No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street HEV- Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners (applicants)lE`x'�gr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 25, 1999 o ° COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: a a PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Marc Myers 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949) 644 -3210 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street HEV- Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners (applicants) PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: A request to permit the construction of an extended stay hotel and an office building. The project involves the approval of: • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment involves modifications to the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC text modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to: • increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community, • changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from Industrial to Hotel, ■ changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from Auto Center to Professional and Business Office, establishing a 60 foot height limit for the hotel site, establishing a 95 foot height limit for the office site, • establishing new street -side front yard, and side yard setback requirements, • a Use Permit for the establishment of an extended stay hotel, • a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels, and • a Traffic Study. ACTION: Conduct public hearing; and: • Adopt Resolution 99- General Plan Amendment No. 98 -I(C); and • Introduce Ordinance No. 99- an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community (Planted Community Amendment No. 880), and pass to second reading on February 8, 1999; and Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the applications related to the General Plan Amendment, subject to the Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions as modified by the Planning Commission: • The acceptance of a Negative Declaration • Use Perinit No. 3640 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -I3 • Traffic Study No. 118 Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of January 7, 1999, the Planning Commission voted (all ayes) to recommend approval of the applications related to the proposed new office building and extended stay hotel. An excerpt of the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, with the recommended findings, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval, and a copy of the staff report prepared for their consideration are attached for the information of the City Council. Additionally, just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received written correspondence from the adjacent property owners regarding the subject application. Their objections concerned the adequacy of the Negative Declaration, public noticing, the traffic mitigation requirements and the effects of the shadows resulting from the project. The correspondence is attached for the Council's review. At the Planning Commission's request, the public hearing was continued from December 10, 1998 to January 7, 1999 so that staff could evaluate the content of the letters and prepare appropriate responses to the issues of concern. Additional letters were received during the continuation period. Staff and the City's consultants prepared responses to each of the comments raised in all of the letters received from the surrounding property owners regarding the proposed project. , These letters and responses were reviewed by the Planning Commission before taking action on the project and are attached for the Council's review. Upon further detailed analysis of all of the new information presented in the letters, staff remains of the opinion that the project, together with the suggested conditions of approval and mitigation measures, does not result in a significant environmental impact and is compatible with the surrounding area. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Associate Planner Attachments: Resolution Ordinance Excerpt of draft January 7, 1999 Planning Commission minutes Excerpt of December 10, 1998 Planning Commission minutes Letters Responses to Comments in Letters Supplemental Staff Report December 10, 1998 Planning Commission staff report Exhibit "A" (Revised) Site Plans, floor plans and elevations Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99- t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INDUSTRIAL TO HOTEL, AND, AUTO CENTER TO PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICE, AND INCREASE THE ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY [General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy B, since the proposed increase in office development will not result in significant changes to the long range traffic service levels with the contribution to an identified improvement; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy C, since adequate on -site parking is provided for the proposed uses, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect public views nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy L, because additional office space is supportive of the prosperity of the Newport Place area; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1998 and January 7, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment 98 -1 (C) at which time this amendment to the Land Use Element was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan and, therefore, recommended for approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that, if proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would Page 3 not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and accepted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the applications noted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby amend the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4 (NP Blk I) Block I, and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L4 Table of the General Plan to read as follows' Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) 2 -8. NP Block L Block I is bounded by Spruce Street, Quail Street, Dove Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land uses and is allocated 378,713 sq. ft. and 304 hotel rooms. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development authorized by this action is allocated to 1301 and 1001 Quail Street, Newport Beach. Page 4 ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in do's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1 -1.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0- 1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- -0- 1.060,898 1,060,898 -0- 1-3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0- 1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 250,176 -0- 1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 27,150 32,500 5,350 1 -6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,300 2,484 1 -7.KCN OS G -0- -0- -0- 81,372 81,372 -0- 1-8.KCN OS I -0- -0- -0- 377,520 442,775 65,255 1 -9.KCN RS I -0- -0- -0- 52,086 102,110 50,024 1- 10.Court House -0- -0- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744 2 -1NP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 380,362 31,362 2- 2.NPBLKB -0- -0- -0- 10,150 11,950 1,800 2 -3.NP BLK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393 2 -4.NP BLK D -0- -0- -0- 274,300 288,264 13,964 2 -5.NP BLK E -0- -0- -0- 834,762 860,884 26,122 2 -6.NP BLK F -0- -0- -0- 192,675 201,180 8,505 2 -7.NP BLK G & H -0- -0- -0- 255,001 295,952 40,951 2 -8.NP BLK I -0- -0- -0- 99,538 378,713 279,175 2 -9.NP BLK J -0- -0- -0- 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive -0- -0- -0- 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL -0- -0- -0- 6,861,876 8,068,560 1,206,684 Population -0- -0- -0- revised 12/10/98 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development authorized by this action is allocated to 1301 and 1001 Quail Street, Newport Beach. Page 4 ADOPTED this _ day of Janua , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: J AYES NOES ABSENT MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 99- A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR NEWPORT PLACE BLOCK I AT 378,713 SQUARE FEET (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 880) WHEREAS, on December 10, 1998 and January 7, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment, and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the proposed amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations is consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 25, 1999, at which time this amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the "Retail and Service Commercial' designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, since the proposed amendment does not alter the character of the subject property or the Newport Place Planned Community District as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment upon implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Negative Declaration prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the development regulations of the Newport Place Planned Community District, specifically related to Professional and Business Office Site 2A and Hotel Site 2B only and not to any other site in Newport Place. WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use regulations of the Newport Place Planned Community District and to increase the permitted amount of development, will apply only to the property located at 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street and not to any other site in Newport Place. Page 6 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The permitted level of development for Professional & Business Offices Site 2A of the Newport Place Planned Community is established at 109,200 gross square feet. The additional development authorized by this action shall be limited to new construction at 1001 Quail Street, Newport Beach. SECTION 2: The permitted level of development for Hotel Site 2B of the Newport Place Planned Community is established at a total of 304 hotel rooms. The additional development authorized by this action shall be limited to new construction at 1301 Quail Street, Newport Beach. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on January 25, 1999, and adopted on the 8th day of February, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MA ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachment: Exhibit I Page 7 PLANNED COMMUHITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NEWPORT PLACE Emkay Development Company, Inc. Newport Beach, California y CONTENTS ;r General Notes I Definitions 2 Statistical Analysis 4 thru 17 PARTI - INDUSTRIAL Section I Minimum Site Area 18 Section II Permitted Uses 18 Group I. Light Industrial 18 A 18 B 20 C 20 Group II. Medium Industrial and Indus- Sign Standards trial Service and Support Facilities 20 A 20 B 22 0 1 22 D 24 Section III General Development Standards for Storage Areas Industry 25 A. Building Height 25 B. Setbacks 26 C. Site Coverage 26 D. Sign Area 27 E. Sign Standards 28 F. Parking 29 G. Landscaping 30 H. Loading Areas 31 I. Storage Areas 31 J. Refuse Collection Areas 31 K. Telephone and Electrical Services 32 L. Sidewalks 32 M. Nuisances 32 PART II - COMMERCIAL Section I Minimum Site Area 33 Section II Permitted Uses 33 Group I. Professional and Business Offices 33 A. Professional Offices 33 "1 B. Business Offices 34 C. Support Commercial 34 Group H. Commercial Uses Sign Standards A. Automobile Center 35 B. Hotels and Motels 35 C. City, County, and State Facilities 35 D. Service Stations, Car Wash 35 E. Retail Commercial Uses 35 F. General Commercial 36 Section III General Development Standards for Commerce A. Setbacks 38 B. Signs 39 C. Sign Standards 40 D. Parking 40 E. Landscaping 42 F. Loading Areas 1 44 G. Storage Areas 44 H. Refuse Collection Areas 44 I. Telephone & Electrical Services 44 J. Pedestrian Access 44 ATTACHED EXi-IIBITS Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Land Use (1,5) (8) Grading & Roads (1) Storm Drain (1) Water & Sewer (1) Topography (1) Traffic Analysis (1) 7Th Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place - Ordinance No. 1369 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 21, 1970. Amendment No. 1 Approved on December 13, 1971 by Resolution No. 7572 (A -305) Amendment No. 2 Approved on June 12, 1972 by Resolution No. 7706 (A -325) Amendment No. 3 Approved on October 24, 1972 by Resolution No. 7846 (A -341) Amendment No. 4 Approved on January 8, 1983 by Resolution No. 7901 (A -349) Amendment No. 5 Approved on July 23, 1973 by Resolution No. 8054 (A -369) Amendment No. 6 Approved on June 10, 1974 by Resolution No. 8262 (A -429) Amendment No. 7 Approved on September 8, 1975 by Resolution No. 8588 (A -450) i v Amendment No. 8 Approved on February 9, 1976 by Resolution No. 869' ) (A -462) Amendment No. 9 Approved on April 11, 1977 by Resolution No. 9050 (A -488) Amendment No. 10 Approved on May 23, 1977 by Resolution No. 9091 (A -490) Amendment No. 11 Approved on April 10, 1978 by Resolution No. 1003 (A -504) Amendment No. 12 Approved on July 11, 1978 by Resolution No. 9393 (A -510) Amendment No. 13 Approved on November 27, 1978 by Resolution No. 9472 (A -514) Amendment No. 14 Approved on June 11, 1979 by Resolution No. 9563 (A -530) Amendment No. 15 Approved on March 23, 1982 by Resolution No. 10003 (A -560) Amendment No. 16 Approved on March 26, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -22 (A -604) Amendment No. 17 Approved on April 23, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -30 (A -597) Amendment No. 18 Approved on June 25, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -58 (A -607) Amendment No. 19 Approved on July 23, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -79 (A -608) Amendment No. 20 Approved on January 12, 1987 by Resolution No. 87 -1 (A -637) Amendment No. 21 Approved on March 9, 1987 by Resolution No. 87-30 (A-638) Amendment No. 22 Approved on March 14, 1988 by Resolution No. 88-17 (A-658) Amendment No. 23 Approved on August 14, 1989 by Resolution No. 89-94 (A-684) Amendment No. 24 Approved on July 22, 1991 by Resolution No. 91-83 (A-740) Amendment No. 25 Approved on March 9, 1992 by Resolution No. 92-20 (A-749) Amendment No. 26 Approved on June 8, 1992 by Resolution No. 92-58 (A-745) Amendment No. 27 Approved on September 13, 1993 by Resolution No. 93-69 (A-783) Amendment No. 28 Approved on January 22, 1996 by Resolution No. 96- Resolution No _98 (A GENERAL NOTES 1. The Newport Project, a planned community development is a project of Emkay Development Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc. The area is most appropriate for commercial and light industrial use because of its central location, ideal topography, availability to four freeways, accessibility to two railroads and its relation to the Orange County Airport. Attached drawings indicate land use, grading and roads, storm drains, water and sewer, topography and traffic analysis. 