Since the proposed use is medical office, there is a potential that hazardous or infectous wastes could be generated by the project. This potential impact will be minimized as a result of the waste disposal requirements contained in Title 6 of the Municipal Code, as well as State and Federal laws, which require special handling of toxic or infectuous waste materials. 18. Aesthetics The proposed project is located in a commercial area and would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. Existing height limits established by the Sight Plane Ordinance will ensure that views from the Harbor View Hills area are not significantly affected. 19. Recreation Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past and may be expected to exist on this site. As a result, the applicant will be required to comply with the following mitigation measure, which requires compliance with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological surveys and recovery of resources. Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-S and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. Corporate Plaza PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 6 �9 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that 'would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. I.\...\Az12A\TRAFF C\77osg\NEc•nEC Corporate Plaza PC Amendment Initial Study Checklist Explanations Page 7 t 2� Nv , 190TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 Notice is hereby,given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of,, e Irvine Company for Traffic Study No. 88 on property located at $50 Newport Center Drive. The application includes a request to approve a traffic study to allow to convert the remainder of the allowable development of 79,847 sa ft in the Corporate Plaza Site from general office use to medical .office use. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been-prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, ,California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the M day of November 1993, at the hour of 7-30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Harry'Merrill, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. �6- MITIGATIOAONITORING AND REPORTINC&OGRAM Corporate Plaza Traffic Study No. 88 Planned Community Amendment No. 784 I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance 'with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. R\...\aziz-a\traffic\tpoU\mm.cmr. �.7 ATTACHMENT1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Corporate Plain Traffic Study MO#88) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Timing of Verification Responsible Perron Verification 1. Prior to the issuance of any building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a PlanningIkpartment plan permit the applicant shall building permit checker demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plan shall prepared and signed by a - licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer statirtthat.in his or her opinion,this requirement has been satisfied. 2. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning Department plan Use and Oompancy, the applicant building permit checker shall demonstrate to the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive has been reconfigured in compliance with the recommendations contained in the traffic impact study-prepared for the subject project(TPO#88). 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a PlaimungDepartment plan theappliant shall demonstrate to the grad1ng pest checker PfanningDepartment that the project will eomplywith Council Policies K5 and K-6 reguilingarchaeologicai and palcontologialmourceirvatigation, - surveillance and recovery. F.\_.\azira\Vo88\MM TABLE 1 ` CORPORATE PLA27A DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 Prepared By WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS t. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......... 1 Ii. TRIP GENERATION .................. 1 III. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................... 4 IV, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES .... 4 V. MITIGATIONS .......................... 7 M. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING 10 Mi. SUMMARY ............................. 10 APPENDIX A - ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS APPENDIX B - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES PROJECT DESCRIPTIO Corporate Plaza, which has a general office land use, has already been approved by the City of Newport Beach. This study is being conducted to determine the traffic impacts of Corporate Plaza on the surrounding street system, if the remaining, undeveloped land use was changed to medical offices instead of general office. The Corporate Plaza development would consist of four office/medical buildings with a total square footage of 79,847. This project would be developed within an area that is currently developed and is known as Newport Center. Corporate Plaza is located within the parameters of Coast Highway to the south, Newport Center Drive to the west, Farallon Drive to the north and Avocado Avenue to the east. The most direct access to the development will be on Corporate Plaza Drive via Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site in relationship to the surrounding street system. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan. It is estimated that the project will be completed by the Year 1998. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates for various land uses have been established by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. The rates which were applicable to the uses within this study are listed in Table 1. These rates were then applied to the proposed land uses based upon the assumption that all of the land use would be either general offices or medical offices. Table 2 presents the estimated trip generation for each use. A trip generation comparison was made between the office land use and medical land use. As shown in Table 2, the medical office land use generates a total of 155 more trips during the PM peak hour than the general office land use; therefore, the medical office land use was assumed for a "worst case" scenario. co I RO'vq I 73 Of! OQ' No Seale �J 0 2� A O y �f �u C D4ST c > DR m FORD RD �o SANTA BARBARA V, a DR 0 tr h f �V 3 Wy P� pAo�Flo PROJECT 5 COASTSITE 9q Ys�of o�' DR o0 e PROJECT LOCATION �A WPA TRAFFIC ENG�EERING, INC, FIGURE 9 i • ..., �= PROJECTI e '• SITEoff a ..� la to a � MeFLE •� 17 IO �'p`R�JECT O SI 21 r G _ IIIITM I 1 x G PROJECT SITE \, :.• ' d. yd � P��COiY�• SITE PLAN WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING INC. FIGURE 2 Source: McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Corporate Plaza TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTORM AM PEAR HOUR PM PEAR HOUR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR DAILY IN OUT ix OUT Medical Office 1,000 Square Feet - 0.60 0.20 1.90 2.40 General Office 1,000 Square Feet - 1.90 0.30 0.60 1.70 (1) "Peak Hour Generation Rates"; City of Newport Beach; August 15, 1991 7Y 3� • • -3- TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION Corporate Plaza TRIP ENDS AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE SIZE DAILY IN OUT IN OUT Land Use Comparison: Medical Office 79,847 SF - 50 15 150 190 General Office 79,847 SF - 150 25, 50 135 DIFFERENCE (100) (10) 100 55 TRIP ENDS AM 2.5 PEAK HOUR PM 2.5 PEAK HOUR LAND USE SIZE DAILY IN OUT IN OUT 2.5 Peak Hour• Medical Office 79,847 SF - (200) (20) 200 110 33' . -4- In order to perform the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis", project peak 2.5 hour volumes were estimated and are shown,on Table 2. These volumes are additional traffic, above what was assumed for the project area with a general office land use that was previously approved. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution percentages were based upon previously completed distributions inthe area, the location of the trip attractors, type of land use, proximity of freeways, and the surrounding 'street system. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. The project generated peak 2.5 trip end differences were then assigned,to the road system based on the distribution percentages and the proposed project accesses. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES The City of Newport Beach was contacted to determine the intersections that were to be analyzed. There are a total of eleven intersections that were analyzed in this study and they are listed in Table 3. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized for each of the study intersections. If project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing, regional growth and committed, project traffic on any approach to any of the selected intersections, then additional analyses are required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses. Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed 0.90. The basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth and approved/committed project traffic. A list of the committed projects is provided in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, Corporate Plaza, with a general office land use, is included in this list and has already been approved by the City of Newport Beach. I q • 73 Of( _ �qR i s% 10% No Scale 1 UNIVFRS\Sy 10% 15% � 10% pR 25%� 2� ° ti OPT w C - Oq ST 0 Ca OR m 25% FORD RD o� �o 25% 35% q- Cr S4y n O SANTA BARBARA 25% 110 �• DR 400/ U N Q ev cc 6J�v A10% 25% 2 Spd A4C�F�C PROJECT 25 20% SITE 6 BOAST 107 may. 4rS�D f R 25% p3o7. 5% DR °25% r 10% • — STUDY INTERSECTIONS s� 10% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION �3 9119M MEN, INC. FIGURE 3 � TABLE 3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Corporate Plaza 1. Coast Highway & Dover Drive - Bayshore Drive 2. Coast Highway '& Bayside Drive 3. Coast Highway &Jamboree Road 4. Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue 5. Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Boulevard 6. Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive 7. Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 8. Jamboree Road & East Bluff Drive - Ford Road 9. Mac Arthur Boulevard & San Miguel Drive 10, Mac Arthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 11. Mac Arthur Boulevard & Ford Road ? I TABLE 4 COMMITTED PROJECT LIST Corporate Plaza Hughes Aircraft #1 Far West Savings & Loan Aeronutronic Ford Back Bay Office Boyle Engineering Cal Canadian Bank Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Macarthur Court Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Bank of Newport Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Rudy Baron Quail Business Center 441 Newport Blvd. Martha's Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Kill Center NPT No. 1 Ross Mollard Hughes Aircraft #2 Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 Fun Zone Marriott Hotel St. Andrews Church YMCA Allred Condos Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel Univ. Ath. Club TPP Block 400 Medical Amend. No. 1 MacArthur Ct Amend. No. 2 Ford Aero Carver Granville Office Corona Del Mar Homes Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street 1100 Quail Street Kill Center TPP Amend. 4A Rosan's Development Block 500 NPT CTR Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E Coast Hwy Jasmine Park Newporter Inn Expansion Fashion Is. Renaissance CDM Senior Project Point Del Mar Pacific Club Newport Seacrest Apt. 3800 Campus Dr. Hoag Cancer Center Edwards Newport Center Seaside Apts (Mesa II) Victoria Station 3760 Campus Drive Newport Imports Mariners' Mile Marine Center 15th Street Apartments Seaside Apartments III Newport Bay Retirement Inn Newport Classic Inn Mariners Church Expansion McLachlan-Newport Place 1501 Superior Medical Fashion Island #2 Newporter Resort Expand. Newport Lido Med. Center Villa Point Shokrian 15th Street Apartments Rockwell Expansion Andrew Restaurant Balboa/Washington Newport Import Restaurant 28th Street Marina Project Ambrosia Restaurant Calty/Toyota Expansion Our Lady Queen of Angels Zonta Club Residential 28th Street Island Villa Point II Taco Bell Fashion Island Transfer Pacific Bell Site Newport Village Castaways Marina Koll Center - Carls Jr. Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza & West Burgess Commercial Center Harbor Pacific Plaza Hoag Hospital Extension Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 N. Ford Irvine Project Newport Dunes Bayview City of Irvine Development 7�' Due to the fact that Corporate Plaza has been approved,for general office, the difference between the general office and medical office trip generation was utilized in this analyses. Table 21 which was presented earlier in this study, shows the medical office adding trips only in the PM peak hour with 100 inbound and 55 trips outbound. The peak 2.5 hour volumes for the PM were 200 inbound and 110 outbound. These trips were added to the "One Percent_Traffic Volume Analysis". Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 5. The criteria established by the City of Newport Beach indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds one percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review ofTable 5 indicates that four of the study intersections exceed the maximum one percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. The four study intersections of Coast Hwy/Avocado, Jamboree/Santa Barbara, MacArthur/San Miguel and MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills were further analyzed to determine potential impacts. Utilizing"Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis" forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved,projecrs. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 6. Review of Table 6 indicates that the study intersection of MacArthur/San Miguel is projected to have an ICU value of 0.91. The other study intersections would all have ICU values at or below the 0.90 level. MITIGATION MEASURES As indicated in Table 6, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive would have an ICU value of 0.91 with the proposed project. The ICU value can be reduced to 0.79 by adding a southbound right turn lane. Figure 4 shows a schematic drawing of the proposed improvements. 1 -8- TABLE 5 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Corporate Plaza PM PEAK 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES LOCATION NB SB EB WB Coast Hwy & Dover Dr-Bayshore - 0.32 0.73 0.33 Coast Hwy & Bayside Dr. - - 0.63 0.35 Coast Hwy &Jamboree Rd. - - 0.78 0.54 Coast Hwy & Avocado Ave. - 4.33 1.16 0.61 Coast Hwy & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 0.22 0.44 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. - 0.75 - 1.08 Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.53 0.68 - - Jamboree Rd. & East Bluff Dr.-Ford Rd. 0.39 0.74 - - MacArthur Blvd. & San Miguel Dr. - 1.16 1.42 1.25 MacArthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.70 1.13 0.52 - MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. 0.74 0.93 - - TAB LE 6 ICU SUMMARY - PM PEAK HOUR Corporate Plaza EXISTING EXISTING + GROWTH EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED 1999 + GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT INTERSECTION EXISTING + COMMITTED + PROJECT W/MITIGATIONS(i) Coast Highway/ Avocado 0.50 0.59 0.59 - Jamboree/ Santa Barbara 0.58 0.85 0.86 - MacArthur/ San Miguel 0.63 0.88 0.91 0.79 MacArthur/ San Joaquin Hills 0.67 0.88 0.90 - (1) Mitigation Measure: Add a southbound right turn lane. to MACARTHUR BLVD. No scale ADD RIGHT4TURNLANE SAN MIGUEL D . ..T TT i i RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATION AT INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BLVD. & SAN MIGUEL DR. RPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. FIGURE 4 ?9 • -10- It should be noted that currently, the City of Newport Beach has plans to widen MacArthur Boulevard within the study area from four lanes to six lanes. This expansion to six lanes would provide the required capacity for the proposed project at the intersection of MacArthur/San Miguel. The time schedules for both the MacArthur Boulevard improvements and the Corporate Plaza project would also coincide. The widening of MacArthur Boulevard, within the study area,, is estimated' to begin in 1994/95 and is considered the first phase. The Corporate Plaza project is estimated to be completed by the Year 1998; therefore, the MacArthur Boulevard improvements should be finished before the Corporate Plaza project is completed. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING The proposed development plan was examined with respect to the adequacy of the on- site.circulation system. In general, the proposed plan does not alter the existing on-site circulation system. The major site access is from the driveways on Pacific Coast Highway, Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue. Our review did not identify any potential problems with the planned on-site circulation system. A parking analyses was not completed for this study; however a note should be made that medical office land use demands more parking than general office land use. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to the proposed Corporate Plaza project. Estimates have been made of traffic to be generated by the project, if the land use changes to medical office, and the ability of the ,road system to accommodate the added traffic. The analysis was completed to conform to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Potential impacts have been identified and mitigation measures recommended. On-site circulation and parking were also examined. . • -11- The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. The project, under medical office land use, is estimated to generate 65 (50 In, 15 Out) Alva peak hour trip ends and 340 (150 In, 190 Out) PM peak hour trips ends. 2. The difference between the general office land use and medical office land use was utilized in this analysis. The medical office land use is estimated to generate 155 (100 In, 55 Out) additional trips in the PM peak hour and 310 (200 In, 110 Out) during the 2.5 hour PM peak. 3. A total of eleven study intersections were examined and four did not pass the "One Percent" test. 4. ICU analyses of the four critical intersections indicated that one of the four intersections (MacArthur/San Miguel) had an ICU value more than 0.90. 