HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRES Office Building B_PA2007-213CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
August 19, 2010
Agenda Item 4
SUBJECT: PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
4300 Von Karman Avenue
General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009
Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005 (County Tentative Parcel Map
No. 2008 -123)
APPLICANT: Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES, Inc.)
PLANNER: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3236, jbrown @newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant proposes development of a new three -story office building. The following
approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed:
1. A General Plan Amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit in
Anomaly Location #2 in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land
Use Element by 11,544 gross square feet.
2. An amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to allow
an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional & Business Office Site B
by 9,917 net square feet.
3. A tentative parcel map is proposed to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot
parcel of land into two separate parcels.
4. An exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development
standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet,
and a change in the off - street parking requirement of one space for each 225 square
feet to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Reopen the public hearing; and
2. Adopt the revised Resolution No. — (Attachment No. PC1) recommending that the
City Council:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and
b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009; and
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 2
c. Approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006;
and
d. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -006, subject to findings and
conditions; and
e. Approve the requested exceptions to the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community General Development standards relative to minimum site area and
off - street parking requirements.
DISCUSSION
At the August 5, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to provide
additional analysis regarding consistency of the project with General Plan Land Use
Element Policy LU 3.2, and clarification regarding Charter Section 423 and Council
Policy A -18. The following information is provided in response to the Commission's
direction.
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.2
Policy LU 3.2 states:
Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill
with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use
and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically
underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected
regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance
between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a
special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be
coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including
standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Policy LU 3.2 is intended to provide direction to decision - makers in determining under
what circumstances changes in land use, density, or intensity should be considered.
This policy recognizes that there are limited areas of the City that are not achieving their
full potential and establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization. Staff
believes that it is intended to apply to certain geographic areas of the City and not to
individual properties.
Land Use Policy LU 3.3 is also intended to advance Goal LU 3 is, which provides:
"Opportunities for Change - Provide opportunities for improved development and
enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors ....... John
Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and
development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services..."
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 3
Staff believes the proposed project can be found consistent with General Plan Policy LU
3.2 for the following reasons:
• The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface
parking lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted
it to office use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community text in 2006, a restaurant is no longer a permitted use. As a result,
there is now a surplus of unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is
no entitlement remaining, future development on this site is limited to
replacement of the existing building, with a new 7,266- square -foot building'.
The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was originally used as a
restaurant site with the required off - street parking spaces. Therefore, the project
site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its highest and best
use.
• The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the
project site which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities
for approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal
location for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits
would provide employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses
are replaced with the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the
Airport Area.
• The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs -
to- housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the
Airport Area.
• The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a
new commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and
character, and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area.
• The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public
services, and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed
existing service levels for public services or utilities.
• As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of
the MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18),
the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily
trips) per day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips.
These assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the
General Plan, a Level of Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at
intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine. The
' The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and
removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use.
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 4
addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated
to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections with implementation of the
proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not impact the
standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area.
Charter Section 423 (Measure S)
The Planning Commission requested clarification regarding traffic generation Table 1
and Table 2, and the basis for changes to these tables provided by staff at the meeting.
Council Policy A -18 provides guidelines for implementing Charter Section 423. The
policy contains the methodology for purposes of calculating the peak hour trips of an
allowed use and the increase in peak hour trips resulting from a proposed use if a
General Plan amendment is approved.
Specifically, the policy states that if the allowed use is designated in terms of one or
more non - residential use category, peak hour trip rates from the Trip Rate Table for the
applicable non - residential use category shall be used. In this case, the proposed
project is for the development of a new approximately 11,000- square -foot commercial
office building. The applicant has indicated the new office building would be occupied
by its company for the expansion of its business operations.
Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 8th Edition, the appropriate
use category for an office building of this size is "General Office Building "2 rather than
"Single- Tenant Office Building. "3 Table 1 and Table 2 provided in the August 5, 2010
staff report mistakenly used the peak hour trips for the "Single- Tenant Office Building"
use category.
The tables have been updated to reflect the correct peak hour trips based on the
proposed increase of 11,544 square feet to the General Plan Land Use Element, as
shown below:
' ""' o�nna nor nor ' ° ° "` 119,212.8 sq.ft. (80 %) 34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) 33.04 a.m. trips (80 %)
�
This Proposed
Amendment
11,544 sq.ft. (100 %)
20 5417_89 a.m. trips
(100 %)
a.m.
1 9,8617_20 p.m. trips
(100 %)
2 The "General Office Building" use category is consistent with the use category utilized in the
"Transportation and Traffic" section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes calculating
average daily trips and a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips for an 11,960- square -foot office building.
3 The average square footage of a single- tenant office building studied in the ITE Manual is approximately
100,000 square feet, whereas the average square footage of general office buildings studied in the ITE
Manual is significantly less.
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 5
Table 2 illustrates that if the proposed project is approved, none of the three thresholds
that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded when added to 80
percent of prior amendment GP2006 -096, 80 percent of this proposed amendment, and
100 percent of proposed amendment GP2008 -007 4
.
Amendment
GP2007 -009
Proposed
Amendment
19,212.8 sq.ft. (80 %)
9,235.2 sq.ft. (80 %)
11,544 sq.ft. (100 %)
34.19 a.m. trips (80 %) I 33.04 a.m. trips (80 %)
4642 14_31a.m. trips (80 %) 14"813.76 p.m. trips (80 %)
34.63 a.m. trips (100 %)
a.m.
46.17 p.m. trips (100°/x)
A letter was submitted by a law firm on behalf of Meyers Properties on August 5, 2010,
(Attachment PC2) asserting that Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction
between a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips. The author asserts that "the aggregate peak
hour trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval
pursuant to Charter Section 423." This assertion is incorrect. Item H of the Definitions
Section of Council Policy A -18 states:
"Peak Hour Trips. The term "peak hour trips" means the number of vehicle trips
equal to the applicable peak hour trip rate specified in the Trip Rate Table
(Exhibit 8) for any allowed use or proposed use multiplied by the entitlement
(using the appropriate quantity of the relevant "unit" of measurement specified in
the Trip Rate Table). When these Guidelines require a statement or calculation of
peak hour trips, the morning and evening peak hour trips shall each be
provided and listed separately ....... (emphasis added)
Item C of the Procedures Section of Council Policy A -18 states:
"City Council Review. The City Council shall determine at the noticed public
hearing at which any Amendment is approved if, based on the administrative
record .... ..., the Amendment requires voter approval pursuant to Section 423.
The City Council shall submit an Amendment to the voters if.,
1. The Amendment modifies the allowed uses) of the property or area that is the
subject of the Amendment such that the proposed use(s) generate(s) more than
one hundred morning or evening peak hour trips than are generated by the
allowed use(s) before the Amendment ... ..." (emphasis added)
4 GP2008 -007 is the Newport Business Plaza project, recommended for approval by Planning
Commission on August 5, 2010.
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 6
Council Policy A -18 clearly distinguishes that morning or evening peak hour trips are
calculated and listed separately. As illustrated in Tables 1 and 2, the proposed project
will not exceed the peak hour trip threshold of 100 a.m. or p.m. trips when added to 80
percent of a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips resulting from prior amendments to the General
Plan Land Use Element.
Revised Resolution
As explained during staffs presentation, the General Plan Land Use Element
designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2), which allows for a
variety of uses. However, the applicant proposes to develop and use the site for office
use only. Therefore, because the Charter Section 423 peak hour trip rate analysis is
based on trip rates for general office use only, the proposed increase in development
limit should be restricted to office use only. In order to implement this restriction, staff
recommends a new anomaly be created (Anomaly Location #2a), and Table LU2
(Anomaly Locations) of the Land Use Element be revised. The proposed revised Table
LU2 and Figure LU11 are attached as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" to the revised
resolution (Attachment PC1).
Section 3 of the revised resolution has been modified to reflect that the 11,544- gross-
square -foot increase to allowable development limit be restricted to office use, and to
update the findings of consistency with General Plan Policy LU 3.2. Section 4 of the
draft resolution has been modified to reflect the correct project information (provided
incorrectly in the draft resolution due to scrivener error).
Environmental Review
An Errata to the IS /MND (Chapter 4, amended August 13, 20105) has been prepared to
address modifications to the document. The changes are related to the CEQA issues
that were raised in the public comment letters received during the public review period
(May 19 through June 7, 2010), and the letter received on August 5, 2010.
The new information in the Errata is provided to clarify and augment the evaluation
provided in the draft IS /MND. The additional information and modifications to the
document are related to the following categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public
Services, and Transportation and Traffic. Based on this additional evaluation, no new
significant environmental impacts were identified, and the conclusions in the IS /MND
remain the same.
5 Chapter 4 will be distributed under separate cover electronically on Monday, August 16, 2010, and
posted on the City's website. It will include Appendix I, which consists of Biological Memorandum Il,
which provides additional information in support of the original IS /MND checklist determination on
Biological Resources.
Prepared by:
Jan t J has n Brown
�As ocia @ PYanner
ATTACHMENTS
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
August 19, 2010
Page 7
Submitted by:
4
Patrick J. Alford
Planning Manager
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Comment Letter
PC 3 Errata to the Draft IS /MND (distributed under separate cover)
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and
Conditions
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2007 -009, APPROVAL
OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. PD2007 -006, APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005, AND APPROVAL OF
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL
OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED 4300 VON KARMAN AVENUE
(PA2007 -213)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
An application was filed by Professional Real Estate Services, Inc. (PRES), with respect
to property located at 4300 Von Karman Avenue, and legally described as Parcel 1 of
Parcel Map, as per map filed in Book 60, Page 14 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder, requesting approval of: 1) a General Plan Amendment to
increase the maximum allowable development limit of the Land Use Element by 11,544
gross square feet, 2) an amendment to the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned
Community text to allow an increase to the Allowable Building Area for Professional &
Business Office Site B by 9,917 net square feet, 3) approval of a tentative parcel map to
subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels, and
an exception to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community General Development
standards which require a minimum site of area of not less than 30,000 square feet,
and to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225 net square feet to one
space for each 250 net square feet.
2. The applicant proposes to develop a new 11,960- gross- square -foot commercial office
building.
3. The subject property is located within the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned
Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -
Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2).
4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2010, in the City
Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 2 of 11
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines,
and City Council Policy K -3.
2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20 -day public comment
period beginning on May 19, 2010, and ending on June 7, 2010. The contents of the
environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the
Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project.
3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with
mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and
there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the
project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. The
document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision for
recommendation was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The project site is located in the Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, and is identified as Anomaly Location #2. The General
Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Mixed -Use Horizontal 2 ( "MU-
1-12 "). The MU -H2 designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may
include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings,
industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The proposed
new commercial office building is consistent with this designation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
FIRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 3 of 11
2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods,
districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are
complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in
use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are
economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's
share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce
commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish
Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new
development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and
public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
The proposed General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable
development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, as depicted
in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is
consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows:
• The former use of the project site was a restaurant with an 84 -space surface parking
lot. In 2005, the applicant renovated the existing building and converted it to office
use. Due an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text in 2006,
a restaurant is no longer a permitted use. As a result, there is now a surplus of
unused parking spaces on the project site. As there is no entitlement remaining, future
development on this site is limited to replacement of the existing building, with a new
7,266- square -foot building. The site is constrained by a 0.13 FAR because it was
originally used as a restaurant site with the required off - street parking spaces.
Therefore, the project site is underutilized and cannot be developed to perform at its
highest and best use.
• The applicant proposes to develop a new commercial office building on the project site
which would provide a potential increase in employment opportunities for
approximately 53 individuals. The Airport Area has been identified as an ideal location
for future housing opportunities. The increase in development limits would provide
employment opportunities as existing office and /or industrial uses are replaced with
the future development of mixed -use residential villages in the Airport Area.
• The proposed new commercial office building could help maintain the City's jobs -to-
housing balance if commercial uses are replaced by residential uses in the Airport
Area.
• The increased development limit would allow for development and infill with a new
commercial office building that is complementary in type, form, scale and character,
and consistent with the existing development pattern in the area.
The existing building consists of 6,850 gross square feet in area; 416 square feet was demolished and
removed during renovation and conversion of the building from restaurant to office use.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 4 of 11
• The proposed project would be served by adequate infrastructure and public services,
and the proposed increase in development limits would not exceed existing service
levels for public services or utilities.
• As described in the analysis included in the Transportation and Traffic Section of the
MND (Pages 3 -59 through 3 -65, and in the Errata, Pages 4 -16 through 4 -18), the
proposed project is expected to generate a total of 132 ADT (average daily trips) per
day, and a total of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18 p.m. peak hour trips. These
assumptions are based on criteria from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation, 8th Edition. Per the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a Level of
Service (LOS) E is considered acceptable at intersections in the John Wayne Airport
Area shared with the City of Irvine. The addition of 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 18
p.m. peak hour trips is not anticipated to worsen the LOS at these shared intersections
with implementation of the proposed project. Thus, operation of the proposed project
would not impact the standards for acceptable traffic LOS in this area.
3. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.1 provides for the development of distinct business park,
commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are
integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. The proposed
General Plan amendment to increase the maximum allowable development limit is
consistent with this policy as follows:
• The proposed project would provide for development of the site with a new
commercial office building, integrated to ensure a quality environment that is
compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community.
4. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be
reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour
vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to
determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General
Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as
the proposed General Plan Amendment, with the increased development limit of
11,544 gross square feet restricted to office use only, does not exceed the non-
residential floor area threshold, does not exceed the peak hour vehicle trips threshold,
and does not create any new dwelling units.
5. The General Plan includes several goals and policies emphasizing high quality
redevelopment and new development of sites, utilizing adequate standards for site and
building design, parking and undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, and signage
control. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Standards
provides the regulations to implement these various goals and policies.
6. The amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text to increase the
allowable building area for Office Site B from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net
square feet, with the granting of exceptions to the minimum site area of not less than
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Paqe 5 of 11
30,000 square feet, and a change the off - street parking requirements of one space for
each 225 square feet to one space for each 250 square feet would meet the intent of
the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Considerations. As
described below, the development standards would be substantially met, and the
project as proposed would not be detrimental to the surrounding office developments.
7. The granting of the exception to subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot parcel of
land into two separate parcels, comprised of approximately 32,395 square feet, and
approximately 23,383 square feet can be made subject to the facts in support of
following findings:
A. Finding:
That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the vicinity.
A.1 Facts in Support of Finding:
The granting of the exception to the minimum lot size would not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity because:
The area in which the project site is located is fully developed and bounded
on the north by common areas comprised of landscaping and a large water
feature (referred to as a retarding basin in the MND).
The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of
the project site, would meet the setback requirements, and would not
exceed the maximum height requirements.
The proposed lot size of 23,383 square feet is similar to or larger than other
lots in the vicinity of the project site (4320 Von Karman: approximately
12,294 square feet; 4220 Von Karman: 23,065 square feet; and 4040
MacArthur Blvd.: 25,847 square feet).
B. Finding:
That the Development Considerations and intent of this Planned Community
Development Standards are substantially met.
B.1 Facts in Support of Finding:
The Development Considerations are provided on page 2 of the Koll Center
Newport Planned Community text, and includes a provision that a precise
development plan be submitted to the Planning Director for review in order to
insure development consistent with the master plan concept of the Koll Center.
The precise plan shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permit
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 6 of 11
to show conformance with the requirements of the planned community text. The
plan review material shall include:
1. Building Criteria: a) size, b) location, c) height, and d) materials
2. Parking Criteria: a) areas, including drives and accesses, b) quantity, and c)
size
3. Landscaped Areas: a) setbacks, b) walls, c) plazas, and d) pools, fountains
and /or other amenities
4. Signing Criteria: a) location, b) size, and c) quantity
5. All other site improvements as directed by the Planning Director
Detail plans have been submitted for informational purposes, and include of the
above required items, with the exception of signage plans which would be
required for review prior to the issuance of any building or sign permit.
B.2. Facts in Support of Findinq:
If the amendment to the General Plan and planned community text is approved
to allow an increase in the development limits, and the exception to the
minimum site area and parking requirements were granted, the intent of the
development standards would be substantially met because:
• A commercial office building is a permitted use in Office Site B.
• The proposed development would be located within the building envelope of
the site.
• The proposed building would meet the required setback, building height and
landscape requirements.
• The proposed project would be incorporated into the overall development
pattern of the Koll Center, a master planned campus office park complex.
8. The granting of the exception to the Koll Center Planned Community General Parking
Requirement standards to lower the parking requirement of one space for each 225
net square feet to one space for each 250 net square feet can be made because this
parking ratio is consistent with Chapter 20.66 of the NBMC, and adequate off - street
parking to accommodate all parking needs for the project site will be provided.
9. A tentative parcel map tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779- square-
foot parcel of land into two separate parcels in order to accommodate development of
the new office building has been prepared in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 7 of 11
Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). The Planning Commission determined in this case
that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the
NBMC, and the following findings per Section 19.12.070, and facts in support of such
findings are set forth:
A. Finding:
That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The purpose of the proposed parcel map to subdivide the existing 55,779 -
square -foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. As part of the proposed
project, the applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment to
increase the maximum allowable development limit on the subject property to
allow development of new office building on one of the two parcels. If the
General Plan amendment is approved, the proposed subdivision and
improvements of the subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan and
the MU -112 land use designation.
B. Finding:
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding_
B -1. The proposed subdivision would create two lots which would be physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed development of a new office building,
and the lots have a slope of less than 20 percent, which is suitable for
development.
B -2. As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests approval of a General
Plan amendment and an amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned
Community text to increase the maximum allowable development limit on the
subject property. If the General Plan amendment and planned community text
amendment are approved, the project site would be physically suitable for the
amount of entitlement (or intensity) proposed for development of the site.
C. Finding:
That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -
making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 8 of 11
impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. A MND has been prepared for the proposed project, and it has been
determined that the design of the subdivision for the proposed development will
not result in a significant effect on the environment, nor substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D. Finding:
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding;
D -1. The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot
parcel of land into two separate parcels. Construction for the proposed new
office building would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes,
which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public
improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the
Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances
of the City and all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with.
E. Finding:
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -
making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access
or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially
equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City
Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E.1 The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
development, and all on -site easements including those for reciprocal ingress
and egress shall be incorporated on the final parcel map.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 9 of 11
F. Finding:
That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels
following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their
agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development
incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F.1 Because the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is
less than 100 acres, it is not subject to the Williamson Act. In addition, the
subject property is zoned PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community),
which does not allow agricultural uses.
G. Finding:
That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
GA The property is not a 'land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code, and the project site is not located
within a specific plan area.
H. Findinq:
That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
HA The proposed parcel map and improvements associated with the proposed
project are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new
construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards
depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department
enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
FIRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Pape 10 of 11
Finding:
That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's
share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of
the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available
fiscal and environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.1 The proposed parcel map would subdivide the existing 55,779- square -foot
parcel of land into two separate parcels. No residential uses are proposed as
part of the project, and no affordable housing units are being eliminated.
J. Finding:
That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (`RWQCB').
Facts in Support of Finding:
J.1 The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the RWQCB, and additional wastewater discharge into the existing sewer
system generated by the proposed project would not violate RWQCB
requirements.
K. Finding:
For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Findin
K.1 The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of
the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Paae 11 of 11
the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as
Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which
this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -009 to increase the
maximum allowable development limit by 11,544 gross square feet restricted to office
use only, as depicted in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No.
PD2007 -006 to amend the Koll Center Newport (PC -15) Planned Community text to
allow an increase in the allowable building area for Professional & Business Office Site B
from 967,803 net square feet to 977,720 net square feet, as depicted in Exhibit "D"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map NP2010 -006 subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "E."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
Michael Toerge, Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
No.
Mitigatimi Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation&
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Monitoring
Agency
13iologi&IResources-
BIO -1
The removal of ornamental trees on site shall not
During construction
Project
be scheduled during the avian nesting season
construction
(approximately February 1 through August 31)
contractor
to ensure project conformance with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If clearing and
grubbing are proposed to occur between
February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction
survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to
the start of construction.
If nesting birds occur within the disturbance
limits, a buffer around the nest shall be
determined by a qualified biologist. All
construction activities shall occur outside the
buffer area until a qualified biologist has
determined that the nest is complete and that no
new nesting activity has occurred within the
buffer area.
Guttural Resources".'
CR -1
Project plans shall specify that that a qualified
During construction
Project
paleontologist shall be contacted in the event that
construction
potential paleontological resources are
contractor
discovered. During construction, the contractor
shall halt site excavation or preparation if
suspected fossilized remains are unearthed.
Construction shall cease on site and shall not be
resumed until a qualified paleontologist is
contacted to assess the resources and identify
appropriate treatment measures, if applicable.
Treatment measures may include salvaging
fossils and samples of sediments as they are
unearthed to avoid construction delays and/or
temporarily halting or diverting equipment to
allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point
of identification and permanent preservation,
including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall
be curated into a professional, accredited
museum repository with permanent retrievable
storage. A report of findings, with an appended
itemized inventory of specimens, shall be
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation&
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Monitoring
Agency
prepared and shall signify completion of the
program to mitigate impacts on paleontological
resources.