2. Water within the Planned Community area will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 3. Sewerage Disposal facilities within the Planned Community area are by the City of Newport Beach. 4. Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative map or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. 5. The height of all buildings and strictures shall comply witli F.A.A. criteria. 6. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the Zoning Code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this Planned Community District except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. 7. Phasing of Development. 1,799,941 sq.ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 square feet. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq.ft. shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (Phasing Plan approved by City Council March 12, 1979 for all development subject to this regulation)(13) i3 FA DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right -of -way line specifying the closest point from this street right -of -way line that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs, stairs and sunscreens). Public Safety A strip of land twenty (20) feet in width and running Oarallel with street rights -of -way. Right -of -Way Line: When reference is made to right -of -way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Mghways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right -of -way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Comer Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, irrespective of the direction in which structures face. Sim: Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non - electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any .poster, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device �! Site Area: The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit. Special Landscaped Street: Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Bris_t`b1 Sweat North and Birch Street. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way. In the case of private or non - dedicated streets, a minimum setback from the right -of -way line of said streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for all structures. Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets herein. i 1 `Z �.J STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART I. INDUSTRIAL* A. Building Site Site IA. .2.0 acres (3)(9) Site 2B. 3.7 aefes 3-7 aenes (3v9 Site 3A .............21.3 acres (2.4) Site 4 ............... 16.9 acres .................... 43.9 acres (9) B. Building Area Site IA.. 34,130 sq.ft .................0.8 ac. (3)(9) Site 2B... 63,138 sEl.ft .................1.4 ae- ...97,268 sg.9 ................ . 2 ae. (3)(9) * *Site 3A ............ .296,208 sq.ft ............... 6.9 ac. (2,4,14) Site 4 ..................288.264 sg.ft ............... 6.6 ac. 681, An Sq ft ..............I3 6 :' ^j 13 4, ac .(9,14;29), The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking (Criteria: 3 spaces/1000 sq.ft. a 363 sq.ft. /space) Site IA ....................102 cars.......... 0.9 acres (3)(9) Site 3A ....................889 cars......... 7.4 ac. (2,4,14) Site 4 .......................865 cars......... 7.2 ac. 2017 cars.. 17. 0 ae. 17 F1 ( 1A\ ` _. 1.754 cais= -_ :14 6, ac:(9;;14;29) 1� �. D. Landscaped - Open Space Site IA .................0.30 acres (3)(9) Site 2B. ... 9-79 acres .............. n .,, res (a)ro) Site 3A .................6.6 acres (2,4,14) Site 4 ................... 3.1 acres (9) 10.7 acres {9 1 ^'/ —z- Open 69ae *(1^) a es_(9� l n � t Ope * 3.8 acres have been allotted for service stations exclusive of permitted building acres and subject to use permit. ** Industrial site 3A has been reduced by 20,000 sq.ft. with the reduction allocated to the allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of Resubdivision 529. The allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 ofResubdivision 529 is now 61,162 sq.ft. (14). 1� STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II. CONWERCIAL TROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES A Building Sites Site 1 &2 ....... 38.5 acres Sife27�R-,�3:9 acres 29.. Site 3A ..............5.2 acres (5) Site 4 ..................9.0 acres Site 5 ..................7.4 acres Site 6 ..................1.9 acres Site 7 ..................2.5 acres Site 8 ..................1.64 acres ........................ 66.14 acres (20) B. Building Area 1. Site 1 &2 ....... 734 502 square feet(5)(14)(17) Site 2A.,, .. ;- ,;109,200;sgLare%et�(29) Site 3A ............ 115,530 square feet(5) Site 4 ...............201,180 square feet 2. Site 5 ...............268,743 square feet (16)(19)(21)(24)(25) Site 6 ................42,420 square feet Site 7 ...............55,860 square feet Site 8 ..... .......... 54,000 square feet (20) , S,06Z "z izz7 1,581,435_:squarg feet (21,29) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include, but shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Area Story heights shown are on average building height. The buildings within each parcel may vary within these ranges. Site 1 &2 ................ 734,502 square feet (5)(14)(17) a. Two Story .................8.42 acres b. Three Story ..............5.61 acres c. Four Story ................4.21 acres d. Five Story .................3.37 acres e. Six Story ...................2.81 acres }: 1. Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2 have been reduced by 36,119 feet with the reduction allocated to the allowed building area for Parcels 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585. The allowable building area for Parcel 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585 is now 272,711 square feet.(14) 2. If commercial uses are constructed on Commercia"rofessional and Business Office Site 5 which are ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, additional development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as office use does not exceed 268,743 sq.ft. (21)(24)(25) Srte-2A` :109;200 squaeefeet9� _6tSfory? 1 5WO b�zThce {o'� {4R ~ x'� zi: 8'4�a x�' yr'�L'a°/�"efi. 'at9:.% bm d Eive'5 {o 'PA 51 ?a es Site 3A....... 115,530 square feet (5) a. Two Story ........................... 1.33 acres b. Three Story . .......1 ......................99 acres c. Four Story ... .............................66 acres d. Five Story ... .............................53 acres e. Six Story ..... .............................44 acres f. Seven Story . .............................37 acres g. Eight Story . .............................33 acres Site 4........ 201,180 square feet a. Two Story .. ...........................2.31 acres b. Three Story ..........................1.54 acres c. Four Story . ...........................1.15 acres d. Five Story ... .............................92 acres e. Six Story .... .............................77 acres Site 5........ 268,743 square feet (16)(19)(21)(25) a. Two Story ..........................1.90 acres b. Three Story ........................1.27 acres c. Four Story ............................95 acres d. Five Story ............................ 76 acres e. Six Story .. .............................63 acres f. Nine Story .............................50 acres 1 . Iq Site 6 ...... 42,420 square feet a. Two Story ........... b. Three Story ......... C. Four Story ........... d. Five Story ........... e. Six Story ............. .................49 acres .................32 acres ................24 acres ................19 acres .................16 acre Site 7 ........... 55,860 square feet a. Two Story ........... b. Three Story ......... c. Four Story ........... d. Five Story ........... e. Six Story ............. .................64 acres ................43 acres ................32 acres .................26 acres .................21 acres Site 3 ............. 54,000 square feet (20) a. Four Story: ................... i.... 0.30 acres D. Parkin (Criteria? 1 space/225 sq.ft.@ 363 sq,ft/space) Site 1 &2 ..... 3,260 cars......... 27.17 acres (5) (14) Site 2A�.'= *�'•',`.�1 26 **aci<es�(2 .,r,_'474`cars Site 3A........... 514 cars ..............4.28 acres (5) Site 4 .............. 894 cars .............. 7.45 acres Site 5........... 1,234 cars........... 6.13 acres (21) Site 6............ 188 cars.......... 1.57 acres Site 7............ 248 cars........... 2.07 acres Site 8............ 231 cars........... 1.34 acres (20) 6, ?02 eazs ..............`0.0i a 7 04.tar*n:� sue...,._. 3 cars >.Y =...:.; :.527racre's(2 29} ,�0 E. Landscaped - Open Space ' Site 1 & 2 (5,14) Gross Site........ 38.5 acres Parking ........... 27.17 acres Net .................11.33 acres Two Story ......... 8.42 acres....... 2.91 acres Three Story ....... 5.61 acres....... 5.72 acres Four Story ......... 4.21 acres....... 7.12 acres Five Story ......... 3.37 acres........ 7.96 acres Six Story ........... 2.81 acres........ 8.52 acres Two Sto"ry,..';. 1:25 acres_..,.; 1.:43' acres. > Three Story:. ..;.84.a I'd"e s,_.184 acres „ Four Story; 63 acres., :'.. 2 05' acres ;51.iacres..,2.17,acres Site 3A (5) Gross Site......... 5.2 acres Parking ............4.28acres Net ....................92 acres Two Story .......... 1.33 acres...... N/A Three Story ........ .88 acres ...... . 04 acres Four Story ......... .66 acres ...... . 26 acres Five Story ......... .53 acres ...... . 39 acres Six Story .......... .44 acres ...... . 48 acres Seven Story ........ .37 acres ...... . 55 acres Eight Story ........ 33 acres ...... . 59 acre Site 4 Gross Site......... 9.0 acres Parking ............ 7.45 acres Net ..................1.55 acres Two Story .......... 2.31 acres...... N/A Three Story ........ 1.54 acres ....... .01 acres Four Story .......... 1.15 acres ...... . 40 acres Five Story .............92 acres ...... . 63 acres Six Story ..............77 acres ...... . 78 acres a� Site 5 Gross Site........ 7.4 acres Parking ............ 6.13 acres Net ..................1.27 acres Two Story .......... 1.90 acres...... N/A Thee Story ........ 1.27 acres ...... . 00 acres Four Story .......... .95 acres ...... . 32 acres Five Story ......... .76 acres . ..... . 51 acres Six Story .......... .63 acres ...... . 64 acres Nine Story ......... .50 acres ...... . 77 acres (2 1) Site 6 Gross Site......... 1.90 acres Parking .............1.57 acres Net ...................0.33 acres Two Story .......... .49 acres...... N/A E Three Story ........ .32 acres ...... .01 Ares;' Four Story ............ 24 acres ...... . 09 acres Five Story .......... .19 acres ...... . 14 acres Six Story .............16 acres ....... . 17 acres Site 7 Gross Site......... 2.50 acres Parking ............ 2.07 acres Net .................43 acres Two Story ........... .64 acres...... N/A Three Story ......... .43 acres ...... . 00 acres Four Story ........... .32 acres ...... . 11 acres Five Story .............26 acres ..... . 17 acres Six Story ..............21 acres ...... . 22 acres Site 8 Gross Site......... 1.64 acres Parking .............1.34 acres Net .....................30 acres Four Story ......................30 acres...... N/A (20) �a F. Building Heigh t(5)(12)(15)(21)(•2 Maximum building height shall not exceed six (6) stories above ground level, except for Site 3A which shall have a maximum building height of eight (8) stories above ground level, and for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height of ten (10) stories above ground level and Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivision No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height of seven (7) stories above ground level; and except for Site 5 which shall have a maximum of nine (9) stories/167 feet above azound level. NE nm build nQ'.fie plit'for E�ofessio' rW &,Business Off6d Site STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II RETAIL COM ffiRCIALIPERMITTED USES - Part II, Section II, Group ME A Building Site Site 1......5.8 acres (25) Site 2......1.4 acres 7.2 acres ...........................7.2 acres The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. B. Building Area Site 1 ...... 50,000 square feet.... 1.14 acres Site 2......10.000 square fdet..... 22 acres 60,000 square feet.... 1.36 acres... 1.36 acres C. ParkingJCriteria: 5lspaces/1000 sg.ft.@, 363 sg. ft.! space) Site 1......250 cars............ 2.08 acres Site 2.......50 cars ............. .41 acres 300 cars ............. 2.49 acres ... 2.49 acres D. Landscaped - Open Space Site 1........ 2.58 acres Site 2........ .77 acres 3.35 acres........... 3.35 acres E. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (3 5) feet. ��t �$ STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II COMMERCIAURESTAURAN'TS A Building Site Site 1...... 2.9 acres 2.9 acres .......................2.9 acres (5) (20) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. B. Building Area Site 1....15 000 square feet ...... 34 acres 15,000 square feet. ...... 34 acres (5) (20) C. ParkimZ (Criteiia: 300 occupants/ 10,000 sq.ft. 1 space/3 occupants 363 soft. /space Site 1......150 cars .....................1.25 acres 150 cars .................... 1.25 acres (5)(20) D. Landscaped - Open Space Site 1...1.31 acres 1.31 acres ...................... 1.31 acres (5)(20) E. Building Height Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. _?5 43- STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART H COMIv1ERCIAUHOTEL & MOTEL A Budding Site (26.2§) Site 1 - 6.35 acres Srte LB 3.7 a. 1:O,OSgacces,(2 B. Hotel Room Limit (18,25,29) Site 1 - 349 rooms' The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Area (SIO - 349 units 0.400 sq_ft. /unit) (Site 2B` =.304 unifst7n S 127J e `N7 1 /nrut) L`8 )(25) - 9) Site 1 - 3.2 acres - 3.2 acres Site >?B.;3_6eApt es` (total,enclosgd;argais4;.5acres D. Parking (Criteria: I space/unit . 