5. A southbound right turn lane would be required at the intersection- of MacArthur/San Miguel, with the proposed project. The addition of this mitigation measure would permit the study intersection to operate with an ICU value less than 0.90. 6. The City of Newport Beach has plans to widen MacArthur Boulevard within the study area from four lanes to six lanes. This expansion to six lanes would provide the required capacity for the proposed project at the intersection of MacArthur/San Miguel. 7. On-site circulation was found to be adequate with respect to traffic operation and safety. 8. A parking analysis was not performed; however, medical office land use P g Y demands more parking than general office land use. 1-5'1 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 26 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound 297 {•�'� L 3o f " Southbound 2280 •e— (0 2`-7 ��p 25 60) Eastbound 4164 55 (40 i Westbound 4392 55� (p`j/ 5(o/7 5& ( 5) �( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected t�! Peak Na Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Q Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: aan,lr:rT. 7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage inter ,pring 93)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1X of Protected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peet ;u Hour Pea Volume Hour Pea Volume, ' PeaVo; Hour Volume volume 28 7 3 me Northbound 277 Southbound 2'910 $- 175 3085 31 0 Eastbound 4230 o�j3 >L —7-h2. 553ta 55 i 'TES i Westbound p 5 q 6757 3 �( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected l Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 'DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92')AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume nVolume Northbound 965 �" 2� 9 $(G / 0 V South bound 208 -c 155 5GL -7 // Eastbound 5900 —]�{ �(p(p �7� Q �7 650 p i Westbound 3856 457 47?0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: oS PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92 )PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1374 southbound 179 SCO Eastbound 6446 52- -7q 1 f `79 50 Westbound 63 B 200 '7&9 90 P7 -7, 1 28 �i Project Traffic is estimated to be less tham 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: - � nnn 1rnT 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Vol—um—e—s--Fa—sed on Average inter prang IFL3FAM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 15 of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume volume volume Volume i Volume Northbound 1494 115 Southbound 1860 3(p 7" 30 Eastbound 5212 110 (o 07& 70 i r50 i Westbound 2737 3��j 2-7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 )PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak '2§ Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume i volume I Northbound 1076 j41 �O/ Southbound 3975 89 71 Eastbound ' 4761 50 - Westbound 4062 1014 5/85 52 28 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: Don icr .r. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/AVOCADO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 581 ch, Southbound 191 39 23d 2 ; (7) Eastbound 2151 271 (oE 25905� i Westbound 3185 qO2- 379 396,4, 40 ' Zo Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/AVOCADO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92)-PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hcur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound 6.65 2- p7 f Southbound 818 -6- 24 —!`t 2• I , 3q Eastbound 3493 l� �^^ 33 �f2(o5 i /5100 Hestbound, 2708 �T�— 3?j ! ! 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: _ 1a 0001g:rT. i7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 ) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound —D— Southbound 1226 513 25� Q99)� Eastbound 2437 30g /(09 2 / IT/ i t Westbound 4788 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 6 PROJECT: " 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes base'd on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound _0— -9- Southbound 2342 g,gd TJ�o /7 bq Eastbound 4111 5/9 33C1 50 J� ',/[ '-Westbound 3634 �9 3�� `1"�J � � Zo III �{ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Jrsl Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of 'Projected El Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: ba 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr (Existing Traffic Vol—um—e—s--Fa—sed on Average Winter/Spring 93 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume I Northbound 3790 —73(o 9`><5 J547/ 55 � Soahbound 2746 � 72 ,5e0ut Eb 0 Westbound - 468 233 -701 CS �¢ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 3y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd / Santa Barbara Dr M (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter - pring 9 _ Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 7; f rotected Project Direction Peak 2y Nour Growth Peak 2ss Nour Peak 21s Hour y Hour TPeek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i volume Northbound 2737 5� ' 201 4Q/&��g Southbound 4426 $59 f AIO? (p(pp7 (07 . 5 Eastbound .-0— ( Westbound 2013 . 5 q11 `✓ J `"`� 2g' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 'b% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: / oon 117r r. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hou• Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3684 7l 5 I M 5(085 57 + ( 5 Southbound 3844 I174, 550 55 �50 Eastbound 758 + Westbound L 783 M y Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected /}d( Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: Traffic Volume 1% Tr Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ,based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) M Peak 2y Hour Approved [[Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project tion Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2> HocVolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ound 3401 th(off f21Jlc 529'7 53 . i 2 Southbound 5055 (orb 1575 -7 (o , -75 50. Eastbound 4141 2(p ` I' ��- i Westbound 1558 - 7 Q?' 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21,j Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization Peak 21z Hour TrafficP (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PRn.l FrT 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd / Ford Rd/Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic volumes aseU on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ KM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected IV. of Projected Prcject Pea our Peak IPea Hour Direction Peak Growth Pea Hour Mu Volume Volume Volume Volume Yolme I Northbound 4161 ge 6474 5 Southbound 3056 Eastbound 937 MO �- p i Westbound 688 l(p5 g53 / -e— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysi's Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on ver-age inter pr ng PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected' 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume volume Volume Volume n volume Northbound 4932 101,'f— 15M1 105V `71 ! `8 Southbound 4614 J591, P56' & / 2 (a� 50 Eastbound 1097 -10— '�10 1143 i Westbound 44-9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization O.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2971 '15 223 -j-7 Soutbound 2302 &5 Eastbound 48$ L llestbound 627 / 7� g05 (�Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity 'kilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 69 PROJECT: �3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 19 92) M Peak 2h Hour Approved Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project tion Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2+s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume VolumeVolume Volume Volume Volume [;Approach ound 1962 p 2� Z�(0 Southbound 2793 11L1g Eastbound 2101 '� :3 * n i Westbound 701 — -74 -775 d _ l0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: Vonlcr e. d 7" 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 93 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2928 Z'L� (02 5 1 Q'S I 5 southbound 3785 `y3S 758 52 5? S3 70 Eastbound 516 524- (D 0— �7 Nestbound 1647 �" / 0 1817 I g -0- 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected Iwo of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth 'Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ Hour Volume Volume Volume r [[Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2558 /Q ! `�`�7/ "TOO�v Southbound 4623 A / Eastbound 1825 '� 2515 i 'Westbound 1121 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: DRn,irrT. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter/ pring 19 93 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume /(i Northbound 3811 77�j 562 5-1 1 9 51 (7) Southbound 4539 �0 $ r7g : 7d Eastbound 454 Yi0 474 5 westbound 2028 _ — 213 2Z4-1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average In er pr ng 9 9 PM Peak 2> Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Protected Protect Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4038 72 L/?j9 53 39 Southbound 5626 /092el n Z -75 70 Eastbound 697 '� 5'L -749 Westbound 1335 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ('I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE': "1 non irrr. APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI me IHoventl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH PROJECT l V/C Ratio IVoluno V/C I I -.