. ... . ... .. .
eoI gy mi and:Soi s; . . ..... .
...
GEO-1
Prior to approval of grading permits, soil
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
preparation measures to minimize expansion
grading permits
Beach Building
potential shall be identified by the applicant in
Department
construction documents and grading permits.
During construction, grading of the site by the
contractor shall adhere to grading plans approved
by the City. Soils required to bring the site to
final grade shall be placed as engineered fill. The
site soils may be re-used as compacted fill
provided the material is cleaned of organics,
demolition debris, and other deleterious
materials. Fill originating on the project site shall
be moisture-conditioned to approximately 130%
of optimum and compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90% in accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) standard D1557 for laboratory
compaction characteristics. The implementation
of these measures shall be verified during field
inspections.
GEO-2
Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
plans shall stipulate that all fill shall consist of
grading pennits
Beach Building
non-expansive materials, moisture-conditioned
Department
to near optimum if cohesionless, and to 130% of
optimum if cohesive or clayey. The
characteristics of the fill soil shall be evaluated
by the geoteclurical consultant prior to
placement, and confirmed to meet grading plan
specifications.
GEO-3
Prior to approval of grading permits, the grading
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
plans shall stipulate that wall backfill soils shall
grading permits
Beach Building
consist of granular, cohesionless backfill with
Department
sand equivalent greater than 30 and an expansion
index less than 20. The characteristics of the fill
soil shall be evaluated by the geoteclinical
consultant prior to placement, and confirmed to
meet grading plan specifications.
.. ........
.0irologyafidWater Qualn
J1Y
WQ-1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
applicant shall prepare and have approved by the
grading permits
Beach Public
City a SWPPP to be implemented during
Works
construction, which shall include BMPs to
Department
prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from
construction sites from entering the storm drains
or the existing retarding basin. The SWPPP shall
be prepared as directed in the City's stormwater
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation&
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks..
Monitorin
Agency
protection requirements, and may include, but
not be limited to, the following measures:
• Diversion of off -site runoff away from the
construction site.
• Revegetation of exposed soil surfaces as
soon as feasible following grading activities.
• Installation of perimeter straw wattles to
prevent ofd site transport of sediment.
• Protection of drop inlets (filters and sand
bags or straw wattles) with sandbag check
dams in paved roadways.
• Provision of specifications for construction
waste handling and disposal.
• Training of subcontractors on general site
housekeeping.
N. ose ..... -
-
N -I
All noise - producing project equipment and
During final design
City of Newport
vehicles using internal combustion engines shall
and prior to plan
Beach Code
be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers
check approval
Enforcement
where appropriate, and any other shrouds,
shields, or other noise - reducing features in good
City of Newport
operating condition that meet or exceed original
Beach Building
factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package"
Department
equipment (e.g., arc welders, air compressors)
shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control
features that are readily available for that type of
equipment.
N -2
All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment
During grading, site
City of Newport
used on the proposed project that is regulated for
preparation, and
Beach Code
noise output by a local, state, or federal agency
construction
Enforcement
shall comply with such regulation while in the
course of project activity.
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -3
Electrically powered equipment shall be used
During final design
City of Newport
instead of pneumatic or internal combustion—
and prior to plan
Beach Code
powered equipment, where feasible.
check approval
Enforcement
During grading, site
City of Newport
preparation, and
Beach Building
construction
Department
N -4
Mobile noise- generating equipment and
During, grading, site
City of Newport
machinery shall be shut off when not in use.
preparation, and
Beach Code
construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
No.
Mitigation Measure .
Time Frame for
Responsible
. Verification of Compliance
Implementation&
Monitoring
Initials .
Date
Remarks
Monitorin
Agency
N -5
Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
During, grading, site
City of Newport
staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be
preparation, and
Beach Code
located as far as practical from noise - sensitive
construction
Enforcement
receptors.
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -6
Construction site and access road speed limits
During, grading, site
City of Newport
shall be established and enforced during the
preparation, and
Beach Code
construction period,
construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -7
The use of noise - producing signals, including
During, grading, site
City of Newport
horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for
preparation, and
Beach Code
safety warning purposes only.
construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -8
No project - related public address or music
During, grading, site
City of Newport
system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor.
preparation, and
Beach Code
construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -9
The onsite construction supervisor shall have the
During final design
City of Newport
responsibility and authority to receive and
and prior to plan
Beach Code
resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process
check approval
Enforcement
to the project proponent shall be established
prior to construction commencement that shall
During grading, site
City of Newport
allow for resolution of noise problems that
preparation, and
Beach Building
cannot be immediately solved by the site
construction
Department
supervisor.
EXHIBIT "B"
REVISED TABLE LU2
ANOMALY LOCATIONS
• • -
i
Statistical
Area
Land Use
Designation
Development
limits
Development limit Other
Anomaly
Number
Additional Information
1
L4
MU -H2
460,095
471 Hotel Rooms (not included
in total square footage)
2
1.4
MU -1-12
1,060,1461052.880
2a
L4
MU-H2
18 810
11,544 sf restricted to
general office use only
(included in total square
foota e
3
L4
CO -G
734,641
4
L4
MU -H2
250,176
5
L4
MU -1-12
32,500
6
L4
MU -1-12
34,500
7
L4
MU -1-12
81,372
8
L4
MU -H2
442,775
9
L4
CG
120,000
164 Hotel Rooms (included in
total square footage)
10
L4
MU -H2
31,362
349 Hotel Rooms (not included
in total square footage)
11
1.4
CG
11,950
12
L4
MU -1-12
457,880
13
L4
CO -G
288,264
14
L4
CO- G /MU -H2
860,884
15
L4
MU -1-12
228,214
16
L4
CO -G
344,231
17
L4
MU -H2
33,292
304 Hotel Rooms (not included
in total square footage)
18
1.4
CG
225,280
19
L4
CG
228,530
21
J6
CO -G
687,000
Office: 660,000 sf
Retail: 27,000 sf
CV
300 Hotel Rooms
22
J6
CO -G
70,000
Restaurant: 8000 sf, or
Office: 70,000 sf
23
K2
PR
15,000
24
L3
IG
89,624
25
L3
Pf
84,585
26
L3
IG
33,940
27
L3
IG
86,000
28
L3
IG
110,600
29
L3
CG
47,500
30
M6
CG
54,000
31
L2
PR
75,000
32
L2
PI
34,000
mom=
Anomaly
Number
EMMM
Land Use Development
Designation Limit (so
Development Limit Other
.
Additional Information
Statistical
Area
33
M3
PI
163,680
Administrative Office and
Support Facilitates:
30,000 sf
Community Mausoleum and
Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf
Family Mausoleums:
12,000 sf
34
L1
CO -R
484,348
35
L1
CO -R
199,095
36
L1
CO -R
227,797
37
L1
CO -R
131,201
2,050 Theater Seats (not
included in total square
footage)
38
L1
CO -M
443,627
39
L1
MU -1-13
408,084
40
L1
MU -1-13
1,426,634
425 Hotel Roams (included in
total Square Footage)
41
L1
CO -R
327,671
42
L1
CO -R
286,166
43
L1
CV
611 Hotel Rooms
44
L1
CR
1,619,525
1,700 Theater Seals (not
included in total square
footage)
45
L1
CO -G
162,364
46
L1
MU -H3 /PR
3,725
24 Tennis Courts
Residential permitted in
accordance with MU -H3.
47
L1
CG
105,000
48
L1
MU -1-13
337,261
49
L1
PI
45,208
50
L1
CG
25,000
51
K1
PR
20,000
52
K1
CV
479 Hotel Rooms
53
K1
PR
567,500
See Settlement Agreement
54
it
CM
2,000
55
H3
PI
119,440
56
A3
PI
1,343,238
990,349 sf Upper Campus
577,889 sf Lower Campus
In no event shall the total
combined gross floor area of
both campuses exceed the
development limit of
1,343,238 sq. ft.
57
Intentionally Blank
58
Z
PR
20,000
EMMEMStatistical
Land Use Development
Designation Limit (so
Development Limit Other
Additional Information
Number
Area
59
H4
MU -W1
487,402
157 Hotel Rooms and 144
Dwelling Units (included in total
square footage)
60
N
CV
2,660,000
2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in
total square footage)
61
N
CV
125,000
62
L2
CG
2,300
63
G1
CN
66,000
64
M3
CN
74,000
65
M5
CN
80,000
66
J2
CN
138,500
67
D2
PI
20,000
68
1-3
PI
71,150
69
K2
CN
75,000
70
D2
RM -D
Parking Structure for Bay
Island (No Residential Units)
71
L1
CO -G
11,630
72
L1
CO -G
8,000
73
A3
CO -M
350,000
74
L1
PR
35,000
75
L1
PF
City Hall, and the
administrative offices of
the City of Newport
Beach, and related
parking, pursuant to
Section 425 of the City
Charter.
EXHIBIT "C"
REVISED FIGURE LU11
FOR
STATISTICAL AREAS J6, L4
lUtt NrpeM1mxe JmueM' =C00
CITY of NEWPORT BEAC
GENERALPLAN
Figure LU 71
STATISTICAL AREAS
J6. L4
RaWa "qft RNOOW
as Snq&UnII RMICM JNwchA
w SrryoUn�R «iaanoal MUrmE
a fir >.,RaLww
—NUIVgaUnit Rauevru«
-1.1 tolsuMRasreaoN QNUCna
CemnrMal OmRb aE CartWOrs
a Nowfbvnoaa Cmmm «0al
a (anmr CGlllrgrOtl
-Gorora fannmoa
N iwrS g m«aol
_Rvcrmwnd ona w one
Camm«cItl
� Ropma c«mn «m
GORRMfWI GIIC.DMQkh
,aa WnarmGmm «cal aaC.>
'ew nwicn coven «cni at¢o
s. Ropwa C«ruri «man :..
IaEUMaI DIYiGs
_ Inolmid
AWWS pp." DimkO
q. NryOROIAN.TE SI�poRing U:M.
waa+L>•.omra
raeeu:o vmov
M NpCC U•2HWGOnm�
14aM mU: W., RdaOd
PuLIC. SmNJUEY[ ale bYCWally
. IPJOIiC F3GJOY.
�Po.aamrnmvonv
-Pent ane f.Leneum
w Oven SCace
n TONne: mp S:ERaR�c Lent:
�� �� ort 9cach
Lane lYa Odlnmmr L,ne
Ra«LO mvn+Mm�
PART II
Section I.
Group I
EXHIBIT "D"
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT CHANGES
COMMERCIAL
Site Area and Building Area
PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES
Acreages shown are net buildable land area including landscape setbacks with
property lines. (4)
0
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
Building Sites (4)
Total Acreage
30.939 acres * (29)
43.703 acres (11)
18.806 acres (10)
19.673 acres
2.371 acres
1.765 acres
5.317 acres (8)
122.574 acres (8)(10)(11)
Allowable Building Area
Office Acreage
30.939 acres *(29)
43.703 acres (11)
18.806 acres (10)
19.673 acres
2.371 acres
1.765 acres
5.317 acres (8)
122.574 acres(8)(I0)(11)
366,147 square feet (16)(26)(29)(30)
967�o,,803 square feer"(-16){28}(38) 977,720 square feet (13)(16)(28)(30)
674,800 square feet (10)(15)
240,149 square feet (8)(13)
32,500 square feet (4)
24,300 square feet (4)
45,000 square feet (8)
2,350,699 square feet_05)( *)
*(3)(4) In addition to 19.399 acres of office use, there is 9.54 acres for hotel and motel and
2.0 acres of lake within Office Site A. Therefore, there are 30.939 acres net within
Office Site A. (3)(4)(16)
C.
2. Site B
Statistical Anal (4)
The following statistics are for information only.
Development may include but shall not be limited to the following:
Story heights shown are average heights for possible development. The
buildings within each parcel may vary.
Assumed Parking Criteria:
a. One (1) space per 225 square feet of net building area @ 120 cars per
acre for Sites C, D, E, F and G.
Allowable Building Area ......... 967,803 square feet (13,16,28,30)
Site Area ......... 43.703 acres (4) (11)
a.
Building Height
Two story development
Three story development
Four story development
Five story development
Six story development
Seven story development
Eight story development
Nine story development
Ten story development
Eleven story development
Twelve story development
Parking
3263259 cars
C. Landscaped Open Space (11)
Two story development
Three story development
Four story development
Five story development
Six story development
Seven story development
Eight story development
Nine story development
Ten story development
Eleven story development
Twelve story development
Land Coverage (16,28,30)
............... 41. 1111.22 acres
............... 7—.41748 acres
............... 5:555.61 acres
............... 4444.49 acres
............... 3393.74 acres
............... 33.21 acres
............... 2382.81 acres
.... I.......... 2472.49 acres
............... 222.24 acres
............... 2,022.04 acres
............... 4- :851.87 acres
Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30)
............... 4882716 acres
Land Coverage (11,13,16,28,30)
............... 5345.32 acres
............... 9:419.06 acres
............... 41.2710.93 acres
............... 43812.05 acres
............... 13.1212_80 acres
............... 46513_33 acres
............... 44.0413.73 acres
............... . 14.3514_05 acres
............... 446014_30 acres
............... 448014.50 acres
............... 14.9714_67 acres
EXHIBIT "E"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -005
1. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department.
The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to
recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the
County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a
manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision
Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be
submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD
Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall
tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the
County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the
Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle
18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner, unless
otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public
Works Department, and shall comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes.
4. No permanent structures may be built within the limits of any easement within the
property, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
5. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and
inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works
Department.
7. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if
required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department.
8. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, fair share fees shall be paid in accordance with
City Ordinance 94 -19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
9. The parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits.
10. If required, prior to site plan approval and issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall file a notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA (FAA Form
7460 -1) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The City shall
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
PRES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Paae 2 of 4
refer the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission for
consistency analysis. The Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that the City
has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, if required, prior to the
issuance of building permits for the northern parcel.
11. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction, work
may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
12. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by the
private work, public works improvements including, but not limited to, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, and alley /street reconstruction may be required at the discretion of the Public
Works Inspector.
13. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works
Department for all non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or
extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting
the development site.
14. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee
satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel
map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements.
15. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate
pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is
determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
16. A sewer demand capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
along with the first plan check. The study recommendations) shall be incorporated as
part of the submitted plans. Any cost of upgrading the existing City sewer lateral shall
be borne by the applicant.
17. The applicant shall provide a new public sewer easement for the existing City sewer
lines along the southerly property lines. (Note: The new easements do not appear to
impact the proposed development.)
18. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and
existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject
project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the
Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement.
19. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110 -L.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 3 of 4
20. The parking layout and circulation is subject to further review by the Public Works
Department. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and
STD - 805 -L -B.
21. Trash service shall be provided prior to the start of the work day so it does not impact
the overall circulation of the site.
22. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
23. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply
with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works
Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the
parcel map.
24. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and
flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
25. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible
materials, shall contrast with the background, and shall be either internally or
externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches
in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee
shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan
check process for the new or remodeled structure.
26. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise
from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport
Business Plaza including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No.
GP2007 -009, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -006,
and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2010 -005. This indemnification shall include, but not
be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees,
and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action,
suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or
bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs,
attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification
provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
PRIES Office Building B (PA2007 -213)
Page 4 of 4
any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed
in this condition.
27. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of
the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
Mitigation Measures
28. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions
contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project.
Attachment No. PC 2
Comment Letter
LAW OFFICES
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
A UNITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ANGELO J. PALMIERI (19201999)
ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927.1998)
ALUM H. WIENER
ROBERT C. IHRKE'
JAMES E. YALHELM-
DENNIS O. TYLER'
MICHAEL J. GREENE'
DENNIS W. OHAN'
DAVID D. PARR'
CHARLES H. WWTER'
PATRICK A HENNESSEY
OOH FISHER
GREGORY N. WEILER
WARREN A. WILLIAMS
JOHN R LISTER
cv,17H A M. WOLCOTT
GARY C. WEISBERG
MICHAEL H. LEIFER
SCOTT R. CARPENTER
RICHARD A BALLS
NORMAN J. ACIDIC"
RONALD M. COLE
MICHAEL 1- WANGELO
STEPHEN A SCHECK
DONNA L BROW
RYAN M. EASTER
ELISE M KERN
MEUSA R PEREL
EUZASETH VALAOEE
AMISH A BANKER
MICHAEL 1. KEHOE
ROBERT H. GARRETSON
RYAN M PRAGER
CHAOYACK C. BUNCH
ANNIE C. CHU
JERAO BELTL
HEATHER N. WHIT[HEAO
MR BAUSAR, MAXIM
DEREK M. OEHANKE
F. JULIAN! FREEMAN III
MCA M SOROSKY
CASEY W. ROURKE
KIMBERLY C. LUOYAN
w Pawcvrowv consauTleK
2603 MAIN STREET
EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 926W42e1
(949) 061 -9400
w I.ptwww.com
August 5, 2010
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL
Chairman Earl McDaniel
City of Newport Beach Planning
Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Robert Hawkins
Charles Unsworth
Michael Toerge
Barry Eaton
Bradley Hillgren
Fred Ameri
Planning Commissioners
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
P.O. BOX 19712
IRVINE, CA 92623-9712
WRITER'S DIRECT
DIAL NUMBER
(949) 851 -7340
WRITER'S DIRECT
FACSIMILE NUMBER
(949) 825 -5404
FIRM'S OIRCCT
FACSIMILE NUMBERS
(949) 661.1554
(949) 767.1229
rea BterQptwww.com
REFER TO FILE NO.
31191 -001
Re: PRES Office Building B Project: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and Errata; General Plan and Planned Community Text
Amendments (August 5, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Item No. 4; PA2007 -213)
Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners:
This office is legal counsel for Meyer Properties, a California limited partnership
( "Meyer "), which owns that certain office building located at 4320 Von Karman Avenue,
in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (the "Koll Center "), City of Newport
Beach, California (the "Meyer Building "),
PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 2
The Meyer Building is contiguous to the proposed project development of a 50
foot high, 11,960- gross- square feet single- tenant office building (the "Project ") at 4300
Von Karman Avenue, in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, in the City of
Newport Beach (the "City "). Accordingly, the Meyer Building will be directly affected
by many of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text
Amendments (the "Study "), and the Errata to the Study (the "Errata ") (which was
released to the public on July 30, 2010), for the Project.
Please note that Meyer did not receive notice of the Planning Commission public
hearing on the Project scheduled for August 5, 2010. We discovered the meeting through
our own research. Please ask City staff to ensure that all required notices for projects in
the vicinity of or affecting the Meyer Building be sent in accordance with the law.
As you are aware, this office submitted a comment letter on behalf of Meyer on
June 7, 2010 (the "Initial Comment Letter "). The purpose of the Initial Comment Letter
was to provide comments to the City regarding the inadequacy of the environmental
review of the Project set forth in the Study, to inform the City that the proposed general
plan amendment and amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards should not
be adopted without first performing adequate. environmental analysis pursuant to an
environmental impact report, and that the Project is otherwise inappropriate for the Koll
Center.
The City has prepared the Errata to modify the Study to include revisions relating
to the public comments. We have reviewed the Errata and are submitting this comment
letter to inform the City that Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the general
plan amendment for the Project, that the Study, including the Errata, is still inadequate to
serve as the environmental document for the Project under the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA "), that the general plan amendment and Koll Center Development
Standards text amendment for the Project should not be adopted, and that the Project is
inappropriate for the Koll Center.
I. CHARTER SECTION 423 (MEASURE S): SPLIT OF GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENTS.
In addition to the proposed general plan amendment for the Project, another
general plan amendment (see Agenda Item No. 5) is being proposed for a similar project
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 3
that is also within the Koll Center (the "Related Project "). This additional general plan
amendment proposes to expand the additional allowable development within Statistical
Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, where both the Project and the
Related Project are located, by 11,544 square feet. The general plan amendment for the
Project also proposes to expand additional allowable development within Statistical Area
4 by 11,544 square feet. As discussed in detail below, these general plan amendments
should not be considered independently, and should be combined into a single general
plan amendment that is subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423.
A. Text of Charter Section 423.
As noted on p. 8 of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report
for the August, 5, 2010 meeting, Agenda Item No. 4 (the "Staff Report"), Charter Section
423 requires voter approval for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General
Plan. The text of Charter Section 423 states as follows:
"Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the
Newport Beach General Plan. A'major amendment' is one that
significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that allowed
uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or
intensity. 'Significantly increases' means over 100 peak hour trips
(traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet
of floor area (intensity); these thresholds shall apply to the total of: 1)
Increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the
increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same
neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years. 'Other
amendments' does not include those approved by the voters. 'Neighborhood'
shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical
Areas created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City,
'Voter approval is required' means that the amendment shall not take
maiority of those voting on it. Any such amendment shall be submitted to
a public vote as a separate and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its
approval by the city council at the same time as one or more other
amendments to the City's General Plan. The city council shall set any
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 4
election required by this Section for the municipal election next
following city council approval of the amendment, or, by mutual
agreement with the applicant for the amendment, may call a special
election for this purpose with the cost of the special election shared by
the applicant and the City as they may agree. In any election required
by this Section, the ballot measure shall be worded such that a YES vote
approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the amendment; any such
election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall be void and
shall have no effect." [Emphasis added.]