363 sq.ft. /space)(18)(26)(29) Site 1 - 349 parking spaces 2.9 acres Sife 2B` .152 parlgng_Sgaces?, _ 2 5 acres (total) E. Landscaping —Open Space (18) The fbDowing is intended to show some of the variations possible. 'Use permits approved as of November 14, 1983, allow 468 hotel rooms with related restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel room count may be converted to standard hotel rooms consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities may also be revised if the plans meet the intent of the approved site plan and other conditions of approval.(1)(18) Br B'uildingl�eight(29�. I i ,;) 17 Site 1 One Story Development - 0.92 acres Two Story Development - 2.98 acres Three Story Development - 3.67 acres Four Story Development - 4.02 acres Five Story Development - 4.22 acres Six Story Development - 4.36 acres Seven Story Development - 4.46 acres Eight Story Development -. 4.53 acres Nme Story Development - 4.59 acres Ten Story Development - 4.64 acres Eleven Story Development - 4.67 acres Twelve Story Development - 4.71 acres Thirteen Story Development - 4.73 acres 1 The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel operations. These facilities would also require parking not reflected in the parking requirement criteria. Br B'uildingl�eight(29�. I i ,;) 17 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART H AUTO CENTER AND GENERAL COM MRCIAL (8)(9) PERMITTED USES Part 11, Section H, Group H A & F A. Auto Center Building Sites o Site lb - 3.0 acres Site -2a 29 -aefes Ste? 0acre_'s2 B. General Commercial Building Sites 8)(2b� Site I - 3.0 acres Site 2 t- 1.0 acres (9) Site 3 - 3.9 acres (9) Site 4 - 2.0 acres (9) Site 5 - 2.45 acres' (26) 12.35 acres C. Building Area (26) 27 Site I - * Site 2 - * Site 33 - ** Site 4 - * Site 5 - 35,000 sq.ft. - 11,700 sq.ft. - 49,380 sq.ft. - 20,870 sq.ft.(19)- 31.362 sq.ft. - 148,312 sq.ft. - 0.80 acres 0.27 acres (9) 1.13 acres (27) 0.57 acres (9) 0.72 acres (26) 3.47 acres (26)(27) Restaurants are permitted uses in sites I, 2, 3 and 5, subject to a use permit. (9)(23)(26X27) If the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited solely to Professional and Business Office use, then the allowable Building Area shall not exceed 30,000 sq.ft. (19) 'A recorded reciprocal easement shall be provided for ingress, egress and parking for mutual benefit between Hotel Site I and General Commercial Site 5. / ,28 T � S The following statistics are for information only. Development may include, but shall not be limited to the following. (8) D. Parking (Criteria 4 spac&1,000 sq.ft. @ 363 sq.ft. /space)(9)(26) Site 1 - 140 cars - 1.17 acres Site 2 - 47 cars - 0.39 acres Site 3 - 193 cars - 1.61 acres Site 4 - 100 cars - 0.83 acres Site 5 - 167 cars - 1.39 acres 647 cars - 5.39 acres E. Landscaping - Open Space (9)(26) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 (1 & 2 story) Site 5 (3 story) Total Site 5 (4 story) Total - 1.03 acres - 0.34 acres - 1.18 acres - 0.60 acres - 0.24 acres Total 3.39 acres F. Building Height (8)(9)(26)(291 0.49 acres 3.64 acres 0.75 acres 3.90 acres i i Building height of structures on Auto Center Site la and 2 shall be limited to a height of thirty -five feet (35 ft.). Building height of structures on General Commercial Site 1,2,3, and 4 shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35 ft.) and on General Commercial Site 5 shall be limited to a height of fifty feet (50 ft.). �9 PART H COMMERCIAL/SERVICE STATION ** A Building Site Site 1 - 1.2 acres - 1.2 acres PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Minimum Site Area A. Thirty Thousand (30,000) square feet. B. Exception: 01) The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: 1. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other proberty in the vicinity. 2. That the development considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. Section 11. Permitted Use Group I. Light Industrial A. To allow uses primarily engaged in research activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings that do not contribute excess noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic, or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential, due to the matter of the product material or processes involved. Such activities may include but shall not be limited to research laboratories and facilities, .developmental laboratories and facilities and compatible light manufacturing related to the following list of examples: Bio- Chemical Chemical Film and Photography Medical and Dental Metallurgy Pharmaceutical X -Ray * *Reference Page 4, Part I, Item D. V 2. Manufacture, research assembly, testing and repair of components, devices, equipment and systems and parts and components such as but not limited to the following list of examples: Coils, Tubes, Semi - Conductors Communication, Navigation Control, Transmission and Reception Equipment, Control Equipment and Systems, Guidance Equipment and Systems Data Processing Equipment and Systems Glass Edging, Beveling, and Silvering Graphics, Art Equipment Metering Instruments Optical Devices, Equipment and Systems Phonographs, Audio Units, Radio Equipment and Television Equipment Photographic Equipment Radar, infra -red and Ultra- Violet Equipment and Systems Scientific and Mechanical Instruments Testing Equipment 3/ 7-1 B. To allow the location of offices and areas associated with and accessory to the permitted uses listed under A. 1. Administrative, professional and business offices. 2. Regional or home offices of industries which are limited to a single use. 3. Blueprinting, photostatin& photo engraving, printing, publishing and bookbinding, provided that no on -site commercial services is associated with said uses. 4. Cafeteria, cafe, restaurant or auditorium. 5. Service stations will be permitted, subject to a use permit provided that no on -site commercial service is associated with said uses. C. Service stations subject to a use permit. Group IL Medium Industrial and Industrial Service and Support Facilities. A. To allow the location of general manufacturing activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, material or processes involved. 1. Manufacture and/or assembly of the following or similar products: Aircraft and Related Components Clocks and Watches Coffins Ceramic Products Concrete Products Electrical Appliances Farm Equipment Heating & Ventilating Equipment Linoleum Machinery & Machine Tools Musical Instruments Neon Signs Novelties Oil Well Valves & Repairs Optical Goods Refrigeration Screw Machine Products Sheet Metal Products J Shoes Silk Screens Sporting Goods Springs Stencils Toys Trailers Trucks 2. The manufacture of products or products made from the following or similar materials: Aluminum Iron Bags, except Burlap Bags or Linoleum Sacks Matches Batteries Mattresses Boxes, Paper Paper Brass Steel Cans Tin Copper Tools Glass Wool Grinding Wheels Yam 3. The manufacturing, compounding, processing or treatment of the following or similar items: Acids, Non - Corrosive Candles Cigarettes & Cigars Detergents Disinfectants Dye Food Products Lubricating Oil Pharmaceutical Products Plastics Toiletries Vitamin Products Waxes and Polishes 4. Woodworking Shops, such as: (Provided that, if a planer, router, sticker or moulder is maintained, all doors and windows in the outside walls of the room in which said machinery is located shall be kept closed while said machinery is in use.) Box Furniture Wood Products 5. Distribution and Warehousing Plants B. To allow the location of general manufacturing activities, service industry and activities related to contractor and construction industry, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, materials or processes involved. 1. Service industries or those industries providing a service as opposed to the man- ufacture of a specific product, such as the repair and maintenance of appliances or component parts, tooling, printers, testing shops, small machine shops, shops engaged in the repair, maintenance and servicing of items excluding automobile repair, providing that such industries are not the point of customer delivery or collection. 2. Contractor and construction industries relating to building industry, such as general contractors, electrical contractors, plumbing contractors. C.' To allow it combination of general industry, business and professional offices, and industrial support activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings, and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, materials or processes involved. The industrial support activities shall be defined as and limited to the sale of products or services relating only to the immediate industrial complex. Any activity which could be classified as retail commercial shall be restricted to activities strictly accessory and/or supplementary to the industrial community. 3y 1. All uses permitted under A, B, and D. a. Business and Professional Offices. b. Industrial Support Facilities, to include activities limited to the sale of products or services related to only the industrial complex. Activities of a commercial nature shall be restricted in scope so as to service and to be accessory and/or supplementary to the industrial complex. C. Service stations subject to a use permit. 2. Except as herein indicated, the General Development Standards for Industry shall apply. a. Sign Area Industry Support Facilities and Business and Professional Offices. Only one (1) facia mounted identification sign shall be permitted 'per street frontage for each individual business or office. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (1 -1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. b. Site Identification Ground Sign One (1) site identification sign listing only the name of the site or major tenant on the site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet and a width of eight (8) feet and may be double faced. 1 ;S C. Pedestrian Access It is required of all developments in the industrial support facility area to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right of way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. D. To allow for the location of a storage facility for new car inventory. Located within Industrial Site 1 between Quail Street on the east, adjacent to Auto Center Sites 2A and 2B on the south, a Bristol Street on the west This use shall be subject to a use permit. (3) E. (Deleted)(2,4) O Section III. General Development Standards for Industry Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part I.A and Part I.B. A. Building Height (22) Building heights of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35) feet; provided, however, that on Parcel I and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 86 -33 -34 (Resubdivision No. 529) in Industrial Site 3A, the Planning Commission or the City Council on review or appeal may approve a structure up to a maximum height of 50 feet after the approval of a use permit. The Planning Commission or City Council in granting any use permit for structures in excess of thirty -five (35) feet shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: (a) The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. iParticular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. (b) The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. (c) The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. (d) The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. (22) B. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that line created by the ultimate right -of -way line of the frontage street. 1. Front Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum, except that unsupported roofs or sun - screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Side Yard Setback Ten (10) feet, except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. In the case of a comer lot, the street side setback shall be thirty (30) feet, except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project six (6) feet into the I setback area Interior lot lines for a comer lot shall be considered side lot lines. 3. Rear Yard Setback No rear yard setback is required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. C. Site Coverage Maximum building coverage of fifty (50) percent is allowed. Parking structures shall not be calculated as building area, however, said structures shall be used only for the parking of company vehicles, employee's vehicles, or vehicles belonging to persons visiting the subject firm. 25, 9?E_J D. Sims 1. Sim Area Only one (1) single faced or double faced signs shall be perrnitted per street frontage. No sign or combination of signs shall exceed one (1) square foot in area for each six hundred (600) square feet of total site area. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. An additional twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed for each additional business conducted on the site. 2. Sale or Lease Sien A sign, advertising the sale, lease, or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of thirty -two (32) square feet. 3. Ground Sim All ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one - hundred fifty (150) square feet in area (single face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback area. However, the above standards shall not apply to the Community Directional Sign and Special Purpose Sign. 4. Special Purpose Sign Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (single face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. 5, Wall Sims Wall signs shall not comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs; signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. c'7S� In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the industry. Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to four (4) inch high letters. Said sign must be oriented toward the parking area for that building. 6. Construction Sign One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be pennitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall conform with the requirements of Item 3 above, Ground Sign, and will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. 7. Future Tenant Identification Sign A sign listing the name of the future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted. Said sign shall conform with the requirements of Item 3 above, Ground Sign, and will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. 