-•-..lCapacitylCapacityl Volune l Ratio l Volume Volume lw/o Projectl Ratio l I, Volume •........................................................ ........................I I NL I I I I I I p I -- 1 0 1 -= 1 1............................................................................................I 1 NT 1 4800 1 1 932 1 0.19 1 �g 1 1 559 1 0,31 1 0 1 0.3/ 1 ---------------------•......................................... ..i..................�...I 1 NR I 16001 1 1531 0.101 I ¢ I0/12 1 O Iro,12I -------------------------------------------................ .1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 333 1 0.10 1 1 1¢4- 1 p 15 1 50 10• (p I .......................................... i ST 1 4800 1 1 1652 1 0.39 * 359 1478 0,58 )(-1 0 0,5? lam, I.......................................... i....•--•--•........ .............. ......I SR_____________________•••--_--_.---••_._..._._......80................_........._ .I I EL I NA, I I I i 1 30 1 1 0 1 1 ..............................................I I ET IN. At. I I I I 1 10 1 1 0 1 1 I--•••-_•-••................................................................................I l...ER............. 1 ( 0 1 I ... I I I 1 0 I WL 1 2400 1 1 456 1 0.19 • 1 24- 1 0,a3 1 0 I Q 23 1 IWT I i i I I i IO 27 .. 2.. WR 1 2400 1 1 452 1 0.19 1 1 )-7$ 1 1 2q IT I I•---••............................................••-..................•---_.........-•----I 1 ...... .................... .1 l IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED V/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,1 5 1 I 1...........................................................................................1 (EXISTING + C"ITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0-Vo 1 ............................................................................................. Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I:C.U. W/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It JAS31OPH / 6 .-. CH608SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i AVOCADO AVENUE 6085 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992PH-•••-..- - . I I EXISTING IPROPOSEDIEXISTINGI EXISTING I REGIONAL ICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovement Lanes Lanes IPK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C I lCapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Project, Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-----------------------------------•--'•-.__._.....__--- ------------.'--------------- ._.I I NL 1 1600 I 1 112 1 0.07 1 1 / 10, 07 1 0 10.0'7 l 1---•--------••--------- ----------------------------•--- ..........................----•--- NY 1 1 53 I I........ O.o9I3�) 1600 ) 0.09 -....._----------'I •Qa17 '.'O._._ NR 1 1 92 I 1 0 1 1� 0 � ----------------------------------------------------------•-----...........1.. -...:.........II I '8T i I I 109 1 1 0 0 0I I--------------------- -----------••---------•••----•----___.--_--------------------------- SR I N.S. I 1 142 1 1 1 /9 ._.�...........1.wag 1 I I----...._--•••-----••--------------•----•-------•------... . .........I EL 1 16001 1 381 0.021 1 qZ 10.0Y 1 5010.07l I--------•-.._.__----•----------------------------Q-----•-----•-•------------•-------••------I ET 1 1 1336 1 /('! 1 1 /29 . .o... �a. .O... Ye3.�nl fF- --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.2.9 ------------------ �} I ER 1 1 61 I 1 /3 U 1 0 I I I---------------------•----------- --------------•-------•-•------•-•-•.-.-----------------I WL 1 1600 1 1 70 1 0.04 * 1 0 10: 0AI *I 0 I------•---.----- --•--------------------------------------• -----------•-------I WY I I 1006 I /27 1 941 I--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.22 -------------•---- I WR 1 I 43 I•---.--.---•-------------------------------------------------------•----------•---..... 1EXISTING 1 0.50 1 l I-------------•-----------------•--_----------------------------.-.-....p.._.. (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 01511 1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..CC.o.l [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0. J 1 1 ............................................................................................. Projected ♦ project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.V. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT, FORM II CH608SPH KA5070PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 103 PN I -•• • IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING[EXISTINGIREG10NALICOHHITIEDIPROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IHovomentl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio 1Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volune I Volume 1w/0 Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I................................................................... i HL 1 1600 1 1 41 1 0.03 - 1 2 1 0,0 j 7`f-1 0 .10.031Y, ...p..1J............................. I NT 1 4800 1 1 1045 1 0.22 11/571 /d 0 .-1-a-35 I 28 10.35 1 ...................... I NR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 1 '1 Q 16, 61 Q I 10, 0J I I.............•••._......-•-•............._..........---................. ..I I........................................................................................5_I i I 1 I i I 0 0, •- 5 •-- 0, 439 0.14 1236..1 �1 010,5-q 1 ST I 1 1 I . + 25�__.•.0 0,.. 7 _(.1*- ...............................................SR I N.S. 1 1 346 1 1 150 1 1 20 1' I ................................................ ......•.I I EL 1 3200 1 1' $04 1 0.16 • 1 / 5..1 !7� / I I'.._I 0:1!/ hE 1............................................................. ....... . 0 ET 1 1 297 0.07 1 1 a69 ..............58 ..............:...... ER I I _ 1................ ............ . . I I•----••--••--- 41 .....--•.---...••.••----.......9�i.........• I WL 1600 13 0.01 WT 1 i 2.. ........0 4e0o '........i... 0 0.0e ( 1 8 I I' U I `-- 262 ............... (EXISTING ..........................i...0.67 1.................. I ........ I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED•W/PROPOSED•IMPROVEMENTS 1.C.U.•••• - �?g 1 1......................................................................................... 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I:C.U. •----. •-I::�IO•I .......................................................................... yS}'Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C,U, with project improvements will be Less than 1.C.U, without project ........•................................................................................ Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA5070PH KA7135PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: KACARTHUR SCULEVARD L SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PH 1 (EXISTINGIPROPOSED►EXISTINGIEXISTING►REGIONALICCHMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI (P/2),,rc r HovementiCapacity►Capacity) Volauoe I Ratio I Volume I VoTH I lume Iw/oCProjecti Ratio Volune 'I Ratio I I W17,1 - I I I I 1 I I I volume ► I 1 � j»'`��'�Zr?N;5 •__........--•------------------•------•---•-••................ I ... _.. WL 1 1600 I 1 So 1 0.03 - I I 0.p�{ I D IU...I O. Oy WT 1 1 624 12101 1 92 ' --�• �:�1 1 10.35 '---SR i--•-----'- ------ 0.24 - - ---------------••- Q. `�. I '-) 3200 132 ) I I 1 ..............4:......._...._.....:�........._.I ;. sL 1 1600 ► I 7 ( 0.00 I 10 10, 00 1 0•••10- 00 � ..........................................••_.......... .... y I------------- 1 1 1006 ( 2� 1 22 1 0 1� ( a �p 32: 1 4 I a5$ ....._.. .Q. . ... I SR I 1 245 1 1 (og I---•....................•----•--------••--•----•............._.........._.._...............I I EL 1 3200 1 I 549 1 0.17 *........I. 10.20 0,2V Y. I -ET • --•-•••---.... ..1....291 1 1 (00 II�7�7 (].'J 1 IG p.� 1 ge 3200 -----•------••----) 0.13 ----------------- I ] ^I-.O... I........) I 1 10yy � .. I -• I..........................i....134 i........!......._...................------............-1 WL I 1600 1 106 0.07 I 10,O rl 1 0' 10,07 1 0,07 -------------•---••••-•---.. .---•-••--...---•••---- WT I I tzo I I O:p(p 1 �d �10 0�1 -------) 3200 ------------------ ta ) 0.04 i...._._.i._0...•- I I I I . IEXISTING ..........................1•......................................................0.63 1 1 � 1----•------ •-••-.....-----•- •.................V .................... (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O� 8 8...1 ......................................... .........:.... [EXISTING + C"ITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.•-_••-•------•._-•••-••--••-10 41-i 0,79 1 •....................................................... 