B. Addition oMon- Residential Sguare Feet to Statistical Area L4 as
Calculated in the StafReport.
The Staff Report indicates that none of the three thresholds that require a vote
pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded by the proposed general plan amendment
for the Project. This conclusion is based on the calculations set forth in Tables 1 and 2 of
the Staff Report.
Tables I and 2 illustrate the additional square feet of non - residential floor area and
increases of peak hour vehicle trips for two proposed general plan amendments,
identified as GP2007 -009 and GP2008 -007, and a general plan amendment that was
adopted on January 9, 2007, GP2006 -096. GP2007 -009 is the general plan amendment
proposed to be adopted for the Project and GP2008 -007 is the general plan amendment
proposed to be adopted for the Related Project.
The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the cumulative additional square feet of
non - residential area that will be added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining
whether voter approval is required under Charter Section 423, is 39.992 square feet. As
stated above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase density by 40,000
square feet of non - residential floor area requires voter approval. Accordingly, Table 2 of
the Staff Report indicates that the two proposed general plan amendments will fall merely
8 square feet shy of the 40,000 square foot limitation that would require voter approval.
Please note that the calculation of 39,992 square feet was reached by
characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a "past
amendment," therefore reducing the additional square footage proposed to be added by
the general plan amendment for the Project to 80 percent of the actual additional square
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 5
footage. As set forth above, the thresholds for Charter Section 423 are determined by
adding the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself to 80 percent of the
increases resulting from the other amendments affecting the same Statistical Area and
adopted within the preceding ten years.
Without characterizing the proposed general plan amendment for the Project as a
past amendment, the total additional square footage resulting from the two proposed
general plan amendments and the general plan amendment adopted in 2007 would be
42,300.8 square feet, which would require the general plan amendment to be subject to
voter approval.
C. Addition oiPeak -Hour Vehicle Trigs.
The analysis in Table 2 illustrates that the additional peak hour trips that will be
added to Statistical Area L4, for purposes of determining whether voter approval is
required under Charter Section 423, is 20.54 A.M. trips and 19.85 P.M. trips. As stated
above, a general plan amendment that proposes to increase peak hour trips by 100
requires voter approval. In the aggregate, the three amendments listed in Table 2 will
increase A.M. peak hour trips by 85.25 and P.M. peak hour trips by 95.09. Collectively,
A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips will be increased by 180.34, if the proposed general plan
amendment is characterized as a "past amendment," and 188.4175 peak hour trips if the
two proposed general plan amendments are combined into a single amendment.
Charter Section 423 does not make a distinction between A.M. and P.M. peak
hour trips. To the contrary, it merely states that "'significant increase' means over 100
peak hour trips." However, for purposes of analyzing whether the amendments are
subject to voter approval, the Staff Report divides the peak hour trips into A.M. and P.M.
When the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are combined, they are greater than 100.
Regardless of whether the general plan amendments for the Project or the Related
Project are considered together or in independent amendments, the aggregate peak hour
trips will exceed 100 and therefore the amendments are subject to voter approval
pursuant to Charter Section 423.
PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 6
D. The Proposed General Plan Amendments Are Subiect to Voter
Approval Pursuant to Charter Section 423.
The two proposed general plan amendments each propose to increase the
maximum development limit of the General Land Use Element of the General Plan by
11,544 gross square feet. Both general plan amendments are proposed for similar office
building development projects within the same planned community business center, the
Koll Center. Likewise, both projects will require an amendment to the Koll Center
Newport Planned Community text to increase allowable building area for each proposed
office site.
Effectively, these two amendments are collectively proposing to expand office
development within the Koll Center. Despite the cohesiveness inherent in planned
communities, and documents relating to planned communities, the expansion of the
office park has been split into two separate proposals. Given that both projects are being
planned at the same time, are located within the same business center, and both propose
to expand allowable development within Statistical Area L4, there is no apparent reason
why the expansion of allowable development within the Koll Center would be
piecemealed into two separate general plan amendments.
What is apparent, however, is that these two proposed general plan amendments
would require voter approval if the amendments were not split. As detailed above,
without the benefit of characterizing the general plan amendment for the Project as a past
amendment, and therefore reducing the additional square footage for the Project by 20
percent, a general plan amendment that includes the additional square footage for both
developments in the Koll Center would require voter approval pursuant to Charter
Section 423.
The division of the proposed general plan amendments serves no purpose other
than to circumvent voter approval. Approving these two amendments will effectively
appropriate the power vested in the citizens of the City of Newport Beach to limit
allowable development as set forth in the General Plan. Accordingly, these two
amendments should not be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the
amendments should be combined and reconsidered as one general plan amendment, and
the combined general plan amendment should be subject to voter approval.
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 7
II. UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT.
CEQA Guidelines define "Project" to mean the "whole of an action" that may
result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). "Project is given a broad interpretation in
order to maximize protection of the environment." McQueen v. Board of Directors of
Midpennsulia Region Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3rd 1136 (1988).
California courts have held that a lead agency must analyze each "project"
consisting of a part of an entire action in a single environmental review document and not
"split" a project into two or more segments. Such single comprehensive review ensures
that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project
into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which
cumulatively may have very dire consequences. Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena Airport
Authority v. Hensler (1991) and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal,
3rd 263 (1975).
Here, the Study does not review the entire action that is contemplated, which is
tantamount to unlawful piecemealing. The Project is merely one piece of a much greater
project that includes an additional General Plan amendment for the Related Project, an
additional amendment to the Koll Center Development Standards text for the Related
Project, and a massive residential development project in the Koll Center and property
contiguous to the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development
Plan (the "Residential Project "). Accordingly, the environmental analysis relating to the
Project is required to be analyzed together with the Related Project and the Residential
Project.
A. The General Plan Amendment and Amendment to Koll Center
Development Standards.
As discussed above, the proposed general plan amendment for the Project and the
proposed general plan amendment for the Related Project should be combined into a
single amendment. The cumulative impacts of these two projects must be reviewed in a
single environmental impact report, and cannot be analyzed independently. These two
projects may have many cumulative impacts that are not identified and addressed in the
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 8
Study and the Errata.
Likewise, the cumulative environmental impacts relating to the amendments to the
Koll Center Development Standards text for the Project and the Related Project must be
analyzed together in a single EIR.
The cumulative impacts of the two projects will certainly be greater than the sum
of the impacts of each project as analyzed independently. For example, each project will
result in environmental impacts to traffic, inter alia, in the immediate vicinity of the Koll
Center. The cumulative impacts to traffic associated with the development of two
projects within the Koll Center simultaneously will certainly be greater than the traffic
impacts identified independently for each project.
As set forth above, CEQA Guidelines provide a broad interpretation of "Project"
to include the "whole of an action" that may result in either a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). It
is clearly reasonably foreseeable that the Project and the Related Project within the Koll
Center may result in direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that are
attributable to the cumulative impacts of the two projects. Accordingly, the split of each
project within the Koll Center is unlawful piecemealing, and an EIR must be prepared to
identify and analyze the cumulative environmental impacts associated with both projects.
B. General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002 and Airport Business
Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan.
In addition to the Related Project, the Planning Commission is also considering a
project within the Koll Center, and immediately adjacent to the Koll Center, that
proposes to build a residential village and utilize many of the common area features of
the Koll Center to be governed by an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (defined
above as the "Residential Development "). While the Planning Commission at its last
meeting on July 22, 2010 continued further discussion on the Residential Development
until an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is presented consistent with
requirements articulated by the Planning Commission, the Residential Development is
reasonably foreseeable.
The Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project are all part of an
immense development scheme to greatly expand the office development and residential
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 9
development within the Koll Center and adjacent properties. The cumulative
environmental impacts associated with the three projects will be much greater than the
environmental impacts associated with each project independently. Furthermore,
environmental impacts for each project have been analyzed independently in three
different studies (none of which is an EIR), omitting the requisite analysis of cumulative
impacts.
Also, please note that it is irrelevant that different developers plan to implement
the construction of each project. Each project is a smaller part of a greater sized,
reasonably foreseeable project to expand the Koll Center to include additional office
buildings and residential use. Regardless of how many developers are involved, the
projects cannot be split into fragments for purposes of environmental analysis.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the "whole of the project' cannot be piecemealed
into smaller projects to fragment environmental analysis thereof. It is reasonably
foreseeable that the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential Project, will result in
direct and indirect environmental impacts attributable to the cumulative effect of the
construction of all three projects within the Koll Center. Accordingly, the environmental
impacts associated with the three projects must be analyzed in a single environmental
impact report.
III. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT.
Based on the information provided in the Study and the Errata, as well as the
environmental impacts that were not analyzed therein, it is apparent that there is a fair
argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant
adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA, an Environmental
Impact Report (TIR ") must be prepared for the Project.
A. Preparation ofEIR Pursuant to CEQA.
CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the
basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental
impact, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d, 68, 75. "If there is
substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does
not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 10
may have a significant impact." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El
Dorado, (3d Dist. 1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881 -885.
As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, and further detailed below, a fair
argument may be made that the Project may have a significant impact on the
environment.
B. Environmental Impacts Identified and Analyzed in the Study and the
Errata.
As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, there are several environmental impacts
in the Study that trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project.
Additionally, there are several environmental impacts that are identified in the Errata, and
several environmental impacts that were not identified in either the Study or the Errata,
that also trigger the requirement that an EIR be prepared for the Project, as follows:
Aesthetics.
The Errata does not expand on the identification and analysis of environmental
impacts to scenic resources. Instead, the Errata revises the language relating to scenic
resources to further limit any discussion of scenic resources to merely trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings,
As set forth in the Initial Comment Letter, the Study limited any analysis of
impacts to scenic resources to the three examples provided in the CEQA Initial Study
Environmental Checklist: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic
highway. The Errata confirms this limited scope of review of the environmental impacts
to scenic resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.
Scenic resources are not limited to the three examples set forth in the CEQA Initial
Study Environmental Checklist. The Lake and a 36 ft, tall mature tree located in the
Project Area are scenic resources, impacts thereto must be analyzed, and such impacts
were not analyzed in the Study nor the Errata. Accordingly, impacts to the Lake, the 36
ft. tall mature tree, and other scenic resources must be analyzed in an EIR.
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 11
2. Biological Resources.
The Errata expands the analysis of environmental impacts to riparian habitat from
the limited analysis that was provided in the Study. Specifically, a biological survey of
the site was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010 (the "ICF Survey ") to determine whether
the Project would impact the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project area.
While we appreciate that the ICF Survey was conducted, apparently in response to the
Initial Comment Letter, the ICF Survey and the Errata are inadequate to overcome the
deficiencies in the Study.
Paul Lehman ( "Lehman "), an expert on avian distribution and identification and
former editor of the American Birding Association's Birding magazine, detailed in a letter
(the "Lehman Letter ") recent biological surveys of the Project site conducted by
Hamilton Biological, Inc. (the "Hamilton Survey "). The Lehman Letter analyzes the ICF
Survey, the Hamilton Survey, and is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A ", along with
Lehman's curriculum vitae. The conclusions reached in the ICF Survey differ greatly
from the conclusions reached in the Lehman Letter. Furthermore, the ICF Survey was
not conducted at appropriate times, analyzed potential impacts to species that have no
potential to occur anywhere near the site, and failed to identify and analyze potential
impacts to special- status species known from Upper Newport Bay, located 0.8 mile
southwest of the Project site, or San Joaquin March, located 0.6 mile east of the Project
site, and likely to use the Lake as a habitat. Some of the more significant points raised in
the Lehman Letter are as follows:
a. The ICF Survey Was Not Conducted at
Appropriate Times,
The ICF Survey was conducted by ICF on June 22, 2010. The Study also states
that field surveys were conducted at the site (published prior to the ICF Study), but no
specific studies are referenced in the Study and the ICF Survey is the only survey that is
specifically referenced in the Errata.
As stated in the Lehman Letter, various special - status species of wildlife are likely
to visit and utilize the Lake at various times throughout the year. For example, the
California Least Terns and Black Skimmers may forage at the Lake in the late Spring.
No study was conducted during the Spring to determine whether special - status species
forage at the Lake. Furthermore, as the Lehman Letter points out, the California Least
Terns have failed in Upper Newport Bay and this year is not representative of typical
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 12
years where such species would be expected to forage at the Lake. Likewise, the ICF
Survey did not study during the known foraging patterns of other special - status species or
study at appropriate times of day.
b. Omission of the Study of Other Special- Status
Species.
The Lehman Letter identifies several species that are recognized as California
Species of Special Concern that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the
Project site, but were not identified in the ICF Survey. These species include, without
limitation, the following:
(1)
Least Bittern;
(2)
American Peregrine Falcon;
(3)
California Least Tem;
(4)
Black Skimmer;
(5)
Clark's Marsh Wren; and
(6)
Tricolored Blackbird.
Additionally, the Lehman Letter identifies several species that are included on the
California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list. This list is also referred
to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The Department of Fish and
Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.
The species on the Special Animals list that have been observed, or may be
expected to occur at the Lake and the Project site include, without limitation, the
following:
(1) Allen's Hummingbird;
(2) The Osprey;
(3) Cooper's Hawk;
(4) Costa's Hummingbird; and
(5) Nuttal's Woodpecker.
Several species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are
listed on the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list have been
observed, and may be expected to occur, at the Project. However, the potential impacts
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 13
to many of the species were not identified in the Study or the Errata. The potential
impacts to these species must be identified in an EIR.
C. Foraging and nd Fli hg t Path.
It is also important to note that the discussion of impacts to riparian habitat in the
Study and the Errata limited the scope of review to species that may nest in the Project
area. However, the Errata failed to discuss species that nest elsewhere, but forage in the
Project area. Additionally, the Study and the Errata failed to identify and analyze any
impacts to species whose flight path may be impacted by the erection of a 50 ft. tall
building between the Lake and Upper Newport Bay.
The Study and the Errata failed to identify the potential impacts to these special -
status species that have been observed, or may be expected to occur, at the Lake and the
Project site. Accordingly, a more detailed analysis of the potential environmental
impacts to the riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project site must be
included in an EIR for the Project.
Additional Revisions Provided in the Errata.
In addition to revisions to the discussion of environmental impacts relating to
aesthetics and biological resources, the Errata provides revisions to the discussion of
impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise,
public services, and transportation and traffic. None of these revisions discussed
cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, the Related Project, and the Residential
Project.
Furthermore, the revisions discussed in the Errata do not cure the inadequacies
identified in the Initial Comment Letter. The significant environmental impacts
identified in the Initial Comment Letter must be further analyzed in an EIR.
In sum, these cumulative environmental impacts will be far greater than the
impacts identified and analyzed independently in the environmental documents for each
Project. Additionally, the analysis of the significant environmental impacts identified
independently in the Study is inadequate. Accordingly, the environmental impacts must
be identified and analyzed in a single EIR for the Project, the Related Project, and the
Residential Project.
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 14
IV. GENERAL PLAN AND KOLL CENTER STANDARDS
INCONSISTENCIES.
As detailed in the Initial Comment Letter, the amendments to the General Plan and
the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text are inconsistent with the land use
policies set forth therein. Additionally, the proposed exception to the Koll Center
Newport Planned Community General Development standards (the "Development
Standards "), and the accompanying tentative parcel map are inconsistent with the land
use policies set forth in the Development Standards.
A. The Proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project is
Inconsistent with the Land Use Policies Set Forth in the General
Plan.
The Initial Comment Letter discusses in detail the inconsistency between the
general plan amendment for the Project and the land use policies set forth in the General
Plan. The Errata made no revisions to the analysis of the environmental impacts to land
use, and therefore the analysis of environmental impacts to land use in the Initial
Comment Letter remains unrefuted.
Generally, the general plan amendment for the Project is inconsistent with the
General Plan's maximum development limit square footage in specific areas of the City.
This amendment is also inconsistent with the City's Vision Statement and the City's
express stated goal to reduce potential new commercial and office space by 1.45 million
square feet. Despite this limitation, the Project proposes to increase square footage
limitations, in direct conflict with the General Plan's Vision Statement and stated goals.
B. Inconsistent with ith Koll Center Newport Planned Community
Development Standards.
The Project proposes to amend the Development Standards to allow for an
exception to minimum site area requirements and to allow an exception to off - street
parking requirements. The Staff Report concludes that there are sufficient facts to
support the requisite findings to allow an exception to minimum site area requirements
provided by the Development Standards. Likewise, the Staff Report concludes that the
City Council has the authority to approve of an exception to the off - street parking
requirements of the Development Standards.
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILEELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 15
Exception to Minimum Site Area.
The Development Standards require that a site area consist of no less than 30,000
square feet. The Project proposes to subdivide the existing 55,779 square foot parcel into
two separate parcels. One parcel would consist of approximately 32,395 square feet, and
the second parcel would consist of approximately 23,383 square feet.
The Staff Report concludes that the granting of the exception is compliant with the
requisite findings necessary to support the exception, as follows: (1) the exception will
not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and
(2) that the intent of the Development Standards are substantially met.
Despite recommending the draconian measure of amending a fundamental tenet of
the Development Standards, the minimum site area, that is a foundation of the Koll
Center planned community, the City does not attempt to explain what circumstances exist
that justify allowing such an exception. The Development Standards serve the purpose of
establishing and preserving the cohesive nature of a planned business community.
The facts in support of the findings provided in the Staff Report are simply too
superficial to justify this exception. Although the site area may comply with building
envelope requirements, setback requirements, and will not exceed maximum height
restrictions, as the Staff Report points out, this does not justify allowing an exception to
minimum site area. Nor does the fact that the project site is fully developed and that
there are lot sizes in the vicinity of the site that are similar to or smaller than the proposed
lot size.
The facts in support of the finding that the intent of the Development Standards
are met are equally superficial. The principal intent of the Development Standards is to
create a cohesive, planned community by establishing certain standards that will create a
consistent and unified office park. Adopting an exception to any development standard is
fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of the Development Standards.
Moreover, the Staff Report concludes on p. 12 that if the exception is granted, then
the intent of the Development Standards will be met. These two concepts are mutually
exclusive. The intent of the Development Standards must be determined by reviewing
them prior to making exceptions. If the approval of an exception itself is manifest proof
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 16
of satisfaction of requisite intent, then the analysis of the intent of the Development
Standards is a sham. Such a revision will set precedent for revising Development
Standards in the future without actually considering the intent of the Development
Standards prior to making such revision.
The exception to the Development Standards for minimum site area is not
supported by the findings set forth in the Staff Report, and therefore the exception for
minimum site area should not be approved.
2. Exception to General Parking Requirement Standards.
The Staff Report determined that the City Council has the authority to lower the
off - street parking requirements from one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area
to one space for each 250 square feet of net floor area. Additionally, the Staff Report
recommends that this exception be granted.
In reaching this conclusion, the Staff Report notes that, if the exception to reduce
the off - street parking requirement were granted, the intent of providing adequate off -
street parking would be met. Again, these concepts are mutually exclusive and the
approval of an exception in and of itself may not be considered proof that the intent of the
Development Standards was met.
Furthermore, the analysis is too superficial to justify providing this exception. The
Staff Report states that the off - street parking requirements are consistent with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "NBMC ") for business and professional office use.
This is irrelevant to the discussion of parking requirements that are specific to the Koll
Center. The parking requirements in the Koll Center are more stringent than the general
parking requirements set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code in order to preserve
specific standards that were created for the Koll Center community. The general parking
requirement standards were established to provide ample parking in the Koll Center, and
to preserve standards that will create and preserve a consistent and unified office park.
Accordingly, the exception to the general parking requirement standards should not be
approved.
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILRELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 17
3. Tentative Parcel Man.
The Project proposes to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing
55,779 square foot parcel of land into two separate parcels. In order to approve a
tentative parcel map, the decision - making body must make all of the 11 findings set forth
in Section 19.12.070 of Title 19 of the NBMC.
The Staff Report concludes that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the
legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC, and that the facts set forth in the Staff Report
support all 11 findings required by the NBMC. However, many of the findings required
to approve the tentative parcel map cannot be met, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) The first finding requires that the proposed map and the design or
improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this
Subdivision Code. As discussed in detail above, the Project is inconsistent with the
General Plan and the Development Standards. Therefore, the tentative parcel map is
inconsistent with the first finding, which is required to be met in order to approve the
tentative parcel map.
(2) The third finding requires that the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Furthermore, notwithstanding the
foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the environmental impact report. Again, as discussed in detail above, the Study and
Errata have not adequately analyzed the potential impacts to species located in the Project
area. Furthermore, an EIR was not prepared for the Project, and therefore the decision -
making body may not find pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA that other considerations
make infeasible other alternatives. Accordingly, the third finding set forth in Section
19,28.0 10 of the NBMC cannot be met.