8. Community Directional and/or Identification Sign Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two - hundred fifty (250) square feet (single face), shall be permitted but subject to use permit. E. Sign Standards Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. 2. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products or sold thereon. y� 3. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. 4. All signs attached to the building shall be flush mounted. F. Parkins Adequate off - street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on- street parking. Required off - street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site or within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. The folloxving guide shall be used to determine parking requirements: MM One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. Manufacture. Research and Assembly Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than three (3) spaces for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area. Warehouse Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area for the first twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; one (1) space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area for the second twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; one (1) space for each four thousand (4,000) square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial forty thousand (40;000) square feet of floor area of the building. If there is more than one shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. 411 G. Landscape Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, prepared by a landscaping architect, licensed contractor of architect shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuing of building permit and installed prior to issue of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. All landscaping referred to in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. 1. Front Yard Setback Area a. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking shall be landscaped in a similar manner. b. Special Landscaped Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any access driveway in said area. C. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet in back of the front property line shall be landscaped, except for any access driveway in said area. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback Area a. General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. b. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition but need not be landscaped. C. Screening Areas used for parking shall be landscaped and/or fenced in such a manner as to interrupt or screen said areas from view from access v� streets, freeways, and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for this purpose shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees. 3. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls shall be provided in the parking area. 4. Sloped Banks All sloped banks greater than 5 -1 or 6 feet in vertical height and adjacent to public right -of -way shall be stabilized, planted and irrigated in accordance with plans submitted and approved by Planning Director. H. Loading _Areas On other than special landscaped streets street side loading shall be allowed provided the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -ofway line or one hundred ten (I 10) from the street centerline, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. I. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways, and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I Refuse Collection Area All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways, and adjacent property by a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection areas shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. vs K. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12 KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformers or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. L. Sidewalks The requirement for sidewalks in the Planned Community District may be waived by the Planning Director if it is demonstrated that such facilities are not needed. However, the City retains the right to require installations of sidewalks i� in the future, a need is established by the City. M. Nuisances No portion of the property shall be used is such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent sites, such as but not limited to vibration, sound, electro- mechanical disturbance and radiation, : electro- magnetic disturbancd, radiation, air or water pollution, dust, emission of odorous, toxic or noxious matter. yy PART 11. COMMERCIAL Section I. Minimum Site Area A. Thirty Thousand (30,000) square feet B. Exception: (II The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: I. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 2. That the development considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. Section 11. Permitted Use Group I. Professional and Business Offices To allow the location of commercial activities engaged in the sale of products or services relating to and supporting the Development Plan, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings. A. Professional Offices I. Accountants 2. Attorneys 3. Doctors, dentists, optometrists, oculists, chiropractors and others licensed by the State of California to practice the healing arts. 4. Engineers, architects, surveyors and planners. 5. otheC ene°' " fessiion N ffi�cceesj,�LA vs B. Business Offices 1. Advertising agencies 2. Banks 3. Economic consultants 4. Employment agencies 5. Escrow offices 6. Insurance agencies 7. Laboratories: a. Dental b. Medical c. X -Ray d. Biochemical e. Film, wholesale only f. Optometrical 8. Stock Brokers 9. Studios for interior decorators, photographers, artists and draftsmen. 10. Telephone answering services 11. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket reservation services but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight. (2) 12. Any; other ,generalliusiness,q%ces.;(29) B. Support Commercial (21) 1. Retail sales and services, so long as said retail sales are of a convenience nature ancillary to the operation and use of office facilities including tobacco stores, card shops, confectionery and newspaper stands, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. Retail uses shall be located in the basement or on the first floor of a building. Storage for such uses shall be within a building. 2. Service uses which are for building tenants and patrons, such as a car wash and gymnasium/health club facilities. Car washes shall drain into the sanitary sewer system. 3. Restaurants - outdoor restaurants and take -out restaurants - subject to securing a use permit in each case. ZV <c 7— Group H. Commercial Uses A. Automobile Center, subject to a use permit. (28) 1. Automobile dealership selling only new cars. The sale of used cars, automobile repair, and automobile detailing may be permitted in conjunction with the sales of new vehicles but only accessory uses. 2. Service stations subject to the issuance of the use permit and a finding that the use is supportive of the principal uses permitted in the Newport Place Planned Community text. B. Hotels and Motels, subject to a use permit. C. State. County and Municipal Facilities (2) D. Service Stations & Mechanical Car Wash within Service Station Site 91, subject to a use permit. (4) 1 E. Retail Commercial uses such as: Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants shall be permitted subject to the securing of a use pemvt except as noted under "a" and "b" below: (7) a. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, shall be permitted in Retail- Commercial Site lwithout a use permit provided that the net floor area of all restaurant uses does not exceed 20% of the net floor area of the retail- commercial center. b. Outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants shall be designed and located so as to be an integral element of the retail - commercial center and shall not be permitted as a free - standing independent use in any case. 2. Barber shop and beauty parlor 3. Book and stationery store 4. Blueprinting and photostatics Revisions of "Retail Commercial' land uses contained on pages 31 (E-1 -a) and -32 (b -14), 3127197 5. Camera shop 6. Delicatessen store 7. Florist �I � 8. Shoe store or repair shop 9. Tailor 10. Tobacco store 11. Office equipment retail and repair 12. Pharmacies 13. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight 14. Instructional dance facility for adults and related retail sales. Subject to a use permit 15. Other uses similar to the above list F. General Commercial (8)(9)(23)(26) 1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary uses listed under Part II, Section % Group II,A. 2. Service stations subject to a use permit. 3. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, shall be subject to a use permit. Restaurant ruses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 not permitted within General Commercial Site 4. 4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including: a. Sporting goods store b. Camera store C. Art gallery d. Craft store e. Pet store f. Bicycle store g. Other uses of similar nature 5. Book and Office Support Stores, including: a. Book store b. Office supplies C. Other uses of similar nature 6. Retail stores and professional service establishments, including: a. Pharmacies b. Specialty food C. Fabric shops d. Jewelry shops e. Furrier f. Formal Wear g. Barber and hair styling h. Clothing store i. Liquor store c/ Fib *Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3, 4 and 6 and not permitted within General Commercial Sites 1 and 2. (9)(26)(29) �� I j. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight. k. Other uses of similar nature 7. Home and Office Furnishings, including: a. Home furniture store b. Office furniture store C. Interior decorators d. Home appliances e. Antique store f. Other uses of similar nature 8. Athletic Clubs, including: a. Spa b. Health club C. Recreation facility d. Other uses of similar nature 9. Home improvement stores, including: a. Hardware store ;b. ! Paint store E C. Wallcovering store d. Other uses of similar nature 10. Retail nursery subject to a use permit 11. Institutional, instructional and educational uses, subject to a use permit in each case. *12. Professional and Business Offices - see Part 11, Section IL Group I for permitted uses. *Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3, 4 and 6 and not permitted within General Commercial Sites 1 and 2. (9)(26)(29) �� I Section III. General Development Standards for Commerce Maximum building areas and budding heights shall be noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part II.A and Part II.B. A Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that line created by the ultimate right -of -way line of the frontage street. 1. Front Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sun - screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Side Yard Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a. Comer lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into setback area, b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. 3. Rear Yard None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. �C) B. Signs 1. Sign Area: General Standard Building identification shall be limited to a single (1) entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed 1 1/2 square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. 2. Pole Sign: One (1) identification pole sign site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses: a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar C. Motel and hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identifications signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. 3. Wall Sign: In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. 4. Ground Sign: An identification ground sign shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess on one - hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (single face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. However, the above standards shall not apply to the Community Directional Sign and Special Purpose Sign. si 5. Multi- Tenant Directory Sign: One (1) directory sign listing only the name of the firms or businesses on a site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. Panels identifying each individual story shall be no longer than one (1) foot in width and five (5) feet in length. 6. Special Purpose Sign: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item DA 7. Construction Sign: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item D.6. 8. Future Tenant Identification: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item D.7, 9. Community Direction and/or Identification Sign: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item C.B. C. Sign Standards Except as noted above, the same sign standards as outlined in Sub - Section D, Section III, Part I of this ordinance, shall prevail for developments in this area. D. Parkins 1. Medical and Dental Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area whichever is greater. 2. Professional Offices One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. 