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 �C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 yS► Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project ............................................. Description of system improvement: Jp1TI,5p, jJR/ QpQUiQ�S Q So tr1F13J �Nl� 2f`5 �T' FORK 11 PROJECT KA7135PK n7 CORPORATE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Amendment No. City Council Resolution No. 199_ �0 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................. Page 3 SECTION I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...................... Page 4 SECTION II GENERAL NOTES................................... Page 5 SECTION III DEFINITIONS............................................ Page 7 SECTION IV BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, NE D�G+ AND COMMERCIAL Page 8 Sub-Section A Intent.............................................................. Page 8 Sub-Section B Permitted Uses............................................. Page 8 Sub-Section C Building Location........................................ Page 8 Sub-Section D Building Height............................................ Page 8 Sub-Section E Parking........................................................... Page 9 Sub-Section F Landscaping.................................................. Page 9 Sub-Section G Loading Areas.............................................. Page 9 Sub-Section H Storage Areas............................................... Page 10 Sub-Section I Refuse Collection Areas............................. Page 10 Sub-Section J Telephone and Electrical Service............. Page 10 Sub-Section K Signs................................................................ Page 40 i _3 INTRODUCTION The Corporate Plaza Planned Community District for the City of Newport Beach is a part of the Newport Center Development in conjunction with the South Irvine Ranch General Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach General Planwhich was adopted in December 1973. The purpose of this PC (Planned Community) District is to provide a method whereby property maybe classified and developed for commercial activity,professional,,business gal , Zxec offices. The specifications of this district are intended to provide flexibility in both the land use and development standards for the planned building groups. • 4- • SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Corporate Plaza 1. Project Area Gross Acreage 47.8 Net Acreage 40.4 2. Percentage of Site Coveraee a. Building Footprint 15-20 b. Parking Area 40-45 C. Landscape 40-45 3. Maximum f fns5 building floor area shall not exceed 432,320 square feet. t4 zria 7 ;87 gttiss sg3ifiji'b�i3iiiitig itagr' a ftytie ocatollftir "medical OMW uses on Buildin, Sites No. 8, 911 and 27 only:. No medita•offic uses are permitted on artytlzer,building sites 4 . The square footage of individual building sites are tentative and subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. • _5- SECTION II. GENERAL NOTES I. Grading outside an area submitted under the Planned Development Ordinance but within the Planned Community area will be permitted upon securing of a grading permit. 2. Water within the Planned Community area will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 3. Sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community will,be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. 4. The subject property is within the City of Newport Beach. The Developer will provide the necessary flood protection facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. 5. Erosion control provisions shall be carried out on all areas• of the Planned Community in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Planning. 6. Except as otherwise stated in this Ordinance,the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Code 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 Newport Beach's Uniform Building Code and the various mechanical codes related thereto. 7. Parking lot lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning. Parking lot lighting shall be designed in a manner so as to minimise impacts on adjacent residential areas. 8. All mechanical appurtenances on building roof tops and utility vaults shall be screened from street level view in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Planning. 9. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the site shall be examined to determine the existence and,extent of archaeological and paleontological resources in accordance with adopted City polices. 10. Any future signal light on East Pacific Coast Highway at the private street intersection will be the responsibility of The Irvine Company., 11. The on-site parldng,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. 7'b -6- • 12. The intersections at private streets and drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 13. Prior to occupancy of any structures, easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes should-sKilt"be dedicated to the City over all private streets. mm f 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the master plans of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be reviewed and updated to current standards and any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner. The review of the storm drain master plan will require the submittal of hydrology and hydraulic studies to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The hydrology study shall include both on-site and off-site drainage to determine the measures necessary to protect the subject development from flooding during a 100 year storm frequency. The developer may be required to install retention basins upstream from the proposed development or enlarge the existing downstream storm drain system to satisfy the requirement. 15. The northerly entrance/exit on Avocado Avenue shall be designed for a right turn in and out, ONLY. The design shall provide for an island that restricts left turns. This requirement may be waived if the driveway lines up with the access to the parcel easterly of Avocado Avenue and the City incurs no additional costs to relocate their proposed access to the library site. SECTION III. DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface of a Sign The total area of the face of the sign structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Setbacks from Street Corners Setbacks from street comers shall be established as that point of intersection.of the required setback lines from access streets, prolonged'to point of intersection. �n�i�ferne to Cyrus"�too`�r'�°e� Fi� '�eaxe��iil�ng n�a"""�' n""ihexeoi"�uClu a surruundiri""h 'e arS"r wall is zy q!9hi4—portinn'1D?tt b"uzMffS wkich measures more ffian�1 6it from Mod T o f c i at �ttd ism I�sit i b iuctuded i c i utxtians ofgross floor a eas uffjze pr stazxwe s e e vato s"a-ffs s'G"aa tat�tediawards r oRr area oR ercaclud w th� iie sur�t� 'rahx#�x� s u �bu Sg ox paxrn xtre© exclusrve of vent shafts and,courts The Apr area ui a building, or partiort;herealso$ provided , sttxroa!ndiug exterior;waEls hall be the usabte area uWer tha rorizonta ru`eCtion of the r00 ur fioor above �g.�SiOXq s May e surro '���vui�s�"�"u�"d "eR us�ve >af v s avatar shafts, ays,exterior corz�d�rs or balcnzues,rooms containing urtSy meclzani nd atecttic �t�i�xiteu�'us�d exzur roo a atrzuzn areas open nn hvo or more sz s, an xtenor• ooe balconies or walkways open on mo side,shall not-bo inoluded'in Entlticment Gan door. AreaPaxkinmmCrrass Efoc� mAr�ea oretTook Axed calculations • -8- • SECTION IV. BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL;� AND COMMERCIAL A. Intent The intent of this district is to permit the location of a combination of business-anq professional jiia mgt�i4al office uses, and light general commercial activities engaged in the sale of products to the general public. B. Permitted Uses The following shall be permitted: 1. Retail sales and service of a convenience nature. 2. Administrative, professionalaz� xpai�l� offices 3. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive-in or take-out restaurants, shall be subject to the securing of a use permit 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. 4. Institutional, financial and governmental facilities. 5. Civic, cultural, commercial recreational and recreational facilities. 6. Parking lots, structures and facilities. 7. Drive-up teller units, subject to the review of the on-site parking and circulation plan by the City Traffic Engineer and approved by the Director of Planning. C. Building Location All buildings shall be located in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. D. BuildingH eight All buildings and appurtenant structures shall be limited to a maximum height of thirty-two (32) feet, with the exception of Building 'W'which shall be permitted up to the limit established by the sight plane and the extension of the sight plane northerly to Farallon Drive and southerly to Pacific Coast Highway. 4(1.9 41 • -9- E. rldn 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 common parking area in accordance with the off-street parking requirements REW ngs esoept w exe any part o I m used a a m , t x A offx ): tyzte psxldzagease fnmm s u�et of ueet fie j�� s �xn�her�'�tt� ��.�IC� PDt3I1;` �ze �i><zrld�g�kegi�����ezit�ri�Rvfi"tc����zltd�ri ;� ecifietl�`62rvC,,rnay„;„be�atli#le„�. �..�vu�tb �t�f tllvw�n� sc�1t" t�t» rf n fl r b of Else nexf t)(I; sq Ef;;��."