(3) The fifth finding requires that the subdivision not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP
City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 5, 2010
Page 18
subdivision. As stated above, the Residential Project proposes to utilize certain portions
of the Koll Center as common areas for the benefit of the residents of the Residential
Project. No analysis was provided in the Staff Report regarding any potential conflicts
between the proposed Residential Project and the tentative parcel map.
Not less than three of the 11 findings required to support approval of the tentative
parcel map cannot be met. Additionally, further analysis of environmental impacts
relating to land use, biological resources, and cumulative impacts attributable to the
Project and the Related Project is required to determine whether all I 1 of the findings
may be met. Accordingly, the tentative parcel map cannot be approved under Section
19.28.0 10 of the NBMC.
V. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons set forth above, Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of the
general plan amendment for the Project, the Study, including the Errata, is still
inadequate to serve as the environmental document for the Project under CEQA, the
general plan amendment and Development Standards text amendment for the Project
should not be adopted, and the Project is inappropriate for and inconsistent with the
Newport Beach General Plan and Development Standards for the Koll Center.
Very truly yours,
Ryan M. Easter
RME:fjf
cc: David Lepo, Planning Director
Newport Beach City Clerk
Meyer Properties
Michael H. Leifer, Esq.
EXHIBIT "A"
August 5, 2010
James B. Hasty, Senior Vice President
Meyer Properties
4320 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Biological Review, PRES Office Building B
Dear Mr. Hasty,
At your request, I have reviewed environmental documentation provided by the City of
Newport Beach (City) regarding a mitigated negative declaration OYM) prepared in
support of a project known as the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned
Community Text Amendments (PRES). This letter report provides the results of my
review. My qualifications to conduct this review are provided in the attached biography.
Methods
I reviewed all relevant portions of the MND, provided on the City's web page. This
included:
ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments.
Report dated July 2010 prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department.
Section IV, Biological Resources.
ICF International. 2010. Summary of Biological Literature Review and Field Visit
Conducted for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text
Amendments. Memorandum dated June 28, 2010, from biologist Paul Schwartz to project
manager Nicole Williams.
I also reviewed the letter dated June 7, 2010, from Ryan M. Easter of Palmieri, Tyler,
Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, and the City's responses.
Biologist Robert Hamilton of Hamilton Biological, Inc., visited the project site during the
afternoons of July 31 and August 2, spending approximately one hour in the project
vicinity during each visit. During these visits Mr. Hamilton noted plant and wildlife
species present and the general condition of the project site and nearby man -made ponds
on either side of Von Karman Avenue. Mr. Hamilton provided me with photographs
showing the condition of the project site and the two nearby ponds.
Review Comments
The main issues that stand out from my review of this project relate to the results of the
literature search and the assumptions made by the project biologists about which species
could, or could not, occur at the project site and adjacent retarding basin pond. The
memorandum from Mr. Schwartz states:
Prior to conducting the field survey, a California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2010) search was completed to detect
special - status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within
5 miles of the project area. The species list resulting from the search is
provided in Table 1.
Table l include entries for numerous species of plant and wildlife that do not occur
within 5 miles of the project site, and have no potential to occur anywhere near the site.
These include Cismontane Nolina ( Nolina cismontana; occurs in the Santa Ana
Mountains), Santa Ana River Woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum;
unrecorded south of Featherly Park near the Riverside County line), and even the
Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens), a species with a natural distribution that
includes only the northern part of California.
Given that the project site is located near two man -made ponds that support small fish
and emergent marsh vegetation, Table I should have included certain special- status
species known from Upper Newport Bay, located only 0.8 mile southwest of the project
site, and /or San Joaquin Marsh, located only 0.6 mile east of the project site. The
following special - status species of potential relevance to the proposed project are not
included in Table l:
Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exills). This California Species of Special Concern is known
to occur in stands of cat -tails and tules at San Joaquin Marsh and other freshwater
marshes in Orange County, although those stands are typically larger than those on the
project site. The MND failed to mention the Least Bittern and no evaluation was made by
the project biologist. However, given the relative small size and isolated, urban nature of
this cat -tail habitat in the retarding basin pond, it is very unlikely that Least Bittern nests
on the site, and this species would —at best —be a very irregular visitor.
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines anatum). This state - endangered species
is known to occur regularly at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh, and
Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on the Marriott Hotel at Fashion Island in
Newport Beach (Gallagher, S. J., and Bloom, P. H. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds,
Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA). Although this
species could occur on the project site, the MND failed to mention the Peregrine Falcon
and no evaluation was made by the project biologist. The Peregrine Falcon would likely
be an irregular visitor, mostly in search of possible prey at the retarding basin pond —and
not to the actual proposed site of the PRIES building.
California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browns). This species, listed as endangered
by state and federal governments, nests on a sand island near the upper end of Upper
Newport Bay and is "regularly encountered at golf course ponds and similar sites within a
mile or two of the coast" in Orange County (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996.
The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press,
Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA) and the same is true in San Diego County
(pers. obs.). Given that their nearest nesting colony is located only 1,2 miles southwest of
the project site (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and given the large population of small
fish in the ponds adjacent to the project site (Mr. Hamilton noted that these fish are easily
seen from the edges of the ponds), I believe that Least Terns might make rare or
occasional summer foraging visits of these ponds during normal years. Mr. Hamilton did
not see any terns at the ponds during his field visits, but the Least Terns have failed in
their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.) and Mr.
Hamilton has not seen them anywhere at the bay since early July (he monitors the
ongoing dredging work at the bay and inspect the terns' nesting island approximately
once a week). Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for Least
Terns at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this period
do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there during a normal year.
Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger). Like the Least Tern, this California Species of
Special Concern regularly nests near the upper end of Upper Newport Bay and regularly
forages "within a mile or two of the coast" (Hamilton, R. A. and Willick, D. R. 1996. The
Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Sea
and Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, CA). Similar to the tern, skimmers could make rare
foraging visits to the ponds near the project site during normal years, probably at night.
Mr. Hamilton did not see any skimmers at the ponds during his field visits, but, like the
Least Terns, Black Skimmers have failed in their nesting at Upper Newport Bay this year
(R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.). Mr. Hamilton has seen low numbers of skimmers at the
bay since early July. Since July /August 2010 has not been a period of normal activity for
skimmers at Upper Newport Bay, surveys of the ponds near the project site during this
period do not provide a reliable indication of the species' status there during a normal
year.
Clark's Marsh Wren (Clstothorus palustris clarkae). This California Species of Special
Concern is a sedentary bird that occurs in stands of cat -tails and toles at San Joaquin
Marsh and Upper Newport Bay, although those stands are typically larger than those on
the project site. The MND failed to mention Clark's Marsh Wren and no evaluation was
made by the project biologist.
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelalus tricolor). This California Species of Special Concern
breeds in emergent marsh vegetation and feeds in grasslands, sometimes including turf.
Although it is doubtful that Tricolored Blackbirds make substantial use of this site, the
MND failed to mention the Tricolored Blackbird and no evaluation was made by the
project biologist.
3
Several other species that are not listed as threatened or endangered, or identified as
California Species of Special Concern, are placed on a "Special Animals" list by the
California Department of Fish and Game:
"Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the California Natural
Diversity Data Base is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.
This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species." The
Department of Fish and Game considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest
conservation need. hit • / /dfe cu aov/bioeeod•da/cnddb/ dr SPAnimals ndD
CBQA documents typically identify and evaluate a project's potential effects on all
Special Animals that are known or expected to occur on a given site. Mr. Hamilton
observed an Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) across the street from the
project site on August 2, 2010. The Osprey (Pandion halladus) has been reported
occasionally foraging in ponds near the project site (James Hasty pers. comm.). Other
Special Animals with potential to occur on the site include Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter
cooperir), Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), and Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoi-
des nuttallir). The Osprey, which has only recently recolonized Orange County, is now
known to nest at both Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh. It seems unlikely that
this species occurs regularly at the ponds near the project site, but this question was not
evaluated in the MND. The other species mentioned above are common across much of
Orange County and the wider region, and so are not especially "sensitive," but again, it is
the project biologist's responsibility to evaluate their potential for occurrence on the site
and to analyze the potential significance of any impacts. None of these species was
mentioned in the biological documentation for the MND.
Conclusions
The stated objective of the biological report prepared for the MND was to identify
"special- status wildlife and plant species with the potential to occur within 5 miles of the
project area," but evaluated a number of species that do not occur within 5 miles of the
project site and/or that have no potential to occur in the project setting. More importantly,
the MND did not evaluate various special- status species known to occur within a mile of
the project site, at Upper Newport Bay and San Joaquin Marsh.
I cannot do more than speculate about the actual status of several of these species
identified in this comment letter, but it should be stated that some of them have been
reported on or near the site and others could potentially use the ponds, at least on an
irregular basis. Peregrine Falcons have been recorded nesting on a building in Newport
Beach. The definitive publication on the status and distribution of birds in Orange County
states that both California Least Terns and Black Skimmers regularly forage at
freshwater sites within a mile or two of the coast (including "golf course ponds and
similar sites" for the tern). Whether either of these species forage at the two ponds
adjacent to the project site is unknown because adequate surveys were not conducted
during the late spring /early summer period in 2010 when these species were actively
nesting at Upper Newport Bay. Now that their local nesting has failed, numbers of both
of these species at the head of Newport Bay are reduced from their normal late- summer
4
levels (R. A. Hamilton pers. comm.), and the birds that remain may not be following the
foraging patterns they normally follow when they are raising young.
It is my conclusion that the MND is deficient in its failure to fully (1) discuss these
special - status species and their known patterns of foraging in Orange County, (2) conduct
surveys at appropriate times of year and appropriate times of day directed toward
determining their status on the site, or (3) evaluate the potential effects of adding a tall
structure along the flight -line between the Koll Center ponds and Upper Newport Bay.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this review. If you wish to review any matters,
please call me at (858) 268 -1937 or send e-mail to Iehman.paul@verizon.net.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Lehman
Attachment: Lehman biography
PAUL LLHMAN
11192 Portobelo Drive, San Diego, CA 92124
858 - 268 -1937 (home); 609 - 313 -3129 (cell)
lehman.paul@verizon.net
Paul Lehman has written many articles and papers on avian distribution and
identification. Formerly a lecturer in physical geography and environmental
studies at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and past editor of the
American Birding Associations Birding magazine for nine years (1989 -1997),
Paul continues to give lectures on weather and bird distribution, migration, and
vagrancy. He also leads bird tours throughout North America for Wings, Inc. He
is an associate editor for both North American Birds and Western Birds magazines,
and he has been a principal consultant on most of the popular field guides on the
market today, primarily as the chief consultant and compiler for the range maps
in The Sibley Field Guides to Birds of Eastern and Western North America, Roger Tory
Peterson's A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America and A
Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America, the National Geographic Society's
Field Guide to the Birds of North America and Complete Birds of North America, the
Smithsonian Guide to the Birds of North America, and the National Wildlife Federation
Guide to the Birds of North America. He was also chief editor of the ABA /Lane
birdfinding guide to North America's major metropolitan regions, and was
managing editor of the recently published Rare Birds of California book,
9
Attachment No. PC 3
Errata to the Draft IS /MND
(Distributed under separate cover)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Janet Johnson Brown, Associate Planner
Date: August 16, 2010
Re: PRES Office Building B — Errata to the IS /MND (Amended August 13, 2010)
Attached please find a copy of an Errata to the IS /MND (Chapter 4), amended as of August 13,
2010, and Appendix I. Changes to the amended Errata, which were not addressed in the Errata
attached to the August 5, 2010 staff report, occur in the following categories: Aesthetics,
Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic.
Also attached are copies of a revised conceptual rendering and elevation plans of the proposed
office building submitted by the applicant for your information. The height of the building has
been reduced from 50 -feet to 47 -feet 10- inches.
Chapter 4
Errata to the Draft IS/MND
(Amended August 13, 2010)
Introduction
This section of the document addresses modifications to the draft IS /MND for the
proposed PRES Office Building B. It presents all revisions related to public
comments, as determined necessary by the Department. Only sections that had
revisions based on the public comments are included, and sections that had no
revisions are not included. Readers are referred to Chapters 1 through 3 of this
final IS /MND to view complete sections.
This section provides changes to the draft IS /MND in revision -mode text
(i.e., deletions are shown with steugh and additions are shown with
underline These notations are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or
minor revisions as needed as a result of public comments or because of changes
in the project since the publication and distribution of the draft IS/MND.
Changes to the Draft IS /MND
The following changes to the text as presented below are incorporated into the
Final IS /MND.
Project Description
Office Building Development
As discussed above, the proposed amendments would increase the allowable
square footage to accommodate the development of a new 11,960- gross- square -
foot office building on the site that is currently occupied by a 6,850- gross - square-
foot office building and 84 surface parking spaces. Approximately 25 stalls of
the existing 84 stalls of surface parking and some existing landscaping would be
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -1
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]2.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
demolished for the development of the proposed office building. The proposed
office building would be a total of three levels: two levels of office space and a
ground -level parking structure.
The proposed building may be occupied by a single tenant, PRES, or it may have
multiple tenants. An average of 53 employees would work at the proposed
building.'
The parking structure would provide 12 parking spaces, and the exterior surface
of project site would provide 30 parking spaces for a total of 42 parking spaces
on the proposed parcel two. Primary access to the proposed project would remain
from Von Karman Avenue. Figure 2 -5, Proposed Project Plan, illustrates the
project site plan.
The maximum height of the office building would bea maximum
of 4739 feet 10 inches above the original grade. Figure 2 -6, Proposed Project
Elevations, shows the side elevations of the proposed building. The architectural
style of the office building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures
such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the
composition of the building. The office buildings would incorporate a mixture of
textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements. Figure
2 -7, Proposed Project Rendering, shows an architectural rendering of the
proposed building.
Mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units,
would be screened from the public view by the height of the buildings. All
equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of
the equipment.
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics, Page 3 -5
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway?
No Impact. The proje,.t Sao dOeS H01 fi :. t ,.f..«. FOOk ,...t,._,.._«:«,.. that RUP Of
I The Employment Density Study Summary Report prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (2001) provides the
number of emplovees per square foot of office buildings in Orange County based on the average employee per acre and the average Floor Area
Ratio of buildings in Orange County. Specifically, Table 11 -13 identifies that in Orange County a high -rise office building has one employee for
every 218 square feet of building. The SCAG data does not identify_woss or net square feet. This document uses the gross square feet for the
proposed amendment of the General Plan (11,544 gross square feet) to determine the number of employees that would be used for development
of the new office building. Therefore, based on this information, an average of approximately 53 employees would be employed at the offlee
buildine.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -2
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
This threshold specifically relates to the damage of scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, that are along
or adjacent to a scenic highway (i.e., adjacent to or in the vicinity of a scenic
highway). Therefore, the scope of analysis for this threshold identifies whether
scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the proiect site, and if so, whether
the 12roiect would impact scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic structures along the scenic highway.
tThere are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project
(California Department of Transportation 2009). In addition, the County of
Orange General Plan was also reviewed to determine if there are locally
designated scenic highways within proximity of the project site. County of
Orange General Plan Transportation Element Figure IV -11 does not identify any
designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site (County of Orange
20041 Furthermore, the project site does not consist of any rock outcroppings
that are of significant visual quality. There are no historic buildings on site or in
the proiect area that would be affected by the proposed proiect. Therefore, the
proposed project would not damage a- scenic resources along a scenic highway,
and no impacts would occur. For an analysis of the existing visual character or
quality of the retarding basin and the landscaped space in the Kell Center, please
see Threshold (c) below.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect
the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
project site is located in a fully developed planned community and would not
damage any scenic resources. The proposed project would blend in with the
existing character of the area and surrounding land uses. The maximum heigh
The existing visual setting of the Koll Center is primarily comprised of multi-
level office and commercial buildings separated by landscaped space. Within the
existing Kell Center boundaries, there are well over 50 existing buildings. Many
of these buildings, including two buildings to the north/northeast of the project
site, 4340 Von Karman Avenue and 4350 Von Karman Avenue, are more than
three stories tall. There are two retarding basins in Koll Center. One is adjacent
to the project site and the other is located over 200 feet away from the proiect site
to the west of Von Karman Avenue. Of the eight buildings surrounding the two
retarding basins in the Koll Center, the PRES and Meyers buildings are the only
single -story buildings. Therefore, the Koll Center and the buildings surrounding
the retarding basins offer a wide variety of heights and elevations. This variety
adds a multi -level visual complexity to the existing visual setting. See
Attachment A depicting the eight buildings and the local area surrounding the
two retarding basins.
The landscaped space in Koll Center and the area surrounding the two retarding
basins and the basins themselves add to the existing visual character of the Koll
Center. Open space is not specifically defined in the Kell Center Newport
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -3
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
Community Development Standards Moll Center Development Standards).
Page 7 of the Kell Center Development Standards identifies that unless otherwise
stated in this ordinance [Koll Standards], the requirements of the zoning code,
City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The Koll Center Development Standards
Center is approximately 179 acres, or approximately 7.7 million square feet.
Currently, the local area surrounding the two retarding basins is approximately
913,600 square feet, or approximately 21 acres. Of this local area, approximately
344,100 square feet, or approximately 8 acres, would be considered landscaped
space. The existing landscaped space and retarding basins are visual amenities
experienced by employees and visitors that drive or walk along Von Karman
Avenue or that work in buildings facing the retarding basins. However, while the
retarding basins and landscaped space are visually pleasing amenities and are a
part of the visual character and quality of the Koll Center, they are not designated
visual resources according to the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
The existing view of the project site experienced by drivers and pedestrians along
Von Karman is comprised of a foreground (ornamental lawn/turf and part of the
retarding basin) and a background (the existing black, asphalt paved parking lot).
There are no views of the project site from the northeast because the Meyers
building has no windows facing the project site that would allow employees or
visitors to that building to view the existing landscaped space and black asphalt
parking lot. There are no views to the southeast of the project site because a wall
more than 6 feet high separates the project site and the existing industrial use to
the south and east. There are only partial views of the existing manicured
lawn/turf from the existing PRES building to the southwest of the project site
because of the angle of the existing PRES building. Thus, onlv drivers an d
pedestrians along Von Karman have a full view of the project site at certain
locations along Von Karman Avenue and on sidewalks. See Attachments B to 1
identifying viewpoint locations from and to the project site and the views of
those locations.
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a three -level
office building with a maximum height of 47 feet 10 inches. Approximately 25%
of the project site would be landscaped, and approximately 75% of the site would
be paved. The proposed project would remove approximately 2,000 square feet
of existing landscaped space from the Koll Center. The proposed architectural
style of the building would be aesthetically diverse and would use textures such
as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) to soften the composition
of the building. The proposed office building would incorporate a mixture of
textured aluminum panels, stone, reflective glass, and canopy elements.
Equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units,
would be screened from the public view by the height of the building. All
equipment would be centrally located on the roof surfaces, prohibiting views of
the equipment.
- The Koll Center Development Standards define footprint lot as the area of land required for the building pad encompassing the peripheral area
of the building. Appurtenant and contiguous to the footprint shall be all narking, landscaping, setbacks and other areas as described and required
by the Standard's text.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -4
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
ICFJones& Attachment A
Stokes Local Area
PRES Office Building B
fi
�,r L
f �
or
1s
1
AS
.,
4 �
MA
r
Rf
may/` ,.►
N
0 50 00
•� � � � Feet.
ICFJones& Attachment B
Stokes Viewpoint Locations
a , PRES Office Building B
'C� Jones & Attachment C
^ ^Stokes Viewpoint #1 Southeast View of Jazz Semi Conductors from Project Site
PRIES Office Building B
ICC Jones& Attachment D
r,^Stolces Viewpoint #2 Northeast View from Project Site to Meyers Building
PRIES Office Building B
'CFJo�s& Stokes Attachment E
�gLO Viewpoint #3 Southeast View to Project Site
PRIES Office Building B
ICFJones &
Stokes
Attachment F
Viewpoint #4 Southbound Von Karman Ave. View to Project Site
PRIES Office Building B
'CF Jones& Attachment G
^Stokes Viewpoint #5 Southbound Von Karman Ave. Median View to Project Site
PRIES Office Building B
'CF Jones& Attachment H
.- ,^Stokes Viewpoint #6 East -side Sidewalk View to Project Site (moving south along Von Karman Ave.)
PRES Office Building B
'CC Jones& Attachment I
r,^Stolces Viewpoint #7 East -side Sidewalk View to Project Site (moving north along Von Karman Ave.)
PRES Office Building B
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
The proposed project would change the existing visual character of the site and
its surroundings. However, simply changing the existing visual character would
not exceed the level of significance established by Threshold (c). The threshold
specifies the degradation of the existing visual character or quality and whether
the proposed project would result in substantial degradation of the visual
character or quality. Therefore, the criteria is substantial degradation of existing
visual character or quality and visual character must be substantially degraded for
an impact to be determined significant.