7 3. Lodee, Halls, Private Clubs, Union Headquarters One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area. 4. Restaurants, Outdoor, Drive -In and Take -Out (7) Restaurants. a. Restaurant parking shall be in accordance with Section 20.38.030(d) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and "c" below. b. Restaurants other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants within Retail- Commercial Sites 1 and 2 shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area and one (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net floor area of all restaurants does not exceed 20% of the net floor area of the retail- commercial center. In the event that any restaurant causes the total of all restaurant uses in the retail- commercial center to exceed > 20% limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any' subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under "a" above. C. Parking for outdoor, drive -in and take -out restaurants shall be provided in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Retail Commercial One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Hotels and Motels (6) Parking for Hotel and Motel guest rooms; all related restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet and meeting rooms, retail shops; and all employees shall be based on a demonstrated formula to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The parking formula shall contain the minimum parking which would be required for each of the separate uses evaluated independently. Any reductions from this minimum parking requirement must be based on the joint usage of the facilities by hotel and motel patrons. (10) ryV- 7. General Commercial (8)(9) a. One (1) space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area. b. If the development of General Commercial Site 3 or 4 is limited soley to Professional and Business Office use, the parking shall be: One (1) space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area. The parking requirements may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area upon review and approval of the modifications committee. C. Specific parking requirements shall be developed for uses such as furniture stores, athletic clubs, theaters, bowling alleys, home improvement stores, retail nurseries or tire stores based upon functions and occupancies within these uses. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies, or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Director of Community Development. In the event that any use described above is converted to another use parking requirements for the new use shall be subjdct to review by the Director of Community Development. d. For restaurant parking see Part II, Section III, D.4. E. Landscapine Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, prepared by a landscaping architect, licensed landscaping contractor or architect shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuing of Building Permits and installed prior to issue of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. All landscaping referred to in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. 1. Front Yard Setback Area a. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. b. Special Landscaped Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any driveway in said area. 5� C. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet in back of the front property he shall be landscaped except for any driveway in said area 2. Side Yard and Rear Yard a. General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. b. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition, but need not be landscaped. C. Screening I Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets, freeways, and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees. d. Boundary Areas Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas shall be placed along the entire length of these property lines or be of sufficient length to accommodate the number of required trees. Trees, equal in number to one (1) tree per twenty -five (25) lineal feet of each property line, shall be planted in the above defined areas in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. C. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, at least (6) inches higher that the adjacent vehicular area. 3. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1)j)er each five (5) parking stalls shall be provided in the; ace parking area:,(29} 5 L F. Loading Areas Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets, shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -of -way line, or one hundred ten (I 10) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. G. Storage Areas All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I 1 H. Refuse Collection Areas All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. J. Pedestrian Access It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plans will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right -of -way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. S cp (1) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 1, dated December 13, 1971, incorporating a revised land use plan. (2) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2, dated June 12, 1972, incorporating the following changes: a. Relocation of Fire Station site. b. Limitation of tourist information, travel agencies and ticket reservations within Retail Commercial sites. C. Addition of specific restaurant density within Retail Commercial sites. (3) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 3, dated October 24, 1972, permitting Auto Centers as an additional use within Industrial Site 2B. (4) Planned Commurity Text Amendment N8. 4, dated January 8, 1973, incorporating the following changes: a. Provision for a Mechanical Car Wash within Service Station Site No. 1. b. Eliminate provision for a Fire Station within Industrial Site 3A. (5) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 5, dated July 23, 1973, incorporating the following changes: a. Rearrangement of Office Site 3 and Restaurant Site 2 and reapportionment of land allotted to each. b. Reduce allowable building area in Office Sites 1 and 2 and increase allowable building area in Office Site 3A. C. Increase allowable building height in Office Site 3A to 8 stories. (6) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 6, dated June 10, 1974, establishing parking requirements for Hotels and Motels based on a demonstrated formula. (7) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 7, dated September 8, 1975, revising off-street parking requirements for restaurants to conform with existing City Standards. (8) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 8, dated February 9, 1976, permitting General Commercial uses on Auto Center Site 1 a and 2b. FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (9) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 9, dated April 11, 1977, incorporating the following changes: a. Expand the permitted uses for General Commercial. b. Re- designate General Commercial Site 1 -A and 2 -B to General Commercial Sites 1, 2 and 3. C. Expand General Commercial Site 3 to include one half of Industrial Site IA. d. Convert Industrial Site 2A to General Commercial Site 4. e. Restrict the allowable building area and the permitted uses for General Commercial Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4. (10) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 10, dated May 23, 1977, incorporating the following change: a. Delete the provision added by Resolution No. 8261 adopted by the City Council on June 10, 1974 from Section III, D, 6. (11) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 11, dated April 10, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Establish guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area (12) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 12, dated July 11, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Revised the allowable building height for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585. (13) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 13, dated November 27, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Requirement that a Phasing Plan be approved by the Planning Commission for seventy (70) percent of the undeveloped allowable building area existing as of October 1, 1978. (14) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 14, dated June 11, 1979, incorporating the following changes: a. Reduce the allowable building area of Industrial Site 3A b. Reduce the allowable building area of Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2. 5 -4/(; FOOTNOTES (Cont.) i (15) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 15, dated March 23, 1981, incorporating the following changes: a. Specification of a maximum building height of seven (7) stories on Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivision No. 585. (16) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 16, dated March 8, 1984 incorporating the following change: a. Increase of 16,154 square feet of office space in Professional and Business Offices Site 5. (17) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 17, dated April 23, 1984, incorporating the following change: a. Increase of 1,091 square feet of office space in Professional and Business Offices Sites I and 2. (18) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 18, dated June 25, 1984, incorporating the following changes: a. Establish a specific limit on hotel rooms in Hotel Sites I A and 1B. (19) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 19, dated July 23, 1984, incorporating the following changes: a. Transfer of 4,130 square feet of allowable building area from General Commercial Site 4 to Professional and Business Offices Site 5. (20) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 20, dated January 12, 1987, incorporating the following changes: a. Add Professional and Business Offices Site 8, with 54,000 square feet allowed. b. Delete Restaurant Site 2A, with 8,400 square feet deleted. (21) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 21, dated March 9, 1987, incorporating the following change: a, Increase allowed development in Professional and Business Offices Site 5 to 241,570 square feet; allow additional support retail uses up to 294,600 square feet total, add support commercial as permitted land use. (2 1) J%/ FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (22) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 22, dated February 4, 1988, incorporating the following change: a. Allow structures located within a portion of Industrial Site 3A to be construct- ed in excess of the 35 foot height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. (23) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 23, dated July 6, 1989 incorporating the following change: a. Allow restaurant uses on General Commercial Site 1, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. (24) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 24, dated June 6, 1991, incorporating the following change: i a. Increase the allowable office development in Professional Business Offices, Site No. 5 to 257,287 square feet, and reduce the allowable retail development to 37,315 square feet. (25) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 25, approved by the City Council on March 9, 1992, incorporating the following change: a. Increase the allowable office development in Professional Business Offices, Site No. 5 to 268,743 square feet, and reduce the allowable retail development to 25,857 square feet. (26) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 26, approved by the City Council on June 8, 1992, incorporating the following changes: a. Redesignate the Sheraton Hotel Site from Hotel Site 1 and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5. b. Reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and establish a development entitlement of 31,362 square feet for General Commercial Site 5. C. Establish a height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5. d. The Requirement for a reciprocal easement to provide ingress, egress, and parking for mutual benefit between Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5. FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (27) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 27, approved by the City Council on September 13, 1993, incorporating the following changes: a. Increase the allowable commercial development in General Commercial Site 3 from 48,300 square feet to 49,380 square feet. b. Delete the provision which counts one square foot of floor area devoted to restaurants as two square feet of permitted commercial floor area in General Commercial Sites 2, 3, and S. C. Delete the provision which restricts the maximum amount of gross floor area devoted to restaurants to 8,000 square feet each in General Commercial Sites 3 and S. (28) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2$, approved by the City Council on January 22, 1996, incorporating the following changes. (29) a. Restricting automobile repair and detailing as an accessory use only in conjunction with sales of new vehicles. b. Eliminate other permitted uses. P1 yg �r' ;sv."'ryA�?:frt'.'C.l�'^"L�n b. R estgnztitig tt" usttta it .,to . ommereiaotel; &% Idfel` >Sife B. C. reel e. amR ha eah Lt rzto 6� 0�'ee�'yt�l tlio� i &Motel�fed12% f. �U � Q h. e, li an -- ip —ITUAIWOMPKEREP—EM fAplariri ng \p ct ext\newprtpl. ace Area Sufnrnary ! Industrial Office 40.2 ac. Retail Commercial 70.0 ac. Commerciai /Reslauranf 7.2 ac. COmmercial/Hotef & M otel 2.0 ac. Auto Center 10.1 ac. Service Station 3.0 ac. 1.2 ac. Total 134.6 ac. / c ry smq. %% °7 r/ VO d s, 5, �Sr�a r rg1'9 qa Land Use Plan Newport Place PI.. -,, "r Industrial Site q Pro. &Bus. Offices Sites t R p Newfwtt Place De. em q� a No LGie G-3 A I I% YJ t jAL- N X, v Y. x x i 0 z � V 1 l„ II 10:1:: rma w x r c z < L a a � U Gd F � F � •om tx o > A i w G m FI �6 };; •II I7/fM f ■%Mft �JWA W 1,11. z < 4 a c x w F = m � F � z a " w =_� - w y > r m � w A / 451 il1 IV i�. ' �`^��s'j � -Y "�y- ,�" +\ ./1 .: ♦�``�`"' ` \` f' � may. '+ \ `v \\ �-(♦ ?v/ / � • /�.♦ III, �'� �' • ^ ♦` II ♦ 1 . s. w: I •mww� e Y Y r W � V •Q :J ce ZIP f' �ti = I (' (�I�L lll�r II ('ill !11 (ill'(�i lr� I1!!:i.l 11 II �� 11111111 \ I 1' r, nttt.tet.': et l; 2 1 Q ��ail..4i rf !r,t(E {F. tit a ■ .!,' t'� r i ix i yy Q Q I is to I! f; o }. �. t i &r it • t" ix i yy Q Q I is to I! f; o }. �. t i &r 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060of the Municipal Code. 5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and final approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 8. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This Use Permit shall be deemed exercised upon extension of the parking lot to include 715 West Bay Avenue. SUBJECT: 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street HEV- Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners (applicants) Approve: Accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and Adopt Resolution 98- , recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C); and Adopt Resolution 98- , recommending approval of Planned Community Amendment No. 880; and Use Permit No. 3640 Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -13 Traffic Study No. 118 With findings and conditions in Exhibit "A. A request to permit the construction of an extended -stay hotel and an office building. The project involves the approval of: INDEX DRAFT Item No. 2 Negative Declaration GPA 98 -1 (C) A No. 880 UP No. 3640 LLA No. 98 -13 TS No. 118 Approved Is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX • • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment involves modifications to the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC text modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to: • increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community, • changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from Industrial to Hotel, • changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from Auto Center to Professional and Business Office, • establishing a 60 foot height limit for the hotel site, • establishing a 95 foot height limit for the office site, • establishing new street -side front yard, and side yard setback requirements, • a Use Permit for the establishmentof an extended stay hotel, • a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels, and • a Traffic Study. Associate Planner Marc Myers presented the following additional information to the Commission: • Staff and the City's consultants have prepared responses to all of the comments raised in letters dated December 8th and 10th by the owners of the Quail Business Center. • Further information has been provided regarding shared parking, shade /shadow analysis, building heights in the vicinity, and the building setbackof the Quail Business Center building from the propertylines. • Letter from the applicant indicates there is no intention for the hotel to share parking with the proposed office building and adjacent parking structure since the hotel facilityis providing a surplus number of parking spaces on -site. • The shade /shadow analysis indicates in all instances, the proposed hotel building would have impacts the same as, but in no case worse than, a building which can be developed "by right" under the current regulations. Graphic displays of the analysis have been prepared for illustration. • Proposed height limit for the hotel site is 60 feet. Although some of the existing buildings in the general vicinity are two or three stories in height, the Newport Place Planned Community Regulations permit a maximum height of 6 stories across Quail Street to the northeast, and 8 stories across Spruce Street to the north west. While the existing development on these sites may not reflect the full potential of the height limit, the current development regulations do permit a structure to be built to these height limits. • Reduced plans of the Quail Business Center Building are attached to the staff report and indicate the location of the building to the surrounding 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 property lines. The QBC building is approximately 10 feet 6 inches from the side property line adjacent to the proposed hotel site. Concluding, Mr. Myers indicated that staff continued to receive written comments regarding the project after the staff report was delivered. Additional responses to each of the comments have been prepared and are presented in o pocket to each of the Commissioners. Upon further detailed analysis of all of the new information presented, staff remains of the opinion that the project, together with the suggested conditions of approval and mitigation measures, does not result in o significant environmental impact. Mr. Myers clarified that on the front page of the staff report, there is o typographical error. The fifth bullet point should read, ... establishing o 60 -foot height limit for the hotel site, rather than o 50 -foot height limit. Chairperson Selich noted that due to the amount of information just received, so that the Commission can give due and fair consideration to this item, he would call for o fifteen - minute recess to review the information and then reconvene. Following o brief discussion, the meeting was recessed until 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commissioners were advised not to discuss this material with each other until they come bock to the public hearing. 0 ChoirpersonSelich recessed the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Gifford joined the meeting in time to review the additional pocket and resumed her place. ChoirpersonSelich reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m: Commissioner Kronzley noted in the vicinity mop that the properties across Spruce and Quail were allowed to be six and eight stories by right. Mr. Myers then pointed out the specific properties on the exhibit on page 76 in the staff report. He pointed out Industrial Site 3A in the Land Use Plan of the Newport Place Planned Community allows for six story buildings. Commissioner Fuller then brought up o discussion on the parking ratio on the hotel. Disregarding the employees that work in the hotel, where does everyone pork, what is the logic behind two rooms for one space? Mrs. Wood stated the logic behind it is the assumption that not everyone arrives in o car that he or she drives himself or herself. A number of guests will come by airport shuttle or by taxicab. People who ore on business trips will rent one car for two, three or four people. Commissioner Ashley stated that the parking standards as regulated by the Zoning Code con be addressed of o later dote. Continuing, he noted if there ore 304 keys in this hotel, for every room that is available for occupancy, and INDEX Ill City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 using the 70% rate, it would be roughly 210 parking spaces and 281 parking spaces are being provided by the applicant. Mr. Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager noted that in the initial response to comments previously distributed, there was a comment about the mitigation measure for Irvine and Mesa that indicates that it is a county project, fully funded. This was the initial information received by staff, however, the information now is that it is not currently fully funded. Measure M funds have been requested by the County for the remainder of the funding and the City will not know the outcome of that application until March or April of this year. The traffic study note contains an alternate or optional mitigation which is a simple re- striping and re- phasing of the signal that can be done by the City at the time traffic problems arise if the widening did not occur. The alternate or optional mitigation measure can be funded through the use of fair share fees collected from this project. Fair Share Fees are an automatic requirementof the Municipal Code. Public comment was opened. Coralee Newman, Principal at Government Solutions at 120 Newport Center Drive spoke representing both applicants, Holtze Executive Village and Lennar Partners. At Commission inquiry, she stated that they have read and concur with the findings and conditions attached to the staff report. She noted a number of graphics relative to the shade /shadow analysis posted on the wall were to be explained by their architects. Mr. Paul Tometz of HOK Architects, architect for the office building explained the exhibit which depicts the worst case shadow (December 21St at 9:00 a.m.) because of the angle of the sun. The graph shows that the shadow from the office building did not even extend to the propertyline of Quail Business Center. Mr. John Van Tillberg, architect for the Holtze Executive Village displayed and explained twelve diagrams to portray a more complex, comprehensive depiction. He then proceeded to explain that the diagrams, all oriented in the same way, show the same time on each of the following days: December 21st at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. March 21st at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 P.M. June 21st at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 P.M. September 2lst at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Mr. Tillberg explained the depictions of a "by right' 35 -foot building and his building which is a three -story building that steps up to a four -story building. The Quail Business Center building shading was also referenced during the presentation. He noted that these graphs were based on computer generated software program and that the worst case shadowing would be December 21 st INDEX 0 M • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX at 4:00 p.m. Even at this time, the shadow from the proposed hotel would be no greater than that from a "by right" building. Ms. Newman stated that this completes their comments and concluded requesting that an affirmative decision be made tonight by the Commission. Appearing in opposition to this project were: Michael Watkins - owner of one of the office spaces in Quail Business Center referencing the posted diagram noted that the 4 -story building would completely dwarf his 2 -story building. He stated that the applicant should raise a type of structure that shows exactlythe outline of the building and how it will affect QBC just like the residential developers do within the community. Jim Gianulius- 1105 Quail Street • Entrance into the parking structure should be from Dove Street. • Parking is inadequate. • Stacking is a problem. • Does not agree with the setbacks. • Challenged the presented shadow analysis. • Requests a continuance to study these issues. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the issue of fire lanes and the approval of the building. Staff answered that this application has been reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Edmonston stated that the issue of restricting access off Quail Street was not covered in the traffic study. A diagram has been done to depict staff's best guess and staff consultant's best guess as to how much traffic would actually be going in and out of each driveway to this project during peak periods. The increased numbers are not unusually large for projects in a commercial area such as this. Robert Albourn, 2601 Main Street representing the Colton Company that owns three buildings at Newport Place, 901, 1001 and 1007 Dove. He expressed his concern that there was an allocation of density to each of the parcels as the Newport Place Planned Community was developed in the 70's and 80's. In reference to the center parcel where the Colton property is located, are we taking density away from that property thereby depriving Colton from recycling this property at a later date to a higher and better use? These properties developed in the 70's and 80's are timed to be recycled. The center triangle had 819,000 square feet allocated and it was designed for six stories. The original text called for a different density on the other sites that might have been amended since then. Mr. Myers answered that in the General Plan of Newport Beach as well as in the . 10 73 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX • Newport Place Planned Community Development Regulations, both documents set forth square footage entitlements for specific individual blocks of land within the area of the boundaries of the Newport Place Planned Community. These projects individually and separately do not affect the amount or take away any square footage entitlement that is being referred to in that particular block. They are site specific to these sites. Staff has even gone so far as to make them specific to the site within the block rather than to just assign them to the entire block. The entitlement that this approval would grant would only be to those specific parcels. Frank Battaile, lawyer for Quail Business Center Association and the six property owners at QBC stated he has reviewed the City Attorney's letter and the project applicant's lawyer letter and disagrees with everything that was said. He continued stating that everything he said in his previous letters he still stands by. The new issues are these: • The 55 to 73 ramp is not funded and no one can make sure that ramp can happen. • The alternative mitigation of striping and lighting is not in the Negative Declaration. Chairperson Selich noted Mr. Battaile had the wrong project. The project not funded is the Irvine /Mesa Drive. The 55/73 is funded. • Continuing, Mr. Battaile noted: • The study of the traffic going in and out of the parking entrance he has not seen. He would like an opportunity for review and comment. • He then presented an aerial photo showing the kinds of buildings in the area. He stated that the nearest building that is taller than two stories is 950 feet away from Quail Business Center, across Quail and Spruce they are either one or two stories. • Off in the distance you can see a seven story, a three story and a ten story building. But nothing like that only ten feet away. • The characterization of the neighborhood being as mid to high rise, two and three story buildings is incorrect. Under CEQA, you have to look at what is really there and to conclude that this project is compatible with the environment, and it is not. Commissioner Kranzley noted that in the staff report the property immediately across the sheet on Quail and on Spruce are "by right" capable of building up to eight and six stories respectively. Even though the buildings currently there may not be built to that level, "by right ", six and eight story buildings could be built. Were you aware of that? Mr. Battaile answered that he was aware of that and stated the important point is, what is there now. Under CEQA, they have to look at existing conditions. 