-F Poe sled aonef �s"ace Qtf s �£t, n� as .00111 c y a i o oox area,pang"sT� tb re "oz' ed�ottce-� 5U s it, of net floora 1C.ommission -may modJem tho rldn formula by. T7se�abase-d one �lezna trated for uI ��xca ar► ental"�e��°�gs:�"�""r�.tt s�ac�f r ac� eef pf�ros5�nar_•,�r��� ' F. Landscaoine Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans,prepared by a licensed landscape architect, licensed landscaping contractor, or architect shall be reviewed by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. In no case shall any landscaping penetrate the sight plane ordinance established by the sight plane for Harbor View Hills. All landscaping referred to in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. -10- • 1. Screenin Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping, and/or fencing from access streets, and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees. 2. Landscaping-Vehicle Separation 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. 3. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls shall be provided in the parking area. G. Loading Areas 1. Street side loading shall be allowed providing the loading dock is screened from view from adjacent streets. H. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I. Refuse Collection Areas 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, 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. I Telephone and Electrical Service All"on site" electrical line (excluding transmission lines) and telephone lines shall be F9 • -11- � ' placed underground. Transformer or,terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. K in 1. Building Address Sign Building address numerals shall be a maximum of two (2) feet in height and shall be consistent with the building identification signing. Buildingaddress number shall face the street (and/or pedestrian walkways in the case of necessity), and be located on the building so that they are visible from adjacent frontage roads and designated parking areas. 2. Project/Building Identification Sign Project and/or building identification signs are permitted at major entry access drives from adjacent frontage streets, provided that they comply with the City of Newport Beach site distance requirement 110-L. The identification signage is permitted in the form of a free-standing (single or double faced) monument sign. The sign copy shall be restricted to the project or building name and street address. Individual letter heights shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches. 3. Tenant Identification Signs Tenant identification signs are permitted and are divided into two (2) categories: Primary Tenant - Secondary Tenant Tenant identification signs are to be wall-mounted graphics, consisting of individually fabricated letters. Box or "can" signs are not permitted. The maximum number of primary tenant signs permitted on any one building elevation is two (2). Each secondary tenant shall be limited to-one (1) identification sign. The maximum letter height of a primary tenant sign shall not exceed twenty- four (24) inches: The maximum letter height of a secondary tenant sign shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches. �110 141 -12- Sign copy shall be restricted to identification of the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site. 4. General Sign Standards a. Signs (to include all those visible from the exterior of any building) may be lighted but no sign or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. 5. Temporary Signs The following guidelines are intended to produce a consistent sign design for temporary signs within Newport Center. All temporary signs require the approvals of the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. Temporary signs are to identify the future site, project or facility under development on individual project sites. Information on this sign is limited to: For Sale, For Lease, Future Home of, Building/Project Name, etc. Type or Name of Development - Type and Area of Space Available - Major Tenant or Developer - Financial Institution - General Contractor - Architect - Leasing Agent - Occupancy Date - Phone Number - Irvine Company or Irvine Company Project Name and Logo Location: One temporary sign is permitted on site for each frontage street. These signs may be single or double-faced and parallel or perpendicular to the roadway. Design: All temporary signs are to be built in substantial conformance to The Irvine Company corporate design standards as shown on the following page. Longevity: Signs can exist from the time of lease or sale of the parcel until construction and/or leasing of the facility is complete. f.\...\JAY-G\CORP-PLZ.PC 9/ • Fixture Home of ,American Products 31 Technology Dr. (714) 5514500 DROKEa; Company SECT: Frank Lloyd Wright caapACVR: Johnson Construction y`114G IRVINE COMPANY 9� 0 9.y D 9c9Ay O Y �ti?�5.;..• T A :•;i%ti Nn I O^ ••••:i:;:i'::•:}:.L::tir•:::ti;:;:::;:ti::•i:.;:ti'.'T}...... :•::i:{�:`':;:ti tiiti{?:•::i:�.':. G - • • PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LEGEND PROFESSIONAL / OFFICE / COMMERCIAL / MEDICAL CORPORATE PLAZA 9-� ! i i IS .y b V 16 ca _ Fi 20 A p ,r.._:._.. xJ p..:.....; 10 y < ..�t.% 22 1 ' �•', r'' a; xvR (J 4 'ram a a 1���l\ tW t CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT CENTER '^v=f Beacn,CA SETBACKS SITE PLAN S z \ ..ram 14 1s I 16 __.- I g ri, G2i y�jl�lGU / Is 9 w u�u {, 8 to ;ee � I s ra 1, furs 6Nv H,.y NU) CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT CENTER -.'ewMl Beacn.CA SIGHT PLANE PLAN „,p9�y /A ` � I I m � 14 IS 7 I� t6 — 9 O20 23 � ! 8 f„ 9 = I a I / 22 J i % d , v tmj CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT CENTER ':ewMI 8e:u:.Cn GRADING PLAN 1 „„w Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE CORPORATE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY SO AS TO ESTABLISH MEDICAL OFFICES AS A PERMITTED USE AND TO ALLOW THE REMAINING 79,847 SQUARE FEET OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT TO BE USED FOR MEDICAL OFFICE PURPOSES; AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT AND PLANS WHEREAS,Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that final amendments to a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a Resolution of the City Council, setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 18, 1993, at which time this amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Standards was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission determined that the proposed changes to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community were appropriate and necessary in order to allow medical office uses within the Planned Community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending to the City Council the approval of this amendment as set forth in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 1993; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment in accordance with all provisions of the law;and WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making their decision on the proposed amendment; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the proposed amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Plan as set forth in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 1993. ADOPTED this 13th day of December. 1993. MAYOR ATTEST. CITY CLERK r y� a a�W Pp�,r e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH O U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 e+< Cq�/FOR�`P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 29, 1993 Mr. David B. Neish 19100 Von Karman Ave. Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92715 Subject: Corporate Plaza Site Traffic Phasing Ordinance Studv 550 Newport Center Drive, NNport Beach (TPO # 88) Dear Mr. Neish: Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project and filed in the County Clerk's Office, County of Orange on October 28, 1993. For any further question or more information, I can be reached at 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By - Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner F:\WP51\...