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site or the surrounding area. The proposed project
would be taller than the adjacent PRES and Meyers buildings; however, it would
be either the same height or several feet (or stories) shorter than six buildings
surrounding the retarding basins. Additionally, the proposed project is a modest
office buildin¢ that would be compatible with other uses in the area and the
spacing between it and the existing buildings would be similar to other buildings
within the Koll Center. Therefore, the proposed proiect would continue to
support the multi -level visual complexity of not only the area around the two
retarding basins, but the entire Koll Center.
The existing landscaped space surrounding the retarding basins is visually
Pleasing and adds to the visual character and quality of the surrounding area.
The proposed project would not substantially degrade these visually pleasing
amenities. The proposed project would remove 2,000 square feet of ornamental
landscaped space from the Koll Center, or approximately 0.6% of the landscaped
space surrounding the two retarding basins. The landscaped space offers no
unique or different characteristic than any of the other landscaped space
surrounding the retarding basins or in the Koll Center. It is comprised of lawn
and omamental trees, including a 36- foot -tall eucalyptus tree, the ffices of which
can be found elsewhere in the Koll Center. Furthermore, the proposed project
would not alter, change, or otherwise modify the existing retarding basin. The
basin would remain as it is. The proposed building would be more than 20 feet
from the edge of the outlet of the adjacent retarding basin and more than 40 feet
from the edge of the adjacent retarding basin. The proposed building would be
located more than 200 feet from the retarding basin across the street and Von
Karman Avenue would separate the proposed building from this retarding basin.
Therefore, the removal of 2,000 square feet of landscaped area does not
constitute a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the
surrounding area.
The view from Von Karman would change slightly for drivers and pedestrians
because they would see less manicured lawn/turf in the foreground. However,
drivers and pedestrians would also see less parking lot pavement in the
background from Von Karman because the project would remove approximately
25 parking lot spaces. Removing the parking lot pavement and replacing it with
a building that has an aesthetically diverse architectural style and uses textures
such as rocks and living walls (i.e., walls covered in plants) could enhance the
viewing experience of drivers and pedestrians. Therefore, although the proposed
groiect would change the visual character and quality of the site and the
surrounding area, it would not substantially degrade it.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -5
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
Therefore, as the proposed project would be located in a fully developed planned
community and the architectural components would blend in with the existing
office - complex character of the area, impacts would be less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources, Pages 3 -17 and 3 -18
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any
riparian habitat. According Figure NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not located within an
Environmental Study Area (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Additionally, field
surveys of the site confirmed that the project site is fully developed and void of
any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Specifically. ICF performed a
biological survey of the site on June 22, 2010 (see new Appendix G for the
Biological Memorandum). ICF also performed a biological survey of the site on
August 12, 2010 (see new Appendix I). The biological survey (Appendix G)
confirmed the project site contains no riparian habitat and the proposed project
would not have an impact on the retarding basin. Therefore, there would be no
impacts from proiect implementation on the habitat that the retarding basin
provides to bird species, including the rg eat egret (Ardea alba). California brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and mallard
(Anas nlatvrhvnchos). Of the species listed, the brown pelican, a federally
protected species when present in nesting colonies and communal roosts, is only
known to breed on Anacapa Island and a few other Channel Islands in southern
California. Therefore, there would be no proiect- related impacts on California
brown pelican nesting colonies or communal roosts. While it is possible for the
brown pelican to be observed using the retarding basin, the area provides no
habitat for the pelican that would be affected as a result of construction or
operation of the proposed proiect. The retarding basin is not within the Project
site boundaries, and the proposed project would have no permanent or temporary
direct impacts on the retarding basin. Therefore, the proposed project would not
affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community and no impacts would
occur.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed
project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The project
site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other
undeveloped lands. According to Figures NRI and NR2 of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the project site is not identified
as a biological resources area, nor is it located in an Environmental Study Area
(City of Newport Beach 2006a) and the site is not connected to any wildlife
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -6
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
corridors. Therefore, the project site is not considered a part of a regional
wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species from one area
to another.
The nearby retarding basin and adiacent areas provide marginal- to low - quality
foraging habitat for wading birds such as the great blue heron and great egret.
The ornamental trees within and adjacent to the project site provide at best,
marginal roosting habitat for wading birds. They provide no reasonable potential
for nesting by water birds due to openness, ongoing maintenance, and urban
context. No sign of past or current nesting or roosting from wading birds was
observed during Feld visits performed on June 22, 2010 (Appendix G) and
August 12, 2010 (Appendix 1). Disturbance of the ornamental lawn and trees on
the project site would remove approximately 2,000 square feet, or 0.05 acre, of
marginal fora ig_ng habitat for wading birds. Furthermore, there are many
locations of high - quality foraging habitat birds would be more likely use within
the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, including Newport Back Bay and the San
Joaquin Marsh.
The retarding basin is not within the proiect site boundaries, and the proposed
project would have no permanent or temporary direct impacts on the retarding
basin. Temporary indirect impacts (noise, light, etc.) on the retarding basin
during the construction period could occur due to the proximity of the site to the
basin. Given that the retarding basin provides low- quality habitat for waterfowl
and that the prroiect is in the immediate vicinity of other large local estuaries that
birds use, temporary construction- related impacts would be considered less than
significant and no mitigation would be required.
The project site does not support daily movement of species. Because of the
poor quality of foraging habitat that the ornamental lawn and ornamental trees
provide, and because the eject is in the vicinity of local estuaries (San Joaquin
Marsh, Upper Newport Bay) used by birds, 1roject- related impacts to wading
bird foraging habitat would be considered less than significant. Although the
existing ornamental trees on site do not.._„ not antieipated provide important
habitat, the removal of ornamental trees on site would require compliance with
the Mjgratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
iaea.igas OF nesting s4es &F lAig_atel- ":_ Therefore, Mitigation Measure
1310 -1 is proposed to minimize redaee the impact on migratory birds should the
ornamental trees be removed during migration season. The incorporation of
Mitigation Measure 1310 -1 would further minimize impacts on wading or tree
roosting birds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Pages 3 -34 to
3 -35
e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safely hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -7
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
Less - than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport,
which is approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site. The project site is
located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project is within the height restriction
zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of the Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area.
All building height restrictions identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan
(AELUP) have as their ultimate limits the imaginary surfaces as applicable and
defined in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. "Imaginary Surfaces" are
defined by means of elevations, heights, and slopes in relation to individual
airports, the spaces above which are reserved for air navigation. The proposed
project site is located within FAR Part 77 Obstruction for Imaginary Surfaces for
JWA as identified by the FAR Part 77 John Wayne Airport Obstruction
Imo ig nary Surfaces Figure in Appendix D of the AELUP. The ALUC uses all of
the FAR Part 77.73 standards along with the results of FAA aeronautical studies,
or other studies deemed necessary by the ALUC in order to determine if a
structure is an `obstruction."
Section 77.13 of the FAR requires the notification of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for any construction or alteration that:
• Exceeds 200 feet in height abov_ttt the ground level at its site.
• Exceeds a height greater than an imaginary surface extending outward and
upward at specific slope characteristics at 20,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 5,000
feet from the nearest point of the airport runway.
• Is a highway with specific characteristics.
• Is occurring at an airport.
The proposed project includes construction of a three -level office building with a
maximum height of 47 feet 10 inches -50 feet. The project site is approximately
49-2-feet above mean sea level (A ES Due ,,:1:,.,.nee 2004 Therefore the
proposed project would not exceed the height restrictions set forth by the FAA.
: «L. 01_1_1_.«:... :7;.1 ' 4thA t A R 140981..... the PFE1..8 S@d PF8j....« V001_1114 Iq St 148 PARFA
thRI. —OO f of RhR o ..f,.URE1 lo, of ....,4 ..,.t M-Ofo flIRB _206 f of Rhe o ...o.... moo..
201 m. the proposed pFajeet is fiat ,. highway; and the p..,...,.sed proj,.,.t :1_ not a
.,.a:f:,... «:,.., t,. as ,. n... .f . Bf FI h
F,..... '^ Preliminary analysis has suggested that the proposed
project does not meet the criteria for FAA requirements to file Form 7460 -1.
However, the project site could be located in an instrument approach area; and
therefore the FAA may request the filing of Form 7460 -1 prior to construction.
If it is determined the form is required, the applicant would submit the forms as a
condition of approval of the project. The City and /or applicant would file a
notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA (FAA Form 7460 -1) in
accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Furthermore, a
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -8
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
referral by the City to the Airport Land Use Commission for Consistency Review
is required due to the location of the proposal within the AELUP Planning Area
and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. general plan
amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). The proposed project would comply
and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal
Code and the Airport Land use Commission's John Wayne AELUP (Airport
Land Use Commission 2008). The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would
protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely
in the airspace around the airport. Although the proposed project is located
within an airport land use plan, it would comply with all established standards,
requirements, and plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, Pages 3 -39 to 3 -42
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land within the
City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport
Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Each of
these watersheds is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality
standards, and BMP requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan
and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The project site
is located in the San Diego Creek Watershed. San Diego Creek is the main
tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or
portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport
Beach, Orange, and Tustin (City of Newport Beach 2003). The EPA and Santa
Ana Regional Water Control Board have identified San Diego Creek as an
impaired water body. Impairments are identified for nutrients, sediments and
toxics (see Appendix B, Preliminary WQMP). The main tributary of the San
Diego Creek Watershed, San Diego Creek, drains directly into Upper Newport
Bay (City of Newport Beach 2006b).
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) stormwater
program was established under the Clean Water Act (EPA 2010). It is a two -
phased national program for addressing the non - agricultural sources of
stormwater discharges that adversely affect the quality of receiving waters (EPA
2010). The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the
implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being
washed by stormwater runoff into local receiving waters (EPA 2010).
Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36
(Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation
of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -9
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the
DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the
DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water
quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (City
of Newport Beach 2006a). The City is a co- permittee for the NPDES Permit
from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWOB). The
City's permit regulates the amount of stormwater contaminants delivered into the
City's waterways via the roads, gutters, storm drain systems, and other
impervious surfaces. These impervious surfaces collectively are called municipal
separate storm sewer system
7.1..tiRfl l n,.li.. R14 n:,.,.1..,fge L7:.«: «.,t: R e... ...., ( NPDES) t.. «egk*l..t., thO
,.f ..t...........to� ,.,. «t.....: «.. «tom t"..t .. p, ,lolil erect : «t,. t"o City's ..to........
The perrnit,- requires an aggressive water
quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain City facilities like the
MS4, and use of BMPs in many residential, commercial, and development -
related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff
(City of Newport Beach 2006b). Specifically, the City is required to do the
following:
• Control contaminants into storm drain systems. ,,
• Educate the public about stormwater impacts.
• Detect and eliminate illicit discharges.
• Control runoff from construction sites.
• Implement BMPs and other site - specific runoff controls and treatments for
new development and redevelopment.
• Prevent pollution from municipal operations, including fixed facilities and
field activities.
• Inspect industrial and commercial sites for compliance with NPDES
regulations (City of Newport Beach 2006b).
Therefore, the Citv is responsible for regulating discharges into the MS4s dorm
the construction and operation of projects. Two implementing tools regularly
applied to projects within the City to comply with the requirements of the
NPDES permit are the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and the
Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP).
SWPPPs are not only required under the NPDES program, but are required to
comply with the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by
the SARWQCB. Construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of 1 acre or
more, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development or
sale, must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (2009 -
0009 -DWQ Permit effective July 2010) (State Water Resources Control Board
2010a). The Construction General Permit requires the development and
implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP). The
SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff
and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -10
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "non- visible"
pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment
monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d)
list for sediment (State Water Resources Control Board 2010b). The
requirements of the SWPPP are based on the construction design specifications
detailed in the final design plans of the proposed prroiect and the hydrology and
geology of the site expected to be encountered during construction. These final
plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of rgrading
permits. This allows the City to review the plans and require appropriate
additional requirements under the SWPPP prior to re adin¢ and in compliance
with the City's NPDES permit (as described above).
The proposed building footprint is approximately 3;599 6 500 square feet;
therefore, the amount of disturbed area during construction would be less than 1
acre and would not be part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not require the
preparation or implementation of a formal SWPPP. However, since the project
site is adjacent to a retarding basin, and is located in the San Diego Creek
Watershed, which is impaired for sedimentation, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 is
incorporated. Mitigation Measure WQ -1 lists BMPs that could be included in the
SWPPP, but are not limited to those specific BMPs. The SWPPP will ultimately
list the final design, project- specific BMPs the discharger will use to limit runoff
and protect water quality during construction. All BMPs and other requirements
in the SWPPP are enforced by City code inspectors, as required under the
NPDES permit described above. The SWPPP is specifically designed to avoid
and/or minimize impacts on water quality. It is the standard Practice to require
SWPPPs, and not specify the detailed BMPs until final design, as required by the
General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SARWOCB.
Furthermore, the SWPPP and BMPs included in the SWPPP are proven as
effective measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to water quality through the
standard practices of enforcement and use by the City and SARWOB. The
preparation of a SWPPP would comply with the General Construction Activity
Stormwater Permit and the NPDES program. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
W -I as described below would minimize the potential for construction
activities to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and
would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels.
The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. However, the
proposed project would remove landscaped area, which would be replaced with
surface parking and the proposed office building; therefore, slightly increasing
the impermeable surface of the project site (see Appendix B for additional
details). The Pfelimin....., Wat F r unlit.. M..nagemew Plan iu,nnnn.would Le
revio ed and approved by tl.o Cit. ....ioF to the :......anee ..F....ading and buildin..
B) identifies the f Iiewi«.. BOB stpuetur 1 Qnno.. that gre ..o.....,.. londed to «..,Rage
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -11
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
■ rc area
landscape management,
i aeludin r c Ft:x:mo_ pc aoioia c
.e:.
Management Guidelines
S
for the Use FeAilizeFS
usage eensistent with
Spill Gontifigeney
..
f PF011iha tho ,J:..61aFg0
plan.
litt,.r e6 fit «..1
Of f0l4 l :. erl. JWSti,.:.Jo..
of pe
..«A WaSto.. W StFOOtS OF
steifr drains-
f «.44:4:t 1918'041g
BF SIA'00pifig B f El.4:..
iRtR ,. FPAt OF ,.t RF4:A ,L..1.,,.
We�ibis hosing
down any paved sLiFfaees
where the result would be the
f PF011iha , ohiele
washing m into......,.o
..ate by o.. ple ees
.. the p.,41:,,
The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) identifies additional BMPs to control the
volume of stormwater generated and maintain water quality. The BMPs in the
Preliminary WOMP include, but are not limited to: several nonstructural source
control BMPs (e.g., activity restrictions, landscape management, etc), several
structural BMPs (e.g., stormdrain signage, trash and waste storage, etc.), several
site design BMPs (e.g., runoff volume reduction, etc.), and several treatment
control BMPs (e.g., Filterra Roof Drain Planter) in order to maintain water
quality. These various BMPs would control the pollutants of concern for the
proposed project, which include: bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, pesticides,
organic compounds, and sediment. 'Phpss BMns inpl ds h.a are not limited t
Pavement detention th..augh the use of pefou pavement, 1....,J.., ape detention
(seeFigure 1 o f 2 in A.,.,eadix B for the 1eeation o f all the BTABs ...-,......sed)
wcc Figure � of z vx v i.ppaxv�a n xc�x xac xocvava� of vxv vxv vxaxx ��xcyoacv�.
These Additional BMPs are designed to retain and infiltrate stormwater to provide
water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff during operation of the
proposed project.
Currentiv. stormwater runoff generated by the Droiect site (e.g.. narking lot) and
the surrounding tributary area (e.g., remaining parking lot) are collected via sheet
flow and discharged into an existing stormwater drain at the entrance of the
parking lot adiacent to the narking ticket booth. This is then discharged into the
existing 48 inch stormwater drain and routed to the manhole and concrete weir
wall. The volumes generated by the eject site during low -flow events are
routed to the stormdrain within Von Karman Avenue and are not discharged into
the retarding basin. This existing stonnwater infrastructure would remain the
same under the proposed project. Currently, a portion of the existing landscaped
area on the project site flows unrestricted into the retarding e asin.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -12
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
The protection of water quality is related to the land use generating the
stonnwater and to the volume stonnwater flow generated under storm events. A
preliminM hydrology report was prepared to evaluate the change between the
existing and proposed proiect conditions regarding stonnwater capacity and the
change in existing and proposed proiect conditions regarding water quality (see
Appendix H). The preliminary vdrology report used criteria established by the
County of Orange in the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of
Conceptual/Preliminary and /or Project Water Quality Management Plans (2010).
The County of Orange requires that new development perform a hydrologic
conditions of concern WOO assessment and incorporate BMPS to ensure any
HCOCs created by the new development are mitigated (County of Orange 2010).
An HCOC exists when the hydrologic regime of a site is altered or may be
altered, and there is a potential for impacts on downstream channels alone or in
conjunction with impacts of other projects (County of Orange 2010). The
County of Orange technical document specifically defines HCOCs if the
followhig conditions exist:
• post development run off volume for the 2 -year, 24 -hour storm event exceeds
that of pre - development conditions by more than 5 percent: or
• time of concentration' of post development runoff for the 2 -year, 24 -hour
storm event is less than the time of concentration of the pre - development
condition by more than 5 percent. (County of Orange 2010).
If these conditions do not exist post - development, then an HCOC does not exist
and does not need to be considered further (County of Orange 2010).
The 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm event hydraulic calculations for the existing
conditions and proposed proiect conditions were performed using software
written per the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual (1986).
The existing conditions (proiect site plus the surrounding parking lot) and the
proposed proiect conditions (proiect site with proposed proiect plus the
surrounding parking lot) are included in Table 3 -6.14 below. As shown, the
difference between the two is negligible and the peak flow under proposed
proiect conditions is nearly identical to existing conditions. See Drawing 1 of 2
and Drawing 2 of 2 of Appendix H, which depict the existing and proposed
proiect peak flows on a proiect area map.
3 Time of concentration is generally defined as the length of time it takes from stonnwater runoff to travel from the highest point
on the project site to the lowest point.
4 Existing tables have not been renumbered as part of Chapter 4 Errata. If a new table is included in Chapter 4 it is mmribered to
indicate the Table that would occur before it in Chapter 3. Therefore, Table 3 -6.1 would occur after Table 3.6 in Chapter 3, but
before Table 3 -7.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -13
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach
Table 3 -6.1. Chanae between Existina and Proposed Flow Rates
Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
Storm Event
Existing Conditions Flow Rate
(Cubic Feet Per Secondl
Proposed Project Flow Rate
(Cubic Feet Per Second)
Difference
Q2
1.11
1.17
0.06
010
2.05
2.14
0.09
0100
3.18
3.32
0.14
Westland Group
2010.
Based on these flow rates, the proposed proiect would generate approximately
79 cubic feet of additional stormwater runoff during a 2 -year stonn event, when
compared to existing conditions (Appendix H). Appendix H calculates the
change in the time of concentration between the pre- and post - development under
22-year and 10 -year stone event conditions by dividing the pre - development time
of concentration by the difference between the time of concentration pre- and
post- development. A 2 -year storm event has a difference in the time of
concentration of 1.76 percent and a 10 -year storm event has a difference in the
time of concentration of 1.03 percent between pre- and post - development. Since
both of these are less than 5 percent, an HCOC would not result as part of the
proposed project per the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document
discussed above. Similarly, the stonn volume difference before and after
development for 2 -year and 10 -year frequencies is less than 2 percent.
Therefore, the proposed project meets the County of Orange criteria for control
of stormwater runoff, and an HCOC would not occur. However, the Final
WOMP wilt include a BMP such as the Cultec Model PAC 150 to reduce the
peak flow generated during a 100 -year storm event. This type of BMP could
store 24.91 cubic feet of stonnwater and would prevent stonmwater generated by
the proposed project from overflowing the existing weir wall. Furthennore, since
the cubic feet generated b the he 2 -year and 10 -year storm events are less than the
cubic feet of stormwater generated by the 100 -year storm event, volumes
generated by those smaller storm events would not create an HCOC and would
be contained by the BMP.
Filterra Bioretention Systems are proposed for this site and are included in the
Preliminary WOMP and would be included in the Final WOMP methods to
maintain existing water quality. Specifically, there would be two locations for
the Filterra systems: one at the northeast side of the building to maintain rooftop
stormwater runoff water quality (Filtera roof drain) and one in the parking lot at
the southwest corner of the building to maintain parking lot water quality (Filtera
catch basin). The Filtera Bioretention System is a City of Newport Beach
accepted and approved BMP to maintain water quality. It is also Technology
Assessment Protocol for Ecology (TAPE) and Technology Acceptance
Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) approved. As discussed in Appendix B, the
Filtera Bioretention System utilizes physical, chemical, and biological
mechanisms of soil, plant, and microbe complex to remove pollutants typically
found in urban stormwater runoff (e.g., bacteria and vinises, heavy metals,
pesticides, organic compounds, and sediments). Appendix H includes a letter of
confirmation from the manufacturer of the Filtera Bioretention System that the
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -14
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
flows and cubic feet of stormwater generated by the proposed project and cited
above would be fully contained by two Filtera Bioretention Systems of 6.5 feet
by 4 feet for the roof drain and 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the parking lot. Therefore,
the entire stonnwater volume and flow generated by the proposed proiect site
would be fully treated by the Filtera Bioretention System prior to discharge into
the existing stormwater system of the City of Newport Beach. The Filtera
Bioretention System would be sized appropriately to deal with the flows
generated by the proposed project site and would treat the runoff of the site.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would comply with City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the
City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP by preparing the
Final WQMP. The Final WQMP, which is required for approval as part of the
issuance of building and grading permits, will demonstrate that the BMPs
discussed above and in Appendix B and Appendix H will control stormwater
runoff and maintain water quality. Therefore, operational impacts would be less
than significant.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or offsite?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The existing project area is in the San Diego
Creek Watershed. The existing landscaped areas surrounding and located on the
project site drain predominately into the retarding basin to the northwest of the
project site (TGR Geotechnical, Inc. 2008) (Appendix B). The existing parking
areas drain via sheet flow to concrete ribbon gutter within the existing parking
lot. Stormwater generally travels westerly along the gutter and is discharged into
an existing catchment basin in the southwest corner located in the main entrance
into the project site, along the west side of the site (Appendix B). No streams or
rivers are currently located on or around the project site and the proposed project
would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream.