11 1� City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 Commissioner Kranzley stated that what is important is what the property owners can do "by right" without coming for approvals. Victor Mahoney. CFO of the Quail Business Center noted his opposition: • Design of project needs to be improved according to the original development standards. • Traffic study for the triangle. • Parking ratio - ULI standard for hotels is 1.25 spaces per occupied unit. The average occupancy in Orange County is 85 %. The hotel site is under parked. • Shade /shadow analysis - may not be an exact picture as a "by right' building may not be able to go in there due to the fire safety issue. Computer model is inaccurate. It is more than an inconvenience. He concluded, asking for a continuance of thirty days or for the Commission to deny this project. Ms. Newman stated that Mr. Tometz would address on the office building, the stacking at the parking garage and the fire safety of the buildings. Shade and shadowing as referenced in the staff report makes all the discussion clear and • basically states that a "by right' project will have adverse impacts the same as or worse than the proposed Holtze Hotel. • Mr. Tometz noted the following: • Fire lane access - through the Fire Department meetings has been resolved (referenced exhibit and pointed out the access and turn around) • Adequate parking - parking is parked over city standards • Stacking - internal study for that issue at the two entries reports that 65 feet is needed for stacking distance and they have in excess of 70 feet to the curb plus a 50 foot separation between the driveways. (referencing exhibit, showed where these dimensions were) Mr. Van Tilburg noted the following: • Fire lane access - through the Fire Department meetings will be along Spruce, Quail and along the back (referencing the exhibit showed where the access would occur), plus there is a special alarm system to all the rooms that satisfies a requirementof the City. He noted that there will be no building permitwithout Fire Department approval. • At Commission inquiry noted that the diagrams show changes and that the sun is what changes angles. The compass on the exhibit shows the position of the sun as depicted by the shadow analysis. Ms. Newman stated in conclusion that these are good uses for the site and will benefit the city and asked for approval. 12 INDEX /s City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 Public Commentwas closed. Commissioner Ashley stated his support for this application noting that at the time this property was developed, it was conceived as an urban place. The reason for one or two story buildings at that time was that there was not a sufficient demand to support a more intensified use. Now, there is a potential to recycle the entire area and there will be a more intense development materializing. The buildings are going to be higher and larger than they are currently. This property is located in a very urban center, devoted to largely commercial and industrial uses, no residential, The impact that this outstanding project will have on the City of Newport Beach should not be curtailed simply because there is going to be a shadow line resulting from a more intense use. I believe that staff and the consultants have responded intelligently and reasonably to all of the positions that the parties that are opposed to this particular project have brought forward. Commissioner Fuller stated there are two projects here, the office building and the hotel. I support the office building, but I had concerns with the hotel. Most of those concerns have been alleviated. The 73/55 roadwork has been funded and this is a pivotal item. This project will not be built until the Fire Marshall is satisfied. The shadowing as portrayed by the analysis compared with the "by right' building is no significance difference. I sympathize with the people in the Quail Business Center about the shadowing, but a "by right' building would still be a similar problem. One of the shopping center owners to the south of the project was in support of this project. The issue is not really if the parking code is adequate for the hotel, but, a review of this project based on the code that is in place. It meets the Code and then some. I therefore am in support of this application. Commissioner Gifford noted that in consideration of all of the evidence presented and all the discussion that has taken place with respect to traffic, CEQA issues, shade /shadow issues and the public safety issues including crime and fire, 1 am not persuaded that there are any sufficiently well founded objections to justify continuing this or denying this project. I understand that the Quail Business Center people find it undesirable to have their building impacted, but that is simply what is permitted. I am in support of the application. Chairperson Selich stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is more than adequate. There is information in there that exceeds what is found in many Environmental Impact Reports. The decision before the Planning Commission is not an environmental issue but a policy issue in regards to the type of development that we want to see. I was concerned with the shadow aspect and the proximity of the building to the proximity to the Quail Business Center, but the analysis that was presented convinces me that it does not really have an impact above and beyond that which is permitted by a 13 INDEX • 1 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX building that could go up there "by right' without any use permit from the City. The other concern was an aesthetic with the design, height and proximity, but in evaluating the elevations and what the architect has presented tonight seeing that it is a three story building next to a two story building stepping up to a four story, my concern has been alleviated. I too support this application. Commissioner Ashley complimented all the professionals that spoke tonight. This was a "high plane" presentation done by the applicants and our own staff. This is one of the most thorough examinations of issues that have been brought forward to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gifford noted the appreciation of the Commission of the restraint exercised by not reviewing old material. The Commission appreciates the attention to the fact that a lot of material to review and a lot of time has been spent on this. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and adopt Resolution 1488, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1 (C); and adopt Resolution 1489, recommending approval of Planned Community . Amendment No. 880; and approve Use Permit No. 3640; Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -13 and Traffic Study No. 118 with findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Findings and Conditions of Approval A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findinas: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 14 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall implement each of the design recommendations stipulated in the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project (Medal) et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998), subject to the review and approval of the Building Department. Those reports shall serve as the definitive guides to geotechnical mitigation requirements for the proposed office and hotel sites, in addition to standard engineering practice and local and State building codes. 2. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavations, subgrade preparation, and fill placement activities on the project properties. • Sufficient in -place field density tests shall be performed during fill placement and in -place compaction to evaluate the overall compaction of the soils. Test areas that do not meet minimum compaction requirements shall be reworked and retested prior to placement of any additional fill. 3. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all earthwork during construction on the project properties to confirm that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical reports (Medal) et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998) are applicable during construction. 4. The final grading, shoring, and foundation plans for the hotel and office properties shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical consultant as soon as they are available. The analysis, findings, and recommendations of that review shall be presented to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) submitted to the City shall specify that water quality inlets be constructed to filter hydrocarbons from water runoff before entering the storm drains. Inlet design shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practice (BMP) standards in 15 No City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes Januay 7, 1999 Appendix G of the County of (DAMP). Drainage Area Master Plan 6. Construction activity mitigations shall include the following measures: Dust Control • Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to less than the combined project site areas and use enhanced dust control measures. The menu of enhanced dust control measures includes the following: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Emissions Control • Require 90 -day low -NO. tune -ups for off -road equipment • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off -Site Impacts • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. 7. The hotel operator shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement, particularly as they relate to pool and /or clubhouse activities. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted • below for the specified time periods: 16 INDEX 7q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 Between the hours of Between the hours of 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans and engineering plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department in order to demonstrate that adequate emergency access and water supply /pressure are available to the project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit lighting, landscape, and site plans to the City of Newport Beach Police Department in order to demonstrate that employee and guest security are enhanced by site design elements. 10. The applicant shall prepare a recycling plan specifying source separation methods for both construction and operation of the project. This plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Director of General Services. 11. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 17 INDEX 0 P ) interior exterior interior exterior Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans and engineering plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department in order to demonstrate that adequate emergency access and water supply /pressure are available to the project. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit lighting, landscape, and site plans to the City of Newport Beach Police Department in order to demonstrate that employee and guest security are enhanced by site design elements. 10. The applicant shall prepare a recycling plan specifying source separation methods for both construction and operation of the project. This plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Director of General Services. 11. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 17 INDEX 0 P ) City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 B. Use Permit No. 3640: Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designate the site for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial" uses and a hotel is a permitted use within this designation. 2. The proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact based on information presented and incorporated into the Negative Declaration. 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. 4. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3640 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The hotel use is compatible with the surrounding professional office and general commercial uses in the area since hotel uses are typically a support use. • The hotel operation is compatible with the character of the neighborhood since the surrounding buildings are mid and high -rise structures consisting of office uses. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed use. • There are no significant aesthetic impacts. • The hotel use is consistentwith the intent of the General Plan and will not result in adverse traffic impacts. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the hotel facility. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The project shall provide 281 parking spaces on site. 18 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 INDEX 3. Intersections of the private drive at Quail Street shall be designed to provide sight distance far a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 4. Asphalt or concrete access raads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 5. The existing unused drive approaches shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Spruce Street, Dave Street and Quail Street frontages and that any displaced or cracked sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the some street frontages. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation along the Bristol Street frontage. 6. That all employees shall park an -site. 7. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 8. 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. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Bristol Street North right -af -way. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3640 is subject to final City Council approval of GPA 98 -1 (C). Standard Requirements: 1. That the project shall camplywith State Disabled Access requirements. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of any required public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit 19 Fs 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown on the grading and building site plans. 5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 6. Each building shall be served with individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 7. That the proposed hotel facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code. 8. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be: located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 12. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20 INDEX OJ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 1999 C. Traffic Study No. 118 Findings: That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy L -18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found in-compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major,' 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building (1001 Quail Street), the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the applicant shall pay, a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. D. Lot Line Adiustment: Findings: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan since the lots are for commercial developmentwhich is a permitted use in this area. 2. The proposal will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the lot line adjustment as approved would be consistentwith the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20%. • The project is a minor lot line adjustment which does not create any new parcels. 