\Aziz-a\Traffic\TS88LEr1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: October 29, 1993 TO: William Ward FROM: John Douglas, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Environmental Documentation for: Corporate Plaza (Traffic Study No. 88) The project referenced above has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA and the following findings are recommended for consideration by the decision-maker prior to project approval: [ ] The proposed action is not a "Project" as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. No findings are necessary. [ ] That the proposed project is Statutorally Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Public Resources Code Section [ j That the proposed project is Categorically Exempt (Class_) from the provisions of CEQA ( )• [ ] That the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)which states the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. [ ] That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the [Planning Commission/City Council] and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. (continued) 1 - , 1 0 [XX] That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment,therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the [Planning Commission/City Council] and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. [ ] Final EIR No. , previously certified on , was considered prior to approval of the project,was determined adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project, and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgement of the [Planning Commission/City Council]. [ ] Final EIR No. , previously certified on , and Addendum No. to the Final EIR were considered prior to approval of the project. Together they were determined adequate to satisfy all the requirements of CEQA. The Addendum does not raise any important new issues regarding the environmental effects of the project. The Final EIR and Addendum reflect the independent judgement of the [Planning Commission/City Council]. The following finding is recommended in compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 (AB 3158 of 1990): [XX] An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. The following finding is required in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding mitigation monitoring (AB 3180 of 1988): [XX] The mitigation monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 will be met through required compliance with applicable codes, standards,mitigation measures, and conditions of approval adopted in connection with the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached to the Negative Declaration and is hereby adopted. F.\...\JOHN-D\FORMS\ENV-RM.MEM 2 STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY QQ�� DEPARTMENT OF FISH ME ENVIRONMENTAL FG FEE CASH RECEIPT �J 27935 DFG_5 ('j) WA' 6 I'1 Lead Agency: � Date: � County/State Agency of Riin . Document No,:l Project Title: J 6 f7 Project Applicant Name: r�—O 1�, ` //1�i /1 �� c/a Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: • ito l j V c—+T Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency Pr School District ❑ Other Special District State Agency ❑ Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ ( ) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ to Project that Is exempt from fees x� TOTAL RECEIVED $ `x Signature and title of person receiving payment: FIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB THIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF RUNG October 25, 1993 TO: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: CORPORATE PLAZA TRAFFIC STUDY The Corporate Plaza Traffic Study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. has been reviewed and found to comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The study identifies the need for a traffic mitigation at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. The City of Newport Beach is lead agency on a widening of MacArthur Boulevard which will provide equivalent mitigation to that identified in the report. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (15.40.030 (i) (c) ) requires that the approval of the project be conditioned upon payment of a fee representing a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The amount of this share has not been determined as of this time. eRh::T Edmonston Traffic Engineer wp51\richvorptaza.mem October 4, 1993 TO: John Douglas, Principal Planner FROM: Genia Garcia, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza Entitlement After a lengthy and detailed study conducted by myself and Diane Hussey of McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc., of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, I have outlined the square footage for each building. The use of tissue overlays of the original plans used in the issuance of building permits for each building was the basis upon which we determined the square footage. The attached chart represents gross square footage for entitlement purposes, gross square footage for parldng, and net square footage for parldng. cc: Pat Temple, Advance Planning Manager Senior Planners Bill Laycock, Current Planning Manager Janet Divan, Traffic Engineering Division 1 • CORPORATE PLAZA • ENTITLEMENT-PARKING AND ANALYSIS Existing N.B. N.B. N.B N.B Development Bldg. Gross Pkg. Pkg. Permits Entitle. Gross Net 1 Corporate Plaza 16,000 17,671 17,499 16,503 2 Corporate Plaza 24,246 21,323 21,026 19,592 3 Corporate Plaza 20,886 20,392 20,300 18,934 4 Corporate Plaza 21,630 22,007 22,072 20,682 5 Corporate Plaza 10,154 10,390 10,032 9,847 7 Corporate Plaza 21,000 23,627 23,379 22,592 12 Corporate Plaza 15,747 16,441 16,107 15,254 13 Corporate Plaza 17,574 15,755 15,141 14,456 14 Corporate Plaza 24,040 26,954 26,704 25,348 15 Corporate Plaza 15,500 16,143 15,755 15,049 16 Corporate Plaza 13,610 13,271 13,218 11,995 17 Corporate Plaza 23,350 22,976 22,617 21,447 18 Corporate Plaza 16,000 18,231 17,929 16,790 19 Corporate Plaza 17,580 16,378 15,895 15,698 20 Corporate Plaza 8,200 8,168 7,755 7,630 23 Corporate Plaza 82,619 82,746 82,130 80,046 Total 348,136 352,473 347,559 331,863 September 14, 1993 Required Parking - Gross 1,390 - Net 1,190 47 g Existing Parking ii f0 , 4 1,160 = (30) spaces Total Proposed Additional Spaces 349 = 1,509 Total Y n ', • • McLarand, Vasquez& Partners,Inc. August 17, 1993 Mr. John Suess Williamson & Schmid 15101 Red Hill Avenue Wn Tustin, California92680 r Re: Corporate Plaza carlMccarana,A.I.A. MV&P Job #92-180 Emeslo M.Vasquez.A.I.R. Arthurr—Eakner.A.I.A. Dear John: As Williamson & Schmid and MV&P have been simultaneously doing parking studies for Corporate Plaza at the request of different departments within the Irvine Company, I want to thank you for sharing your parking counts with us in an effort to produce a single parking survey that will benefit us all. I have reviewed your counts in comparison to those done by our office, and field checked any discrepancies between the two. The following is a parking summary for Corporate Plaza as indicated on the accompanying site plan. Lot Williamson & Schmid MV&P Comments 1 194 195 Verified by MV&P 8/16/93. 2 146 145 Trash space not counted. 3 155 155 4 108 108 5 151 126 Building 7 - Under construction. Building,Dept. submittals used to calculate parking. 6 173 172 Trash space not counted. 7 164 168 Verified by MV&P 8/16/93. 8 63 62 End of parking lot will only park 2 spaces. Building 7 Garage 0 36 Actual parking space count in subteranean garage. Total 1,154 1,167 Architecture&Planning 695 To,.,.r,Cente,Drive Suite 300 Costa-.3sa CA 92626 FAX 7I4 5 9 5297 'I! 5•t9 3?�7 Mr. John Suess Williamson & Schmid August 17, 1993 — page 2 In an effort to generate one set of parking counts that everyone can use and rely on, may I suggest the following: 1. Reserve one (1) space immediately adjacent each trash enclosure for maneuvering area required to access trash bins. 2. Verify parking counts for Lot 1, and for Lot 7. (Equals 168 p/t1�Qv&/� assuming two (2) cars can be parked between trash enclosure /fl) space and 5 existing striped spaces.) 3. In lieu of using aerial, photographed prior to Building 7 construction, to count parking spaces in Lot 5 (Parcel B), use Building Department submittals to determine parking count once Building 7 is completed. These are the numbers the City will recognize. Pending verification of Item 2 above our totals for existing parking should equal approximately 1,167 spaces (see attached summary for breakdown). Your verification of these numbers this week would be appreciated to facilitate completion of our parking analysis. If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Sincerely, McLARAND, VASQUEZ & PARTNERS, INC. Diane Hussey, AIA Associate DH/sim Copy: Larry Williams, Irvine Company Mike Marvelli, Irvine Company Jim Gillen, Williamson & Schmid PAFNNG LOT SURVEY EXISTING Lot Identification Std.Spaces Comp.Spaces HCP Spaces Total 1 190 0 5 195 2 136 6 3 146 3 144 5 6 165 W&P 4 108 0 0 108 5 121 3 2 126 6 166 4 2' 172 7 155 9 4 168 8 57 0 5 62 BLDG 7 26 9 1 36 Total Existing 1,103 36 28 1,167 PROPOSED Lot Identification A 44 0 0 44 B 55 0 3 58 C 56 0 3 59 D 93 0 5 98 E 86 0 4 90 Total proposed: 334 0 15 349 Total existing&proposed: 1,437 36 43 1.516 ■ a dn4 Usqusqu rm- !G . • • • . . • . Fc^JicS LLIA'MSON & SCHMID w WI O CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS August 20, 1993 r,,�.i. •; •j i J7J Diane Hussey McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. r 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 300 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Dear Diane: SUBJECT: CORPORATE PLAZA; OUR JOB NO. 91247 In response to the letter you sent to me dated August 17, 1993, regarding the existing parking configuration, I am pleased to submit to you our parking summary tabulation. My comments reflect the results of our discussions regarding certain areas of question. If you have any further questions, please call me. ;Since4rely, zk(dc)Let Enclosure cc: M. J. Poptanich, The Irvine Company Larry Williams, The Irvine Company Mike Marvell, The Irvine Company Jim Gillen, Williamson & Schmid Corporate Office • 15101 Red Hill Avenue • Tustin,Califomia 92680 • 714/259-7900 • FAX 7141259-0210 Inland Empire Office • 1101 S.Milliken Avenue,Suite G • Ontario,Califomla 91761 • 909/988-7880 • FAX 