The proposed project would involve some grading and minor soil disturbance
during construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site and would comply with the DAMP (described above in Section
IX(a), Hydrology and Water Quality).
Once operational, the proposed project would not substantially increase the
impervious area on the project site as the existing site is already largely paved
with surface parking. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not
significantly increase the amount of exposed soil thereby contributing to siltation
or erosion. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) provides BMPs such as
pavament detention, landscape detention, efficient irrigation, runoff - minimizing
landscaping, and a roof drainage planter to control the volume and quality of
runoff generated by the slight increase in impervious surface on site. As
described in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix B) and the Preliminary
Hydrology Report (Appendix H), flow would continue to drain in a westerly
direction into the existing catchment basin. Therefore, the operation of the
project site as an office building would not result in a substantial change to the
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -15
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
existing drainage. Impacts associated with erosion during operation and
construction, either on site or off site would be less than significant.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
,flooding on site or off site?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or
rivers are located on site, and therefore, construction and operation of the
proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream.
Substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil because
of the urban character of the area and the existing use of the project site is-j84
surface parking spaces).
During construction, runoff quantities and velocity from the project site would be
minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1. As
discussed above in Section IX(a) and (c), operation of the proposed project
would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would
not substantially increase the impervious area on the project site. As discussed
above in Section IX(a) and (c), BMPs would be used
e ••---° These BMPs afe i- eltidea to improve treatment and storage capacity
for the proposed project, which is an improvement over the existing site
conditions. Any changes in hydrology are designed to retain and infiltrate
stormwater to provide water quality benefits and reduce urban storm flow runoff,
providing partial flood relief to receiving waters. Furthermore, peak flows are
generally the same under the existing conditions as the proposed project
conditions. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. Impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Overall, urban
street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City
of Newport Beach 2003). As described above in Section IX(d), the urban
character of the area and the existing use of the project site as 84 stalls of surface
parking would not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil. The
proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site and would not substantially increase the impervious area as discussed in
Section IX(a), (c), and (d) above.
The Koll Center Newport retarding basin is located adjacent to the project site.
Koll Center Newport Planned Community maintains the retarding basin (Tong
pers. comm. a). The purpose of the retarding basin is to reduce the flow rate
within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -16
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
undersized downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new
development areas upstream (City of Newport Beach 2000). The existing
stormwater infrastructure is designed to first discharge volumes into the existing
stormwater drain in Von Karman Avenue generated by low -flow storm events
and then discharge volumes into the retarding basin generated by high -flow
storm events. Stormwater volumes are conveyed via a subterranean 48 inch
stormdrain, which transverses the existing parking lot of the PRES building in a
northerly direction, to an existing subterranean manhole approximately 14 feet
from the edge of the retarding basin (see Figure 2 -5 of Chapter 2 of the Draft
IS /MND and Appendix H). There is a concrete weir wall inside the manhole.
The weir wall regulates the volume of stormwater that is generated by the
surrounding tributary area of the Koll Center and enters the retarding basin. The
existing stormwater infrastructure is desisted so that flows from lower frequency
storms with lower runoff volumes, such as 2 -year and 10 -year storm events, are
deflected by the weir wall and forced to flow in a northwesterly direction toward
the City's public system in Von Karman Avenue. Stormwater volumes generated
from upstream and the surrounding Kell Center that would overtop the weir wall
and enter the retarding basin would come from large storm events (e.g., 100 -year
storm events).
As discussed in Section Wa), the difference between the existing flow rate and
the proposed project flow rate is neglilzible, and the peak flow under proposed
proiect conditions is nearly identical to existing conditions. Therefore, as
discussed above, an HCOC would not result as part of the proposed project per
the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document. Similarly, the storm
volume difference before and after development for 2 -year and 10 -year storm
frequencies is less than 2 percent. Therefore, the proposed project meets the
County of Orange criteria established in the technical guidance document for
control of stormwater runoff, and an HCOC would not occur. However, the
Final WOMP will include a BMP such as the Cultec Model PAC 150 to reduce
the peak flow generated during a 100 -year storm event. This type of BMP could
store 24.91 cubic feet of stormwater and would prevent stormwater generated by
the proposed project from overflowing the existing weir wall. Furthermore, since
the cubic feet generated by the 2 -year and 10 -year stone events are less than the
cubic feet of stormwater venerated by the 100 -year storm event, volumes
generated by those smaller storm events would not create an HCOC and would
be contained by the BMP. Thus, the project design would not funnel water into
the retarding basin; all flows from the proposed project would flow toward the
existing parking lot and would be contained by the capacity of the existing
stormwater infrastructure.
.. «,J:..g bass,.. th..Fe ..n 'Oela nat into .4.FA-01414 the ab:l:t. , of the bass.
The proposed project would comply with the policies outlined in the General
Plan to minimize runoff - related flooding impacts. These policies include NR
3.11, NR 3.20 and NR 4.4 and implementation would reduce the volume of
runoff generated and potential for flooding. The Preliminary WQMP (Appendix
B) for the proposed project discusses operational BMPs, inspection and
maintenance of catch basins, and design of drainage facilities to minimize
adverse effects on water quality. Stormwater drainage flows from the proposed
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -17
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J8500873.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
project would be accommodated by the capacity of the existing catchment basin
(Tong. pers. comm. b). Furthermore, as discussed in Section IX(a), Filterra
Bioretention Systems are proposed for this site and are included in the
Preliminary WQMP and would be included in the Final WQMP as a method to
maintain existing water quality. Appendix H includes a letter of confirmation
from the manufacturer of the Filtera Bioretention System that the flows and cubic
feet of stormwater generated by the proposed prroiect and cited above would be
fully contained by two Filtera Bioretention Systems of 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the
roof drain and 6.5 feet by 4 feet for the parking lot. Therefore, the entire
stormwater volume and flow generated by the proposed project site would be
fully treated by the Filtera Bioretention System prior to discharge into the
existing stormwater system of the City of Newport Beach. The Filtera
Bioretention System would be sized appropriately to deal with the flows
generated by the proposed project site and would treat the runoff of the site. The
Final WQMP would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
the issuance of grading permits. At that time it would be finalized and would
demonstrate that the BMPs discussed in the Preliminary WQMP and the
Preliminary Hydrology Report will control stormwater runoff and maintain water
quality. Furthermore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1, the
proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff during construction. Increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of
existing storm drain systems or generate polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts on
stormwater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
XII. Noise, Page 3 -53
e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Less -than- Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5
mile from John Wayne Airport. Figure N2 of the City of Newport Beach
General Plan shows the existing 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne
Airport. Figure N2 shows that the project site is located approximately 0.25 to
0.5 mile outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport (City
of Newport Beach 2006a).
Figure N2, "Existing Noise Contours," of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan shows that the proposed roject is located within the 60 CNEL noise
contour of the AELUP Noise Contours. Per Table 1, "Airport Land Use
Commission for Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan Limitations on
Land Use Due to Noise (Applicable to Aircraft Noise Sources)." of the AELUP,
commercial land use categories such as retail and office, which experience a
CNEL of less than 65 dB, are considered "normally consistent." Furthermore,
normally consistent land uses, such as office land uses within the 60 dB contour,
are allowed to use conventional construction methods, and no special noise
reduction requirements are needed.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -18
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
The AELUP identifies noise impacts zones and recommends measures to reduce
aircraft noise on certain land uses. A Moderate Noise Impact is identified as 60
dB CNEL or greater, but less than 65 dB CNEL, and is included in Noise Impact
Zone "2" of the AELUP. The AELUP specifically identifies residential land
units in this zone and requires sound attenuation as set forth in the California
Code of insulation Standards. Title 25, California Code of Regulations for
residential units. The AELUP text does not identify commercial retail or office
land uses as requiring sound attenuation. Since the proposed project does not
include residential units and is within the 60 dB CNEL contour, it is normally
consistent with the airport and is not required to provide sound attenuation.
Therefore, noise impacts related to air traffic would be less than significant.
XIV. Public Services, Pages 3 -56 to 3 -57
Discussion
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with:
al. Fire protection?
Less -than- Significant Impact. As discussed in Section X111, "Population and
Housing," employees that would work at the site would likely reside in the
Orange County area. Because the type of business would be related to real estate
services, unique qualifications are eg nerally not required and would not result in
the need to recruit people from out of the state or the region. Therefore, the
Proposed project would not result in growth- inducing effects because the
population of Newport Beach or Orange County would not increase, and there
would be no additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical
services.
Implementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute additional
demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, including possible
additional demand on and use of fire equipment and medical supplies at the
prolect site. However, the additional 53 ,......i .................. I.:..,. c_,..,.. 11 ...-
The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department service area. There are eight fire stations strategically located
throughout the City so that a fire unit can respond to residents and businesses in
less than 5 minutes. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered
an all -risk Fire Department and provides services for all types of emergencies
(City of Newport Beach 2009b). The project site is served by the nearest fire
station, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station #7, which is located at 20401 Southwest
Acacia Street at the intersection of Southwest Acacia Street and Mesa Drive,
approximately 1.9 miles to the southwest of the project site.
The Fire Department reviewed the proposed project's site plans and project
description on March 26 and June 2, 2010. The Fire Department reviewed the
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -19
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
proposed project for consistency with the California Fire Code, including the size
and location of the building, occupancy safety, fire hydrant necessity, and fire
truck and emergency access. Therefore. Tthe proposed project would include all
necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers, and would be required
to comply with all Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City, including
compliance with applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations.
Emergency vehicle access for the proposed project would be provided to the
project site from Von Karman Avenue. —The proposed project would be within
the current capacity of the Newport Beach Fire Department and would not create
the need for any new facilities or personnel (Bunting pers. comm.). Impacts
would be less than significant.
a2. Police protection?
Less -than- Significant Impact. As discussed above and in Section X1I1,
"Population and Housing," employees that would work at the site would likely
reside in the Orange County area; therefore, the project would not result in
growth- inducing effects because the population of Newport Beach or Orange
County would not increase, and there would be no additional demand for police
protection services within the City of Newport Beach.
The Newport Beach Police Department would provide police protection services
for the proposed project. The Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara
Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately
3.5 miles from the project site. The project site is located in Newport Beach
Police Department Area 2 (Newport Beach Police Department 2010). The
Newport Beach Police Department confirmed that, if constructed, the proposed
project would not change their current operating practices (Hartford pers.
comm.). Furthermore, based on the personal communication correspondence,
even if employees came from other cities in Orange County, the police
department would be able to accommodate the increase in professional office
employees. As dise..ssed above in o,.,...,.nse vA (al although the ..«epe J
projeet mould iner ase the ..epulation at the « -eject site L,........ra*ifnately 53
Pegai4meat. Additionally, the department is currently patrolling the project site
and surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or
additional police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Pages 3 -59 to 3 -63,
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -20
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
In 2009 as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and
Park Development Plan, existing conditions of roads and intersections around the
project site were determined (LSA 2009). They are described in Appendix E.
As described in Chapter 2, "Proiect Description," of the Draft IS /MND, the
construction staging area would be located along the southwest property line
adiacent to the Conexam property. Access from the project site to the office
buildings to the east may be temporarily unavailable during construction, but
employees and visitors to these offices could use the other access road off Von
Karmen Avenue. Furthermore, since construction would last approximately
8 months, employees and visitors to these offices would use the other access road
off Von Karmen Avenue during construction time, after which normal access
would be restored. Therefore, impacts associated with circulation due to
construction staging would be less than significant.
During construction, the maximum daily trips would depend on the number of
truck trips received in a day and the number of employees at the construction
site. Furthermore, no more than 15 construction workers would be at the
construction site at one time. Table 3 -12 below provides the estimated daily
roundtrip truck trips and number of construction employees associated with each
phase of construction.
Table 3 -12. Estimated Truck Trips and Construction Employees
Construction Phase Construction
Activity Duration Worker Per
(Days)' Day
Construction
Worker
Roundtrips Per
Day
Roundtrip
Truck
Trips Per
Phase
Roundtrip
Truck
Trips Per
Day
Total
Trips
Per
Day
Demolition 6 6
12
20
3
15
Grading 24 6
12
40
2
14
Construction, 168 15
30
t2°
2
32
asphalting, and
architectural
finishing
a Phase duration assumes a six-day construction work week.
b There is overlap between the construction of the proposed
project, asphalting, and architectural finishing.
Twelve roundtrip truck trips would only occur during a 1 week (5 day) period of
asphalting.
d Numbers are rounded to nearest whole number.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Within the defined Orange County Congestion
Management Program highway network, intersections and freeway segments are
not allowed to deteriorate to a condition worse than LOS E, or the base year LOS
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -21
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
if it is worse than E (Orange County Transportation Authority 2007 and
200928(4). The following intersections are Congestion Management Program
intersections within the vicinity of the proposed project: MacArthur
Boulevard/Jamboree Road, I -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road, and I -405
southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. Table 3 -14 below summarizes the 20073
AM and PM peak hour LOS for these Congestion Management Program
intersections.
Table 3 -14. Peak Hour Level of Service for Congestion Management Program Intersections=
Intersection 2007&AM Peak Hour LOS 20073 PM Peak Hour LOS
MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road C D €
1-405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road C C
I -405 southbound ramps /Jamboree Road. D C43�
1 Figure 5 page 2 of 3 "Orange County Congestion Management Program Level of Service 2009° in the Omnee County 2009 Congestion
Management Program (Orange County Transportation Authority 2009) does not identify a deterioration of LOS at any of the intersections
above.
Two of the intersections (1 -405 northbound ramps /Jamboree Road and 1 -405
southbound ramps /Jamboree Road) are not within the iurisdiction of the City of
Newport Beach, as they are located in the City of Irvine. All intersections in
Table 3 -14 are operating at LOSE D or better. The 19 AM peak hour trips and
18 PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project would be dispersed
throughout the roadway system and would not affect any one CMP intersection at
any one time. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project's 19 AM peak hour
Lips and 18 PM peak hour trips would not downgrade the existing LOS at the
intersections described above to LOS 13E or worse per the CMP LOS
requirements, for these into ooti,.ns ligred hpV sen the G:.. Of NOWPOE4 12o...t.
and the Git., of hwin.. FuFthe fmare the addition e f the PFE)POSed pFejeet's Dial
hl.......OR D..e& .. «d the G it....F r«..:.... /C,... d :..........:..« ,.Fi (1Q :« SeetiOB VVV..\
a... W «,...F,........«,.,. 8f 118 ,.:..,...i.,ti,.« .,. „t,......). The proposed
project was included in the cumulative projects list of the traffic study for the
City Hall Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park
Development Plan, which included other cumulative projects located within the
City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine (LSA 2009). Table 17 of the City
Hall DEIR summarizes the cumulative analysis and identifies there would be no
significant impacts at any of the studied intersections, which include the
intersections identified above, in 2013 (LSA 2009). Furthermore, for all
intersections shared by the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach a LOS
of E is acceptable during AM and PM peak periods. Table 22 of the DEIR
indicates the MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road intersection would continue
to operate at an acceptable level of service (LSA 2009). Finally, the Orange
County Congestion Management Program (2007) Appendix B -2 identifies
specific criteria for which projects are exempt. Any development applications
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -22
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J&S OM73.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
generating vehicular trips below the ADT threshold for CMP traffic analysis
include any project generating less than 2,400 ADT total, or any project
generating less than 1,600 ADT directly onto the CMP Highway System. The
proposed project would generate approximately 132 trips per day, and thus would
be below the criteria established by the Congestion Management Program.
Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a LOS standard and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Less- Than - Significant Impact. As described in Section VIII(e) Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the boundaries of the
AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The proposed project would be within the
height restriction zone for the John Wayne Airport and the notification area of
the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area. The proposed
project includes constructing one three -level office building with a maximum
height of 47 30 feet 10 inches. The project site is approximately 492 feet above
mean sea level. As discussed in Section VIII(e) the project site could be located
in an instrument approach area; therefore, the FAA may request the filing of
Form 7460 -1 prior to construction. If it is determined the form is required, the
applicant would submit the forms as a condition of approval of the proiect.
Therefore, the AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety,
health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace
around the aimort. (A cc Due Dihe ne . 2004). The i3 ,...,.sed orejeet ,, o uld not
high'..,... .,..a two .._OPE)Sed ..F0j06t is 110t ., ...,.a:r.,..,t:,... to (.N 0345t :..,..,:,-. aFt
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change of air traffic patterns
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would
result in substantial safety risks. Impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4. References
County of Orange. 2004. General Plan.
County of Orange. 2010. Exhibit 7.111 Technical Guidance Document for the
Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and /or Project Water Quality
Management Plans (WOMPs). Submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board May 24. Available at:
htto: / /www.ocwatersheds.com/ Documents /TechnicaIGuidance.pdf Accessed
on: July 27, 2010.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -23
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Errata to the Draft IS /MIND
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Frequently Asked Questions. Available:
< http: / /cfpub.epa.aov /npdes /fags.cfm >. Accessed: June 18, 2010.
Heartford, Bill. Lt. Support Services Division of the City of Newport Beach
Police Department. June 16, 2010 — Email.
Orange County Flood Control Division. 1986. Orange Count} Hydrology
Manual. Available at: <
httl2:// www. ocflood. com/ Documents /pdf/OC_Hydrology_Manual.pdf>
Accessed on: July 27, 2010.
Orange County Transportation Authority. 2007. Orange County Congestion
Management Program.
Orange County Transportation Authority. 2009. Orange County Congestion
Management Program. Available at: < htip : / /www.octa.net/pdf/emp09.12df>
Accessed on: July 27, 2010.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -24
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
Meessed: Alareh 25, 2010.
PRES Office Building B August 2010
4 -24
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF J85008]3.09
Appendix I
Biological Memorandum II
Biological Memorandum II
Date:
August 13, 2010
To:
Nicole Williams, Project Manager
From:
Kurt F. Campbell, Senior Biologist
Subject:
Updated Evaluation of Potential Effects on Biological Resources Conducted
for the PRES Office Building B General Plan and Planned Community Text
Amendments
This memorandum was prepared by ICF International (ICF) to supplement the June 28, 2010
Evaluation of Potential Effects on Biological Resources Conducted for the PRES Office Building B
General Plan and Planned Community Text Amendments (Appendix G of the Final IS /MND). The
project site and surroundings for the proposed project were previously evaluated by an ICF
biologist, and comments have been received requesting additional consideration of potential
impacts to biological resources including letters on June 7, 2010 and August 5, 2010 from Palmieri,
Tyler, Weiner, Wilhelm, and Waldron, LLP. To address these comments an updated evaluation of
such impacts was conducted. Specifically, the August 5, 2010 comment letter raised three biological
resource issues (pp. 11 -13): (1) the ICF survey was not conducted at appropriate times, (2) omission
of the study of other special- status species, and (3) foraging and flight path. This updated evaluation
consisted of a review of relevant biological literature, data sources, and project- specific information,
an evaluation of conditions and resources at and adjacent to the proposed project site, and an
analysis of this resulting information in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This memorandum summarizes methods, results, and findings for the additional
evaluation.
The project site consists of a single area that is approximately 0.15 acres. The proposed project
consists of constructing a three - level, 11,960- square -foot, single- tenant office building at 4300 Von
Karman Avenue in the Koll Center Newport Planned Community, within the City of Newport Beach,
Orange County, California. This is within the area of the Tustin, California, 7.5- minute U.S. Geological
Survey topographic quadrangle map (Tustin 1981; 10 -foot contour intervals).
Literature Review
A comprehensive review of potentially relevant species, natural communities, and biological
functions was conducted as follows. Searches of the current California Natural Diversity Database
( CNDDB 2010) and California Native Plant Society online inventory (CNPS 2010) were completed to
compile an initial list of wildlife, plants, and natural communities for review. The CNDDB search
provided data results for eight USGS quadrangles centered on the Tustin, California quadrangle, or
approximately 500 square miles surrounding the project site. These searches replace the earlier
check of the CNDDB and cover a larger and more relevant geographical area than included in
Appendix G. Based on the biologists' extensive knowledge of the region and checks of relevant
literature (e.g., California Consortium of Herbaria 2010, CDFG 2008, Hamilton and Willick 1996,
Lemm 2006, Roberts 2008, Shuford and Gardali 2008), other species and /or natural communities
not in the CNDDB list were then added. This step is often necessary to ensure inclusion of poorly -
reported or overlooked species, such as those for which special status is relatively recent or local.