9091988.5299 San Diego County Office • 2011 Palomar Airport Road,Suite 109 • Cadsbad,Caifomla 92009 • 619/438-4332 Coachella Valley Office • '77-750 Springfield Lane,Suite A • Palm Desert,Califomia 92260 • 619/360-3744 • FAX 619/360-3745 4 Y Y Corporate Plaza • H POISON & SCHMID Our job No. 91247 0 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS August 20, 1993 Page 2 CORPORATE PLAZA PARKING SUMMARY STD COMPACT HCP LQT SPACES SPACES SPACES TOTAL 1 190 0 5 195 2 137 6 3 146 3 144 5 6 155 4 108 0 0 108 5 121 (proposed) 3 (proposed) Z(proposed) 126 (proposed) 6 167 4 2 173 7 152 9 4 165 8 58 0 5 63 Bldg. 7 26 (proposed) 9 (proposed) 1 (proposed) 36 (proposed) Total 1,100 38 28 1,167 Comments Lot i One standard stall with curb painted yellow, included in count above. Lot 2 Did not include area adjacent to trash enclosure. Lot 3 No comment. Lot 4 No comment. Lot 5 Construction of Building 7 (adjacent to Lot 5) is currently effecting Lot 5 parking. Parking numbers shown above are reflective of Building Department plan submittals per MV&P (architects). Lot 6 Does not include area adjacent to trash enclosure. Lot 7 Does not include non-striped area adjacent to trash enclosure. Bldg. 7 Proposed parking numbers as provided by MV&P. OCT 12 '93 14:35 CNB - PROF/TECH P.2/3 *ENVIRONIgwnm INFORMATION FOM• City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (914) 644-3225 A. General information 1. Applicant/Agent: THE IRVINE COMPANY _ _ Phones f714) 720-2236 Address• 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 2. Property Owners The Irvine Company Phone: (714) 720-2236 Address: "Same as Above" $, Project Descrio "A Please attach the following materials for the project: • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale • Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map ete.qeetxsS notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. project name: Corporate Plaza 2. Project location:_ Corporate Plaza Planned Community 3. Assessor's parcel #: 442-271 4. Permit application 5a. Proposed use; Administrative, Professional Financial and Medical Offices 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.) 432,320 Square Feet Sc. Site size: 47.8 acres 5d. Building height: 32 ft. 6. Existing land use designations: Financial General Plan. Admin Professional &/ Zoning: Planned Community Specific Plan: N/A __ LCP: N/A — 7. Previous governmental approvals: Previous P.C. Amendments $, other governmental approvals required: N/A Federal: N/A state: Regional: N/A Local: N/A 9. ' Begin construction: N/A Estimated occupancy: N/A _— (date) (date) c. Potential Environmental Bf£ects on a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". 1. Earth Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. tJ•A No�.a' 2. Air Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. u N Ow t 3, water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater levels or bodies of surface water. Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? 4. Biological -Resources N ov.a " Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. our•• OCT 12 '93 14:36 CNB - PROF/TECH P.3/3 5 Noise 0 Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? „ Newt 6. Licht gnd Glare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. \) U,ne 7. Land Use Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. B. Public Health and Safety Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to 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 spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? N ewe 9. Population/Housing/Employment a. If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average household size expected, b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. „A1eµCu 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parking 'v Please describe how the project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project, „ 4 e h 11. Public Services/utilities Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Communications Systems Electrical power • Fire protection • Natural gas • Parks/recreational, facilities Police protection • Schools Sewer systems or septic tanks • Solid waste and disposal Storm water drainage systems 12. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? 13. Cultural and Historic Resources Please identify any known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist on the site. Would the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. Dawn. Print name of owner or representative Signature /0 - 93 Date A.•� ��.y 4M w.w�M�/�� 'iv�w �544� Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: f:\...\JD\FORMSVNv-INFO. Rev. 12/91 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of this application is to provide Medical Offices as an allowable use and to redistribute square footage allocations in the Planned Community Development area. This amendment would allow up to 79,847 square feet of the total development (432,320 square feet) to be used for medical offices. This would be permitted on Building Sites 8, 9, 11 and 22 only of the existing Corporate Plaza Planned Community. Parking for medical offices will be provided based on parldng Gross Floor Area at 1 space per 250 square feet of total medical square feet. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the�anning Commission of the City of N*ort Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for Amendment No 784 and Traffic Study No 88 on property located at 550 Newport Center Drive. Request to amend the Planned Community District Regulations for the Corporate Plaza Planned Communi% so as to establish medical offices as a permitted use and to allow 79,847 square feet of permitted development for medical office uses Also included is a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed project. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 1��i1 day of November 1993, at the hour of 10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public bearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Anne Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. Donald S. Ellis AF'Ns 442-2:3:1.-1:1. APHN 412--Oli-4 i 5111. Seashore Dr. Irvine Co of W Va .frv•ine Cc International Bay club-.:, :i�i0 Newport Centeer Dr.Newport Beach i:A9d66a ; ✓ J.<:....22 J. W. Coast I-IWY Nowport Beach CA92660 Ilc.wpoi^t ricar_h CA92663 ! ' Af-I+I: 459-081--0:1. Union Oil. Co o•f Cal APN,: 459-•081-:1.5 Ar'hl^ 44< dIY.-da F'„O. Box 7600 Edward Leon Vincent Northampton Ct. Schmidt Trust Los Angeles CA900ii 53 N / :1.445 Alameda Padre Serra Newport Beach CA92660 Santa Barbara CA93103 APNu 442- 0J I.-4:1. Oarri.ott Corp AF'I+Ir. 442-271.-•13 AF'M 442-231.-09 . :1 Marriott Dr. Irvine Co "r„As:,or_i.ato<.•: :I.3 Southwest 'I:nvestors. WashinrJ•ton DC200G8 .I.3 Corporate Plaza Br,. No. 200 :190 Newport Contor Dr. No. Y00 ✓ Newport BOach CA92660-7919 Nowpor't•. Beach CA92660•-6906 AF'1+1 e 442-•27:1 --06 APN: 442•-2 71-24 3overeidn Bancorp LTD People JDevelopment Corp Dr, AF'N: 442-..Y.67.-07 PeopleF.O. Box 8049-30:1. }4 - y� `r Irvine Co Alameda Padre Serra 150 Newport Canter Dr. Newport Beach CA92658 ✓ Santa Barbara CA93103 Newport itea ch CA9 2fi60 APM: 442-16'1-08 Virtue <'r Schecl<. Land Partnership Carver 442--011-24 Carer-_r Development Partnership On India FWells CAA 21 4900 California Ave. No. 100 Indian Wells CA9d2`10 � BakersTield CA93309 APl•le 442-271.--26 AI=1+1: 442•-•01.:1.-22 APN: 442-•231.-08 Irvine Co %Ba:ldw:i.n Builders Irvine Co Irvine Co %Ires> U22 Limited :1.68:1.:1. Hale Avo. 607 N. C:entral. Ave„ 1S0 Newport Center Dr. No. 1.00 Irvine CA92714 ✓ Glendale CA9120 3 ✓ Newport Beach CA92660••-691.5 APHs 050--32:1.-5:1. APH: 050•-•321.--02 APNN 050-:321.--03 Edward Wendcel.l. Fish Ti & Tr Co TrUIR-:1923-00-2 T J Aus-tyn Inc .1.90:1 Chubasco Dr. 1907 Chubasco Dr. 500 Newport Center Dr. BSMT 2 Corona D1 Mar CA92625--1942 P/ Corona DI Mar CA92 625--1942 Newport Beach CA92660 API+ s 050-321.-04 APH: 050-•32:1.--05 APN: 050 -32:1.-06 Jeffrey M. Bloom Carl Nmecluer East Kathryn B Trust 1919 Chubasco Dr. 2001 Chubasco Dr. 2007 Chubasco Dr. Corona Dl Mar C692625--:1.942 Corona Dl Mar CA92625--1944 ✓ Corona Del Mar CA92625•-1944 AI 'Hs 050--32:1.-•07 APH: 4A2-•01.1.- 35 APN: 050-323-05 Jamos D. Forsyth Hac Real. Estate Corp Arai. Corp of America Inc ]Clank. of PI 20:I.;.i Chubasco Dr. P.O. Box I P.O.. lox 7890 Corona D1 Mar CA92625-:1.944 Newport Beach CA92658 Newport Beach C:A92658 APN: 050-323--04 APN. 442-271.--1.6 APNc 442-•• 71-•-1.5 Coast Business Center LTD Home Savings of America 1=SB Midland Mutual Life Tns Co :1.105 Quail. St. 4900 Riverside Rd. 3 333 Camino Del Rio S No.. 1.1.0 -Newport Beach CA92660 Irwindale CA91706 ✓ San Diego CA92:1.08 41 APH." 442-271.--0:+ APN: 442-271.-0:1. APN:: 412- 161.-06 Prudential Ins Par•C•ners One Corporate Plaza Partn Charles P. Tuffree 2029 Century Park: C No. 3600 1 Corporate Plaza Dr. P.O. Box 309 L.os Angeles CA90067 ✓ Newport Beach CA92660 Placentia CA92670 APNc 442--27:1.-•-04 APNs 442•-161.-09 APNN 412- '71-1.2 Corp of The Presiding Bishop of TV. John I•I. S•teinbrugge 1=rederick. J. Aladiem 60 C. South Temple: No. 780 280 Newport Center Dr. No. 100 045 Las Palmas Rd.. Sall. l._ak.e C-ty UT8411:1. / Newport Beach CA92660-7526 Pasadena CA9:1.105 