The resulting list of special - status species and natural communities is provided in Table 1 at the end
of this letter. Finally, the context of the project site was examined at coarse scales using Google
Earth (2010) online remote imagery, the relevant USGS 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (cited
above), and the current Thomas Brothers map book for Orange County (Rand McNally 2009). See
the discussion below for application of this information in the evaluation.
Field Visit
A field visit was conducted by Kurt F. Campbell (credentials attached to this letter) on August 12,
2010. The project site was visited from 3:32 p.m. to 4:28 p.m. and the surrounding areas before and
after that, for a total time of three hours. Initial conditions were 81 °F, 46% relative humidity, wind 0
to 4 miles per hour from south to east, 0% cloud cover, and good visibility. Upland ground surfaces
were dry, there was no fog or precipitation during the visit, and end conditions were similar. The
entire project site was surveyed on foot. Adjacent areas were also examined on foot to a distance of
no less than 250 meters (about 820 feet), with no constraints encountered to visiting any relevant
areas. The site location and boundaries were confirmed with map and project information provided
before the visit by ICF staff and through follow -up discussion with staff after the visit. The project
site consists of approximately 0.15 acres and is comprised of a paved parking lot and a smaller area
of planted and maintained turf grass lawn and ornamental plantings, primarily American Sweet Gum
(Liquidambar styracii lua) and Australian gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.).
Areas adjacent to the project site consist of paved parking lots and parking structures, office
buildings, additional ornamental plantings, paved roadways, a retention basin holding water at the
time of the visit, temporary supply storage areas, fast food restaurants, and a small reflecting pool.
No fallow, weedy, or remnant natural areas are present. Associated with the areas of standing water
are Fragrant Waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), ornamental umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.) and broad -
leaved cat -tail (Typha latifolia). Ornamental plants in the area are varied and include American
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), a cultivar of African fountain
grass (Pennisetum setaceum), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) Natal plum (Anechites nerium), and
Paper Flower (Bougainvillea glabra x B. spectabilis). Nearly all vegetation present is obviously
planted and maintained; some species are also considered invasive weeds when in natural areas
(Cal -[PC 2006, 2007). Exceptions to intentional presence include a few small weeds such as Spotted
Sandmat (Chamaesyce maculato); the pampas grass may also be present as a weed as it is known to
be highly invasive and was not obviously planted based on the presence of a few, isolated
individuals. All non - ornamental plants and wildlife detected on the site or buffer area during either
field visit are listed in Table 2.
The plant community classification system followed is the Orange County Habitat Classification
System (OCHCS) (1992). At both coarse and fine scales (i.e., down to a few square feet), no area of
the project site supports natural communities or fallow areas that are either barren (e.g., bare dirt or
rock) or dominated by volunteer, ruderal (disturbance- adapted) plants. The only portion of
adjacent areas with fallow land or natural vegetation is a small extent of the retention basin
dominated primarily by Broad - leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia). See Appendix G for figures depicting
(1) parks and ornamental plantings (OCHCS code 15.5) and urban (OCHCS code 15.1), and (2)
representative photographs of the site and adjacent areas. The project site itself contains 0.05 acres
of parks and ornamental plantings and 0.10 acres of urban lands, totaling about 0.15 acres.
The project site and adjacent areas are embedded within a long- standing urban area. The nearest
open space is a regularly plowed, weedy field providing some level of open -space buffer for San
Joaquin Marsh, a restored system of wetlands maintained by the Irvine Regional Water District on
the far side of the fields. The space between the proposed site and the weedy field is roughly 275
meters (900 feet) to the southeast of the site across heavily - trafficked Jamboree Road, an active
commercial strip, and paved parking lots. John Wayne Airport lies to the northwest several times as
far away as the field, across high - density urban development. The airport has no fallow areas or
natural communities, the closest facsimile being heavily maintained, very short -cut grassy or weedy
areas among paved runways.
Evaluation and Conclusions
Special - status legal and regulatory categories vary in the degree to which they correlate with
biological endangerment. Due to specific definitions and criteria, all species with the following
types of special status were assumed to qualify as biologically rare, threatened or endangered under
CEQA: (1) endangered, threatened, proposed endangered or threatened, or candidate under the
federal or state Endangered Species Acts; (2) rare under the state Native Plant Protection Act; (3)
state fully protected species and state species of special concern; and (4) on CNPS lists 1A, 1B, or 2.
As a next step in the evaluation process, information on species in the list which lack any of the
above types of status were analyzed with respect to whether the site has reasonable potential to be
regionally important. Regional importance refers to situations where loss of even a small, isolated
population or substantial portion thereof would be a potentially significant effect under CEQA
because, for example, the population is an important outlier or connector geographically or available
data suggests it is biologically unique. Species which lack the above types of special status and for
which there is also no evidence of potential for regionally significant effects from the proposed
project were then dropped from further review.
Communities and special- status species remaining under review at this step were then evaluated for
any reasonable potential to occur either within the project site or within a surrounding buffer of 250
meters (about 820 feet). For those with such potential, the evaluation then addressed whether
there is any reasonable potential for the proposed project to have direct, indirect, or cumulative
effects to those species or communities.
Finally, the project site and surroundings were evaluated with regard to any special biological
functions they may provide, such as buffering an adjacent natural area or being part of an important
movement corridor or habitat linkage.
As indicated under Literature Review, above, information used in the multi -step analysis was
developed through a broad review of published and unpublished resources. This addressed
relevant species' habitat requirements, current and historic distribution, population trajectories,
relevant conservation issues, and both tolerances to and requirements for disturbance. Also
incorporated was information provided by other biologists over time and developed through
experience and knowledge of the biologist across several decades in the region. For evaluation of
project effects the specific project design, existing project site, and site context at multiple scales
were all considered. At all times, caution was applied where particular uncertainty of information
was relevant.
Timing of Field Surveys
It is generally both unnecessary and infeasible to conduct daily biological fieldwork for project
evaluation under CEQA for entire seasons or years. This is because conclusions are not only based
on direct observation. The purpose of general biological fieldwork for CEQA is to gather sufficient
information about the site for relevant judgments; direct observation or confirmation of absence for
most potentially relevant species and issues is unnecessary. Multiple visits are normally
unnecessary except where potential for a particular, focused issue is known or uncovered by the
initial work and the particular issue must be addressed using special methods (e.g., wetland
delineation or a multi- visit, protocol survey for a particular species). For example, determining the
presence and condition of a particular natural community on or near a site may immediately clarify
potential for an array of species dependent on that community. The current biological evaluation
was competently conducted, complete, soundly- based, and found neither a need for further
fieldwork nor any basis for a fair argument of a potentially significant impact to biological resources
under CEQA.
Special Status Species
The omission of the study of other special- status species from Appendix G is in principle correct; the
additional species mentioned in Exhibit A of the August 5, 2010 letter (letter from Mr. Paul Lehman)
should have received explicit review previously. The commenter states that potential impacts must
be disclosed. This has been done, however, where there are no impacts, no impacts are available for
disclosure. Exhibit A suggests that many of the species mentioned have little chance of occurrence.
No substantial evidence is presented by the commenter or Mr. Lehman that the proposed project
may have any specific direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to biological resources on the site or
surroundings, such as on the retarding basin. Regardless of this, the current review includes all
species previously reviewed, all those mentioned by the commenter, and others. Few have any
reasonable potential to occur on the project site even as rare visitors and most have no reasonable
potential to occur even in the vicinity in that role (see Table 1). The few that might rarely occur
would, like the retarding basin, be entirely unaffected by the proposed project. No fair argument is
presented in Exhibit A of the letter based on substantial evidence that there is a reasonable potential
for the proposed project to result in significant impacts to any of the species under CEQA.
One factual error in the August 5th letter should be addressed. The commenter states that, "several
species that are considered California Species of Special Concern and are listed on the California
Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals List have been observed, and may be expected to
occur, at the Project" This is incorrect. Exhibit A of the comment letter includes the statement that
an Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) was observed near the project site; Exhibit A does not
assert any special- status species have been detected on the project site. In addition, Allen's
Hummingbird is not a Species of Special Concern. Finally, the reason this species is on the Special
Animals list is due to apparent long -term declines in the subspecies occurring well north of the
project site region, while the subspecies in the project region is in fact expanding its range. This
example appears in keeping with other biological issues raised. Regardless of the low potential for
stray observations of rare occurrences of species with minor special status, no relevant species have
been detected or claimed at the project site. All relevant species are unlikely or less than reasonable
and, beyond this, the proposed project has no reasonable potential to affect any such species even if
they did, surprisingly, appear.
Foraging and Flight Path
At relatively fine scales of context, the project site is in an established, urban context with a high
density of existing buildings, several of which are taller than the proposed project. Several of the
existing structures have expansively smooth, mirrored surfaces (known to be of potential risk to
flying birds), while the proposed project would have a broken - surfaced face in the direction of the
retarding basin. During the fieldwork on and adjacent to the project site, a search was conducted for
bird kills at the bases of the surrounding buildings. None were found, though quick removal by
scavengers could explain this as well as simple absence of mortality, as crows and sign (scat and
food leavings) of Black Rats ( Rattus rattus) were present and both species are known to scavenge
bird strikes.
No indication was seen that the retarding basin receives substantial use by birds. It is divided by a
busy road, the water does not appear clean, no small fishes or amphibians were detected (a few
large fish, perhaps Common Carp [Cyprinus carpio] were detected), and no staining, droppings, or
other evidence of numbers of waterfowl were found at the basin's edge or in or below adjacent,
taller trees. These factors and the specific context of surrounding human activity makes substantial
use of the retarding basin by special- status birds appear very unlikely. For example, based on
extensive experience with their occasional use of freshwater foraging, it appears highly unlikely that
either Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) or Least Terns (Sternula antillarum) would be willing
to visit the retarding basin except in very rare and unusual circumstances.
No indications were detected of substantial or important movement through the project site and
surrounding area by birds or other wildlife. Standing at varied points at and near the project site, no
natural or obvious potential flight pathway incorporating the project site at relevant altitudes was
detectable. A review of the site context at coarser scales using Google Earth, DSGS topographic
maps, and the current Thomas Guide street map, suggest one reasonable flight path that might be
important and cross over the site. This would be movement between San Joaquin Marsh southeast
of the proposed project site and either Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve or the Fairview Park /Talbert
Regional Park / Costa Mesa Golf Course areas, both to the northwest of the project site. This is a
flight distance of roughly six to 12 miles, quite reasonable for waterbirds to utilize in a daily routine
such as moving between roosting to foraging areas. However, nearly all of the intervening space
between those endpoints is urban.
As mentioned above, the project site does not contrast with its urban surroundings with regard to
potential flight paths. There are existing, adjacent buildings at varied heights and the project site
does not present a gap or flight path through the area. Waterbirds moving between San Joaquin
Marsh and the other natural areas are unlikely to fly low amongst buildings and parking lots; they
generally make use of prevailing winds to fly along coastlines or high above wind obstructions for
greater efficiency and safety. This well - established pattern in urban areas along southern California
coastal areas has been observed by Mr. Campbell in particular on a number of professional projects
over the years. This includes an ongoing study generating quantitative data on bird flights for a
proposed wind turbine project along the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These flight patterns hold across
seasons, across times of day, and across a broad array of waterbird groups. No fair argument is
presented in Exhibit A based on substantial evidence that a reasonable potential exists that the
proposed project would interrupt a substantial flight path or result in any detectable increase in
bird mortality. Migrant landbirds generally migrate thousands of feet above the height of the
proposed project and therefore would not be attracted to the site as a stopover or feeding area.
The Draft IS /MND and Appendix G of the Final IS /MND included one mitigation measure, designed
to allow the proposed project to avoid violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
similar sections of the state Fish and Game Code. These laws protect nearly all native birds; MBTA
for example currently covers more than 1000 species, many of which do not migrate. It should be
clarified that, for the proposed project, the need for this mitigation measure under CEQA arises only
to ensure consistency between the project's CEQA compliance and that for these other legal
requirements. It is not needed to reduce potential CEQA impacts of the proposed project to a level
of less than significant. This is due to the fact that the potential level of impacts to species covered
under those laws from this proposed project would otherwise be extremely small in a CEQA context,
limited to few or no individuals of a few very common species. While MBTA protects individual
birds (of covered species) and affords no explicit protections to species per se, CEQA addresses the
significance of impacts to species and populations at biologically meaningful (significant) scales.
Summary of Conclusions
Based on a comprehensive review of species, natural communities, and biological functions; findings
from site examinations by two of ICF's biologists; and evaluation of potential project effects at
multiple scales, ICF makes two determinations: (1) the proposed project has no reasonable potential
to result in significant adverse effects on biological resources; and (2) there is no fair argument
based on substantial evidence supporting the potential for any such effects.
References
California Consortium of Herbaria. 2010. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of
California Herbaria; accessed 11 August 2010 at http: / /ucieps.berkeley.edu /consortium /.
California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008.
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR), version 8.2 personal computer
program. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
Sacramento, CA: Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Element reports for the Tustin, California and immediately surrounding USGS 7.5- minute
quadrangle maps. Data date: 11 August 2010.
[Cal -IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Berkeley, CA:
California Invasive Plant Council. Dated February 2006. Accessed at: www.cal - ipc.org.
[Cal -IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2007. New Weeds Added to Cal -IPC Inventory.
Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. Dated February 2007. Accessed at:
<http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/WebUpdate2007.pdf>
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, Online
Edition. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Accessed 11 August 2010 at
hUp://www.cnps.org/invento .
Google Earth. 2010. Google Earth imagery software program, version 5.2.1.1547. Mountain View,
CA: Google Corporation. Imagery accessed 11 August 2010.
Gray, J. and David Bramlet. 1992. Habitat Classification System Natural Resources Geographic
Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency.
Planning. Santa Ana, CA.
Hamilton, R. A., and D. R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County: Status and Distribution. Irvine,
CA: Sea and Sage Press.
Lemm, J. M. 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Rand McNally. 2009. The Thomas Guide: 2010 Orange County Street Guide. Chicago, IL: Thomas
Brothers Maps, Rand McNally & Company.
Roberts, Jr., F. M. 2008. The Vascular Plants of Orange County, California: An Annotated Checklist,
3rd ed. San Luis Rey, CA: F. M. Roberts Publications.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern. Studies of
Western Birds No. 1. Camarillo, CA, and Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and
California Department of Fish and Game.
Tustin. 1981. Tustin, California 7.5- minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Color 1978, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000, 10 -foot elevation contours, datum NAD27.
Table 1. Reviewed Special- Status Species and Natural Communities
CNDDB Data Date = 2/28/2010
"Terms for Evaluated Potential
CNPS accessed = 8/11/2010
LTR = Less than reasonable potential to
*Legal Status Codes
occur. There is no basis to conclude
CNPS Status Codes
that occurrence at this time, in the
Federal
1A = Presumed extinct in California
defined area, has any reasonable
E = Endangered
1 B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
potential.
T = Threatened
California and elsewhere
FP = Proposed for Endangered or
2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
LOW = Low but reasonable potential.
Threatened
Califomia, but more common elsewhere
Occurrence at this time, in the defined
BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle
3 = More information needed
area, appears unlikely but not less than
Protection Act
4 = Limited distribution; Watch List
reasonable.
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California
State
0.2 = Fairly endangered in Califomia
MOD = Moderate potential. There is
E = Endangered
0.3 = Not very endangered in California
some basis to anticipate occurrence in
T = Threatened
the defined area, but also substantial
C = Candidate for listing as
CNDDB = Tracked by CNDDB but currently
uncertainty.
Endangered or Threatened
with no formal special status (e.g., federal
R = Rare (Native Plant Protection
Species of Concern, a category no longer
NE = No potential effects and no
Act only)
evaluated); includes plant communities
potential fair argument for adverse
SC = Species of Special
classified by CDFG as depleted or high
effects under CEQA at either the level
Concern
priority for inventory
of significance or the level of a
FP = Fully Protected Species
cumulatively considerable contribution
to a regionally significant impact.
Scientific and English Names
Legal Status*
Evaluated Potential **
F /S /CNPS
On Site
In Buffer
Effects
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Chaparral Sand - verbena
-/-/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Accipiter cooperi
Cooper's Hawk
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Accipiter striatus
Sharp-shinned Hawk
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Actinemys marmorata
Westem Pond Turtle
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored Blackbird
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
Southern California Rufous - crowned Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Ammodramus savannarum
Grasshopper Sparrow
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Amphispiza belli belli
Bell's Sage Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Anaxyrus californicus
Arroyo Toad
E /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Anniella pulchra pulchra
Silvery Legless Lizard
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid Bat
- /SC /-
LOW
LOW
NE
Aphanisma blitoides
A hanisma
-/-/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden Eagle
BGEPA/FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Ardea alba
Great Egret
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Ardea herodias
Great Blue Heron
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Asio flammeus
Short -eared Owl
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Asio otus
Long-eared Owl
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
Oran ethroat Whi tail
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
Coastal Whi tail
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Astragalus brauntonii
Braunton's Milk -vetch
E /-/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Astragalus oocarpus
San Diego Milk -vetch
441B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing Owl
-/SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Atriplex coulteri
Coulter's Saltbush
- / -/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Atriplex pacifica
South Coast Saltscale
- / -/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Atriplex parishii
Parish's Brittlescale
- / -/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii
Davidson'sSaltscale
441B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Aythya americana
Redhead
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Aythya valisineria
Canvasback
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Baccharis malibuensis
Malibu Baccharis
- / - /1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Baeolophus inornatus
Oak Titmouse
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Bassariscus astutus
Ring-tailed Cat
- /FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Berberis nevinii
Nevin'sBarber
E /E /1 B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Botaurus lentiginosus
American Bittern
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
San Diego Fairy Shrimp
E / -/-
LTR
LTR
NE
Brodiaea filifolia
Thread - leaved Brodiaea
T /E /1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous Hawk
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Callitropsis forbesii
Tecate Cypress
- / -/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's Mariposa-lily
441B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius
Intermediate Mariposa-lily
441B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Calypte costae
Costa's Hummingbird
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
Sandie ensis / Coastal Cactus Wren
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Carduelis lawrencei
Lawrence's Goldfinch
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Catostomus santaanae
Santa Ana Sucker
T /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
10
Caulanthus simulans
Pa son's jewel -flower
444.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Centromadia parryi ssp. australis
Southern Tar plant
- / -/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana
Orcutt's Pincushion
- / - /1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Chaenactis parishii
Parish's Chaenactis
-/418.3
LTR
LTR
NE
Chaetodipus califomicus femoralis
Dulzura Pocket Mouse
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
-/SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Chaetura vauxi
Vaux's Swift
- /SC /-
LOW
MOD
NE
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Western Snowy Plover
T /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Charina trivirgata
Rosy Boa
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Choeronycteris Mexicana
Mexican Long- tongued Bat
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Chondestes grammacus
Lark Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Chorizanthe parryi var. Fernandina
San Fernando Valley S ineflower
C /E /1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina
Lon -s fined S ineflower
4416.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Cicindela gabbii
Western Tidal -flat Tiger Beetle
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
Sandy Beach Tiger Beetle
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Cicindela latesignata latesignata
Western Beach Tiger Beetle
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Circus cyaneus
Northern Harrier
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Cistothorus palustris clarkae
Clark's Marsh Wren
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Coelus globosus
Globose Dune Beetle
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
San Diego Banded Gecko
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia
Summer Holly
44113.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Contopus cooped
Olive -sided Flycatcher
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Salt Marsh Bird's -beak
E /E /1 B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Crotalus ruber ruber
Northern Red - diamond Rattlesnake
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Danaus plexippus
Monarch Butterfly
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Dendroica occidentalis
Hermit Warbler
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
Yellow Warbler
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Diadophis punctatus similis
San Diego Rin neck Snake
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
11
Dipodomys merriami collinus
Earthquake Merriam's Kangaroo Rat
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat
E/T /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Dudleya multicaulis
Many-stemmed Dudleya
-/-/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Dudleya stolonifera
Laguna Beach Dudleya
T /T/113.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Egretta thula
Snowy Egret
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Elanus leucurus
White - tailed Kite
-/FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Empidonax traillii brewsteri
Little Willow Flycatcher
- /E/-
LOW
MOD
NE
Empidonax traillii extimus
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
E /E /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Eremophila alpestris actia
California Horned Lark
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum
Santa Ana River Woollystar
E /E /1 B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Tidewater Goby
E /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Euderma maculatum
Spotted Bat
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis
Coronado Skink
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Eumops perotis californicus
Western Mastiff Bat
- /SC /-
LOW
LOW
NE
Euphorbia misera
Cliff Spurge
- 142.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Euphydryas editha quino
Quino Checkers of Butterfly
E / -/-
LTR
LTR
NE
Falco columbarius
Merlin
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Falco peregrinus anatum
American Peregrine Falcon
- /FP /-
LOW
LOW
NE
Gavia immer
Common Loon
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Gila orcuttii
Arroyo Chub
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii
Los Angeles Sunflower
- / - /1A
LTR
LTR
NE
Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula
Mesa Horkelia
-/-/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Icteria virens
Yellow- breasted Chat
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Ixobrychus exilis
Least Bittern
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Lampropeltis zonata pulchra, California Mountain
Kin snake San Diego population)
-/SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead Shrike
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Larus californicus
California Gull
CNDDB
LOW
MOD
NE
12
Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary Bat
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Lasiurus xanthinus
Western Yellow Bat
- /SC /-
LOW
LOW
NE
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter's Goldfields
- / -/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California Black Rail
- /T,FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Lepechinia cardiophylla
Heart- leaved Pitcher Sae
441 B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego Black- tailed Jackrabbit
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Lithobates pipiens
Northern Leopard Frog
-/SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Macrotus californicus
California leaf -nosed bat
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii
Hall's Monardella
4416.3
LTR
LTR
NE
Monardella nana ssp. leptosiphon
San Felipe Monardella
4416.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma Myotis
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Nama stenocarpum
Mud Nama
442.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Nasturtium gambelii
Gambel's Water Cress
EM16.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Navarretia prostrata
Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia
- / - /1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata
Coast Woolly-heads
- / -/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego Desert Woodrat
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Nolina cismontana
Peninsular Nolina
4416.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Nycticorax nycticorax
Black- crowned Night-Heron
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Pocketed Free - tailed Bat
CNDDB
LOW
LOW
NE
Nyctinomops macrotis
Big Free - tailed Bat
- /SC /-
LOW
LOW
NE
Onychomys torridus ramona
Southern Grasshopper Mouse
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Pandion haliaetus
Osprey
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Beldin 's Savannah Sparrow
- /E /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus
Large-billed Savannah Sparrow
- /SC /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
American White Pelican
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Pelecanus occidentalis
Brown Pelican
- /FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Penstemon californicus
California Beardton ue
- / - /1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Pentachaeta aurea ssp. allenii
Allen's Pentachaeta
- / -/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
13
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles Little Pocket Mouse
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Pacific Little Pocket Mouse
E /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Phalacrocorax auritus
Double- crested Cormorant
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast Horned Lizard
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Picoides nuttallii
Nuttall's Woodpecker
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Piranga rubra
Summer Tanager
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Plegadis chihi
White -faced Ibis
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Polioptila californica californica
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
T /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Pooecetes gramineus affinis
Oregon Vesper Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
White Rabbit - Tobacco
442.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Quercus dumosa
Nuttall's Scrub Oak
- / -/l B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Rallus longirostris levipes
Light-footed Clapper Rail
E /E,FP /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3
Santa Ana Speckled Dace
- /SC /-
LOW
LTR
NE
Riparia riparia
Bank Swallow
-m-
LTR
LOW
NE
Rynchops niger
Black Skimmer
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Coast Patch -nosed Snake
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Selasphorus rufus
Rufous Hummingbird
CNDDB
LOW
MOD
NE
Selasphorus sasin
Allen's Hummingbird
CNDDB
LOW
MOD
NE
Senecio aphanactis
Chaparral Ragwort
442.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Sidalcea neomexicana
Salt Spring Checkerbloom
442.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Sorex ornatus salicornicus
Southern California Saltmarsh Shrew
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Spea hammondii
Western S adefoot
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Spizella breweri
Brewer's Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Spizella passerina
Chipping Sparrow
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Sterna forsteri
Forster's Tern
CNDDB
LTR
LOW
NE
Sternula antillarum browni
California Least Tern
E /E,FP /-
LTR
LOW
NE
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside Fairy Shrimp
E / -/-
LTR
LTR
NE
Suaeda esteroa
Estuary Seablite
- / -/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
14-
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
San Bernardino Aster
- / -/1B.2
LTR
LTR
NE
Taricha torosa torosa
Coast Range Newt
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Taxidea taxi-is
American Badger
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Thamnophis hammondii
Two-striped Garter Snake
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Thamnophis sirtalis ssp.
South Coast Common Garter Snake
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Tryonia imitator
Mimic T onia = CaliforniaBrackishwater Snail)
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Verbesina dissita
Big-leaved Crownbeard
T /T/1B.1
LTR
LTR
NE
Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell's Vireo
E /E /-
LTR
LTR
NE
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Yellow- headed Blackbird
- /SC /-
LTR
LTR
NE
California Walnut Woodland
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sae Scrub
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
S. Calif. Arroyo Chub /Santa Ana Sucker Stream
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Dune Scrub
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Foredunes
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Interior Cypress Forest
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Riparian Scrub
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Southern Willow Scrub
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
Valley Needle grass Grassland
CNDDB
LTR
LTR
NE
CNDDB Data Date = 2128/2010
**Terms for Evaluated Potential
CNPS accessed = 8/11/2010
LTR = Less than reasonable potential to
*Leaal Status Codes
occur. There is no basis to conclude
CNPS Status Codes
that occurrence at this time, in the
Federal
1A = Presumed extinct in California
defined area, has any reasonable
E = Endangered
1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
potential.
T = Threatened
California and elsewhere
FP = Proposed for Endangered or
2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
LOW = Low but reasonable potential.
Threatened
California, but more common elsewhere
Occurrence at this time, in the defined
BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle
3 = More information needed
area, appears unlikely but not less than
Protection Act
4 = Limited distribution; Watch List
reasonable.
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California
State
0.2 = Fairly endangered in California
MOD = Moderate potential. There is
E = Endangered
0.3 = Not very endangered in California
some basis to anticipate occurrence in
T = Threatened
the defined area, but also substantial
C = Candidate for listing as
CNDDB = Tracked by CNDDB but currently
uncertainty.
Endangered or Threatened
with no formal special status (e.g., federal
R = Rare (Native Plant Protection
Species of Concern, a category no longer
NE = No potential effects and no
Act only)
evaluated); includes plant communities
potential fair argument for adverse
SC = Species of Special
classified by CDFG as depleted or high
effects under CEQA at either the level
Concern
priority for inventory
of significance or the level of a
FP = Fully Protected Species
cumulatively considerable contribution
to a regionally significant impact.
15
Table 2. Detected Non - ornamental Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Wildlife Species
Species
Common Name
Vascular Plants
*Chamaesyce maculata
Spotted Sandmat
*Cortaderia selloana
Pampas Grass
*Polypogon monspeliensis
Annual Beard -grass
*Sonchus oleraceus
Annual Sow - thistle
Typha latifolia
Broad - leaved Cattail
*(none; appears to be of cultivar /hybrid origin)
turf grass
Vertebrate Wildlife
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard
Cathartes aura
Turkey Vulture
Fulica americana
American Coot
*Columba livia
Rock Pigeon
*Streptopelia decaocto
Eurasian Collared -Dove
Sayorms nigricans
Black Phoebe
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Crow
Carpodacus mexicanus
House Finch
*Passer domesticus
House Sparrow
Sylvilagus auduboni
Desert Cottontail
*Rattus rattus
Black Rat
* - Nonnative species
16
Kurt Campbell
Senior Biologist
Kurt has over 30 years of experience as an active Feld and
conservation biologist with extensive and integrated knowledge of
animals, plants, ecology, and conservation biology. He has an
extensive knowledge of environmental regulations, including CEQA,
NEPA, the federal ESA, the California ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA), CWA, and the state Lake and Streambed Alteration
Program in the context of natural resources. He has several peer -
reviewed, scientific publications in print relevant to California
conservation biology. He is widely known throughout California as an
expert in the ecology, distribution, natural history, and identification
of birds, and was an author and regional editor for four years for
North American Birds magazine. Kurt has conducted numerous
special- status species studies, including focused surveys and habitat
evaluations. Kurt's expertise extends to nearly all California bird
species and many other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants.
Project Experience
South Region High School #15 Implementation of Biological and
Archaeological Monitoring Plan —Los Angeles Unified School District,
San Pedro
For a proposed wind turbine component of a new high school, Kurt
designed, prepared, and implemented a wind turbine long -term
management and monitoring program incorporating existing
research on turbine impacts to birds and bats and an adaptive
management study design. Work included negotiations among
client, public stakeholders, and staff at multiple agencies.
Construction and Mitigation Monitoring for California Gnatcatcher at
Diamond Valley Reservoir — Metropolitan Water District
Kurt managed a 3- person monitoring team that surveyed and
monitored construction activities for California gnatcatchers over
more than 1000 acres of pristine coastal sage scrub in the North
Domenigoni Hills during six years of construction for the Diamond
Valley Reservoir. Evaluated results, made management
recommendations, and produced or reviewed all annual reports.
1CF
INTERNATIONAL
Kurt Campbell 1
IFI.: L: �: nil C
2 Kurt Campbell
California Gnatcatcher Dispersal Study— County of San Diego
Kurt contracted and supervised a field team to document nesting,
monitor, and color -band young gnatcatchers for a study of natal
dispersal across Interstate 8 in Lakeside. Documented color- marked
juveniles' successful crossing of the multiple -lane freeway. Results
were interpreted and discussed in light of relevant conservation
biology and management issues at both local and regional scales.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Studies —Glenn Lukos
Associates, Los Angeles
Under contract to Glenn Lukos Associates for the County of Orange
and the Irvine Land Company in both 2001 and 2002, Kurt
conducted and reported on a focused survey for southwestern willow
flycatcher, including riparian habitat suitability evaluation over
several hundred acres in the Irvine Lake area. Unusual survey
results in 2001 and unusual conditions (drought) in 2002 were
interpreted in light of current research and changing survey protocols
related to the species.
Avian Point Count Surveys —San Diego Natural History Museum
As part of a museum contract to the U.S. Forest Service, Kurt
conducted over 100 point counts in Cleveland National Forest, San
Diego County, California. This included substantial logistical efforts
locating and confirming existing point count locations on a tight
schedule, along with preliminary data interpretation and review of the
draft museum report.
Biological Reference Evaluation and Management Recommendations —
County of San Diego
Under state funding in 2001 and 2002, Kurt conducted a thorough
reference evaluation of baseline conditions for newly acquired
conservation lands in the Lakeside Archipelago of lands conserved
under the southwestern San Diego Multiple Species Conservation
Program. This included documentation of existing conditions through
compilation of extensive plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species
lists (over 400 species recorded in all), mapping of vegetation
communities and other resources, detailed evaluation of California
Gnatcatcher populations beyond presence /absence, evaluation of
wildlife corridor and linkage issues, establishment of an avian
monitoring program using point counts, thorough discussion of
historic and existing disturbance impacts, and analysis of site needs
and opportunities at multiple scales.
0
+
tT
� r
ti
8 1 Perspective
Code Review
Construction:
Type VB
Exterior Rating:
Non Rated
Sprinklers:
Sprinklered with Monitoring System
Elevator:
Gurney Compliant
Unchanged
40001b Capacity
Occupancy.
Business Group B
Fire Hydrant:
Fire Hydrant to be located within 150' of the fire
9,917 sf
main. Hydrant to be located on the some side
9,917 sf
of the street as the fire main.
Code Compliance:
2007 California Building Code
Encroachment Permit:
An encroachment permit is required for all work
11,960 sf
activities within the public right —of —way.
Improvements:
All improvements shall comply with the City's sight
CS
distance requirement. City Standard 110 —L
On— site — drainage:
All on —site drainage shall comply with the latest
Gross Floor Area:
City Water Quality requirements.
Permit Modification:
Requested modification for increase in parking from
10,433 sf
the CCR's 1 stall per 225 square feet to the City of
(General Plan Amend)
Newport Beach's requirement of 1 stall per 250
square feet.
Tentative Parcel Map: Request for Tentative Parcel Map taking the lot of
DK
55,779.18s and dividing it into two parcels. Parcel 1
12%
= 32,395.93sf, Parcel 2 = 23,383.25sf.
7 I Code Review
i
1 _ IV
III! It
Legal Description
Parcel 1, Parcel Map 60 -40 (Resubdivision No. 430)
Project Description
A request to amend the General Plan Land Use
Element and Koll Center Planned Community Text
to increase the allowable office area for Professional
and Business Office Site B by 11,544 gross square
feet and 9,916.5 net square feet in order to
accomodate the construction of a 3 —story office
building.
Building Description
Construction of a new three (3) story office building comprised of
two (2) stories of office space over one (1) story parking
structure.
6 I Description
r
J
,w T
J
•w
it
` II
4�
Building Statistics
W
+
f�.
W.
W. M°Wthur 811
+� Project
✓�:. S i� urk
._ 10. ^� • -'�'� ."+... ' ,II � • , I
ra
4 -
1
0
3 1 Vicinity Map
Applicant
Professional Real Estate Services, Inc.
4300 Von Korman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 261 7737 Fax: (949) 442 1925
Contact: Michael Tong
Owner
Professional Real Estate Services, Inc.
4300 Von Korman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 261 7737 Fax: (949) 442 1925
Contact: Michael Tong
Contact Information
Laidlaw Schultz Architects
3111 Second Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Phone: (949) 645 9982 Fax: (949) 645 9554
Contact: Craig Schultz
2 1 Contact Information
Architectural
A.100
Existing:
New (Parcel 1 +2):
Parcel 1:
Parcel 2:
Total:
Lot Size — Existing Parcel:
55,779.18 sf
Unchanged
32,395.93 sf
23,383.25 sf
55,779.18 sf
Net Floor Area:
6,652 sf
9,917 sf
6,652 sf
9,917 sf
16,569 sf
Gross Floor Area:
6,850 sf
11,960 sf *
6,850 sf
11,960 sf
18,810 sf
(Measure S)
VE Revisions
CS
CS
11.21.08
Bldg Code Review DK
Gross Floor Area:
6,850 sf
10,433 sf
6,850 sf
10,433 sf
17,283 sf
(General Plan Amend)
03.05.09
GPA Revisions
DK
Building Coverage:
12%
23.95%
20.63%
28.54%
Building Height:
30' -1"
47' -10 1/4"
30' -1"
47' -10 1/4"
CS
Landscaping ( %):
34.3%
30.63%
34.85%
24.43
04.07.10
Paving (%):
53.7%
54.72%
44.50%
68.88 % **
CS
Note:
* 416sf Gross
area removed from
(E) structure,
Thus: 416sf +
11,544sf = 11,960sf
* *Paving% includes
area within Building
envelope,
as used for parking /driving
(Based on 1/250)
Required:
Provided:
Total:
Parking Parcel 1:
Uncovered — On site:
27 Stalls
29 Stalls
29 Stalls
Covered — On site:
0 Stalls
0 Stalls
0 Stalls
Parking Parcel 2:
Uncovered — On site:
28 Stalls
30 Stalls
30 Stalls
Covered — On site:
12 Stalls
12 Stalls
12 Stalls
71 Stalls
Parking to Net Area:
250 sf /stallx7l
stalls = 17,650 net sf allowable
17,750 net sf
all owable- 6,652(e)sf=
11,098sf(max)
Existing Lot Area
55,779.18 sq. ft.
5
Building Statistics
ra
4 -
1
0
3 1 Vicinity Map
Applicant
Professional Real Estate Services, Inc.
4300 Von Korman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 261 7737 Fax: (949) 442 1925
Contact: Michael Tong
Owner
Professional Real Estate Services, Inc.
4300 Von Korman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 261 7737 Fax: (949) 442 1925
Contact: Michael Tong
Contact Information
Laidlaw Schultz Architects
3111 Second Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Phone: (949) 645 9982 Fax: (949) 645 9554
Contact: Craig Schultz
2 1 Contact Information
Architectural
A.100
— Project Data and Vicinity Map
A.1 01 —
Site Plan
A.200
— Parking and Lower Level Plans
A.201
— Upper and Roof Level Plans
A.300
— South and West Elevations
A.301
— North and East Elevations
A.400
— Building Section
Civil
1 of 1 — Existing Site Conditions Plan
1 I Sheet Index
NTS
S[ architects
LAIDLAW SCHULTZ
PROJECT
PRES - Office Building
4310 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
DATE
ISSUE /REVISION
DRAWN
REVIEW
06.31.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.20.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
08.13.07
Client Review
DK
CS
09.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
03.24.08
VE Revisions
CS
CS
11.21.08
Bldg Code Review DK
CS
12.08.08
General Plan
DK,
JW CS
Amendment
03.05.09
GPA Revisions
DK
CS
06.08.09
General Plan
CS
CS
Amendment
06.17.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
07.23.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
04.07.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
08.10.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
A,100
SHEET NO.
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the architect and may not be
duplicated, used or disclosed without the
written consent of Laidlaw Schultz Architects.
3111 Second Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -2322
(949) 645 -9982 Fax: (949) 654-9554
www.LSarchItects.com
2
1
West Elevation
South Elevation
Black Cap
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Stainless Steel Flagpole
T.O. Parapet }
Elev. +97.00,
T.O. Parapet }
Elev. +93.80,
T.O. Parapet }
Elev. +90.80,
Roof Level }
Elev. +86.80'�
Black Cap
Stone Veneer
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Third Level
Elev. +73.30'�
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Black Cap
Second Level }
Elev. +59.80'�
Stone Veneer
Louvers
First Level }
Elev. +49.80'�
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Dashed Line Denotes Existing Grade
Scale- 1/8• - 11-0'
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster at Mechanical Screen
Stainless Steel Flagpole
Black Cap
Stone Veneer
T.O.
Para et
Elev.
+97.00
T.O.
Para et
Elev.
+93.80
1 2.
Parapet J
Elev.
+90.80,
Roof
Level
Elev.
+86.80'�
Smooth
Steel Trowel Integral
Color
Plaster
Metal
Louvers
Third Level
Elev. +73.30
Black Cap
Stone Veneer
Stone Veneer
Second Level
Elev. +59.80
Exterior Plaster Water Feature
First Level
Elev. +49.80
Black Powder — Coated Steel Trellis
Exterior Plaster Planter
Dashed Line Denotes Existing Grade
Scale- 1/8• - 11-01
LSrchitects
LAIDLAW SCHULTZ
PROJECT
PRES - Office Building
4310 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
Elevation
DATE
ISSUE /REVISION
DRAWN
REVIEW
06.31.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.20.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
08.13.07
Client Review
DK
CS
09.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
03.24.08
VE Revisions
CS
CS
11.21.08
Bldg Code Review DK
CS
12.08.08
General Plan
DK,
JW CS
Amendment
03.05.09
GPA Revisions
DK
CS
06.08.09
General Plan
CS
CS
Amendment
06.17.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
07.23.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
04.07.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
08.10.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
Notated North
07 A.300
SHEET NO.
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the architect and may not be
duplicated, used or disclosed without the
written consent of Laidlaw Schultz Architects.
3111 Second Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -2322
(949) 645 -9982 Fax: (949) 654-9554
www.LSarchitects. corn
E
1
East Elevation
North Elevation
Black Cap
Stone Veneer
Metal Louvers
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster at Mechanical Screen
Black Cap
T.O.
Parapet J
Elev.
+97.00'
T.O.
Para et
Elev.
+93.80
T.O.
Para et
Elev.
+90.80
Roof Level
Elev. +86.80
Powder — Coated Steel Handrail
Third Level
Elev. +73.30
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Second Level J
Elev. +59.80'
Stone Veneer
First Level
Elev. +49.80
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Dashed Line Denotes Existing Grade
Scale- 1/8• - 11-01
Mechanical Screen
Metal Cladding
Black Cap
T.O.
Parapet
Elev.
+97.00' —
T.O.
Parapet }
Elev.
+93.80' —
T.O.
Parapet }
Elev.
+90.80' —
Roof Level
Elev. +86.80
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
Third Level
Elev. +73.30'
Black Cap
Second Level
Elev. +59.80
Smooth Steel Trowel Integral
Color Plaster
First Level
Elev. +49.80
Stone Veneer
Dashed Line Denotes Existing Grade
scale- 1/81 - 11-0e
LS[_~�rchitects
LAIDLAW SCHULTZ
PROJECT
PRES - Office Building
4310 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
Elevation
DATE
ISSUE /REVISION
DRAWN
REVIEW
06.31.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.20.07
Client Review
CS
CS
07.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
08.13.07
Client Review
DK
CS
09.26.07
Client Review
DK
CS
03.24.08
VE Revisions
CS
CS
11.21.08
Bldg Code Review DK
CS
12.08.08
General Plan
DK,
JW CS
Amendment
03.05.09
GPA Revisions
DK
CS
06.08.09
General Plan
CS
CS
Amendment
06.17.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
07.23.09
GPA Revisions
CS
JB
04.07.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
08.10.10
GPA Revisions
CS
CS
Notated North /
�N A.301
SHEET NO.
All drawings and written material appearing
herein constitute original and unpublished
work of the architect and may not be
duplicated, used or disclosed without the
written consent of Laidlaw Schultz Architects.
3111 Second Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 -2322
(949) 645 -9982 Fax: (949) 654-9554
www.LSarchItects.com