21 INDEX • 0 • S'L/ . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 INDEX SUBJECT: HEV- Newport Beach. LTD. and Lennar Partners Item No. 4 (applicants) GPA 98 -1 (B) 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street Negative Declaration A 877 M.4731 TS 117 A request to permit the construction of an extended stay hotel and an office Continued to building. The project involves the approval of: 1/7/1999 • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment involves modifications to the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC text modifications to the development standards include. but are not limited to: • increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community. • changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from • Industrial to Hotel. • changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from Auto Center to Professionaland Business Office. • establishing 50 foot height limit for the hotel site. • establishinga 95 foot height limit for the office site. • establishing new street -side front yard. and side yard setback requirements. • a Use Permit for the establishmentof an extended stay hotel. • a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels. and • a Traffic Study. Marc Myers noted that since the delivery of the packets to the Commissioners. staff has received two letters regarding the proposed project for the meeting. Staff is requesting a continuance to January 7. 1999 to study the questions raised in the letters and time to prepare comments. Additionally. a question has arisen regarding the adequacy of the noticing for the project. The records have been reviewed and it has been found that all parties were notified in a timely manner. Because of that. staff feels that the public hearing for the project can be opened for testimony. Additionally. on page 17 of the staff report Condition No. 2 should read as follows: The project shall provide 281 parking spaces on site. Staff clarified for the Commission that the two letters were from the same party. One that was received late that same afternoon and the first one that was faxed to the Commission earlier in the week. • 16 !?5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 Commissioner Fuller requested and received information on: • lot line adjustments- the lot line adjustment will take place between where the proposed office building is to be located and the lot that is directly adjacentto it which has a parking structure on it Public commentwas opened. Coralee Newman, Principal with Government Solutions, 120 Newport Center Drive - representing both applicants in this case spoke to the Commission. She introduced Mr. Bill Smith, Vice President of Lennar Partners and his architect, Mr. Paul Komets from HLK who will give a brief overview of the office proposal. Representing the Holtze Executive Village is Mr. Jan Holtze and his architect, Mr. Jon Van Tilburg who will give a brief overview of the hotel proposal. This dual project proposal is for property previously utilized as an auto dealership (Fletcher Jones Mercedes). These land uses are appropriate for the area and will be complimentaryto the existing land uses. Presenting a graphic for orientation, Ms. Newman pointed out the streets and indicated where the proposed office development on the corner of Dove and Quail and the proposed hotel proposal on the corner of Spruce and Quail. She noted that the hotel proposal has a small street frontage on Bristol. There is an existing office development between the two proposal sites. This area is part of the Newport Place Planned Community zoning and has a variety of land uses including retail uses, hotels, and industrial, commercial office buildings that range in height from two to nine stories. Mr. Bill Smith of Lennar Partners noted the following: • Lennar Partners is a publicly traded real estate company. • Assets of over 500 million dollars. • This project is the first opportunity for office development in Orange County for Lennar Partners. • Orange County is highly desirable for office type tenants. Mr. Paul of HROK Architectures referencing the exhibits on the wall noted the following: • Proposal is for a five -story office building. • There is an existing parking structure on site and that will be upgraded to enhance the circulation from the building. • There is enough room on this site to create two pedestrian areas. • Frontage has two points of access, one off Dove and one off Quail. • Serviceswill be in the back in an enclosure. • Burms are proposed along Quail to help buffer the traffic noise in the pedestrian plazas. Mr. Jan Holtze, owner of Holtze Corporation and Holtze Executive Village Hotel IVA INDEX • • • ®R City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 INDEX Concept noted the following: • Not the standard hotel. • Rooms that are offered are much larger and are offered as a two bedroom, two bathroom suite that is fully furnished. • Rentals are from one night to a year. • Suites are also leased as two separate rooms. • The two bedroom suites are called as two keys or two beds or two rooms. • This proposed project is a 304 key hotel, which is approximately 152 two - bedroom suites. • There is a mix of three bedroom suites, which allows for flexibility. • The corporation has three properties in Denver with a total of 700 rooms that have historically operated at or above 90% occupancy. Mr. John Van Tillberg, architect, referencing exhibits, noted the following for the hotel: • Center clubhouse, seating area and receiving rooms. • The clubhouse is two stories high located behind the motor court and sits back from the street with an arched entrance and a meeting room on the top. • Design is Mediterranean style with tiled roof. • The site plan shows a motor court entrance off Quail with the clubhouse in . the front. Parking for the hotel will be 281 cars that will be under the building. • Discussed the landscaping plans. • Food service is limited to continental breakfasts in the morning. • Elevation of the building is divided into three parts. • This is a four story building with an open circulation and central corridor area which opens to court yards with a single group of rooms. • There is a series of penthouseswith rooms that provide flexibilityfor their uses. • One or two presidential suites in the hotel. At Commission inquiry, it was clarified that there are windows on all four sides of the existing office building. Referencing the exhibits, the views from the existing office building were explained. Discussion continued on: • Number of keys (304) depending on the nightly demand. • Number of cars to be parked for the office building. (375 parking spaces in current parking structure, which will stay, plus 105 surface parking spaces). • The hotel requires one space for every two beds, and is parked nearly one to one. (281 spaces provided) • No restauranton site. • Service building in rear will house laundry and maintenance facilities. • Average setback is 35 feet on the front and side. . Number of employeeswill be around 60 at peak times. 18 01 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 • Typically, the housekeeping staff will be provided van service or take mass transit to the site. • Van service will be available for transportation purposes of guests. • The floor area is 195,000 square feet; the land area is 160,000 square feet, which represents 1.2 Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Frank Battaile, 92 Augustino, Irvine attorney representing Quail Business Center which is the building in the middle of the proposed project. He asked if public comment would be closed tonight and was answered no. He stated that people received notice that the meeting was going to be tonight rather than previously noticed for December 14th. Continuing, he noted the following concerns of the proposed project: • Description of the project ignores the existence of the two -story Quail Business Center. • No shadow analysis has been done. • The existing surrounding buildings are all one or two story buildings; therefore, this project is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. • The traffic study was done and the credit given to Holtze based on a car dealership that ceased over a year ago. CEQA requires that existing conditions have are to be addressed. • Two vacant lots exist now. • The total traffic count was reduced by almost 50% because of pre- existing uses. • The intersection at Campus and Bristol that the level of service to the level that mitigation will be required. • Orange County Transit Authority plans a ramp connection between 73 and 55 which has been accepted as a mitigation measure. • The ramp may or may not become a reality. • There is no reason to conclude or assume there will be traffic interaction between the proposed business office and the proposed hotel. • There are significant changes to the General Plan and the land use. • An EIR is required if so many changes are going to be made to the zoning. • Planned Community Development Standards changes are site specific and will only affect these two pieces of property and therefore are not omendmentsto the Zoning Ordinance, they constitute variances. • The applicant wants a variance for height and setback; however, there is nothingwrong with these lots. • If the mitigation measures attached to the staff report are not the same mitigation measures that were in the circulated mitigated negative declaration, they have been changed and that is not allowed under CEQA. Any change would require a re- circulation of the negative declaration. • Mitigation measures call for future studies on water and sewage usage. 19 INDEX • • am . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 the followingwith the speaker: understandingof the building he is talking about is a condominium building with a diverse ownership - six owners individuals or entity represented by Mr. Battaile - Quail Business Center which is an association of the owners surrounding neighborhood has a multi -story building at the corner of Quail and Westerly Place - representation of the surrounding area is not specific Commissioner Ashley noted his concern of a potential "domino" theory that the proposed project could create. The Quail Business Center could intensify its use, which in turn could potentially cause a more intense traffic use in the area. Mr. Victor Mahoney, 1105 Quail Street clarified that Mr. Battaile represents the Quail Business Owners Association that is comprised of six individual condo units That were built in 1983. Mr. Battaile also represents the Crown building at 1451 Quail Street that was built in 1973. Continuing, he noted the following: • Public notice was received on December 7th. • Traffic- entrance of garage parking structure will be problematic. • Value of property will go down. • The side of the proposed five -story hotel is 10 feet from the property line. • Views from the front of the building are into the parking lot and landscaped areas. The back of the building is set back to the wall with a short setback. • He knew there would be changes in the future to the adjacent buildings. Staff noted that the height limit without any amendment to the PC for the hotel site is 35 feet, but the Commission may increase that height based on conventional findings to exceed the basic height limits. There is no secondary height limit specified within the PC, and it could be 375 feet. There are height limits related to the immediate airport area. The area specified within the middle of the PC has a height limit of 8 to 10 stories. Commissioner Gifford ascertained from the speaker that Mr. Holtze made presentations to the Board of the hotel project. At that time, the concerns of traffic and shadowing were discussed. Ms. Temple stated that the noticing procedure for 1301 and 1001 Quail was: • October 29th - the mandatory public notice of a mitigated negative declaration was circulated, which was posted in the Daily Pilot, posted in the County Clerk's office and notifications were mailed to properties within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. Notice was also mailed to 22 additional interested /affected parties. • In checking the mailing lists, all six of the condominium owners were mailed a notice. • Public Notice of hearing was mailed to all property owners within a 300 -foot 20 INDEX '�, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 radius of the subject properties on November 251h. Posting was done at two places on each property and there is an affidavit of posing on file. Public Hearing Notice /Planning Commission hearing agenda was published in the Daily Pilot Newspaper. December a second clarifying notice was sent which indicated that this was the Planning Commission hearing on the date of December l Oth. Chairperson Selich asked Mr. Mahoney when he originally talked to Mr. Holtze and Lennar Partners about this project and was told about 45 days ago. They had become aware of the project when the demolition procedures had started. Cheryl Nichols, 1107 Quail (new owner) a CPA in the front lower suite of Quail Business Center, noted the following: • Never received a notice. • Specific measures were to.be followed regarding dust control while the project is under construction - had to file a complaint, as they did not comply. • Concerned with safety at night with the transient population going in and out of the hotel. • Lighting • We do not charge for parking, which may be impacted if the future additional parking is charged. Kimberly Wallison, 1000 Bristol Street North - owner of the retail shopping center located on Bristol. The shopping center has been there for 20 years. She supports this project, as it will have a positive impact. Both the project owners have been to their office and have shared their plans. Continuing, she stated that they have been properly notified of the meetings and notified of the project schedule. It will increase the value on the shopping center and compliment its services. Coralee Newman stated the following: • Agree to the continuance to January 7, 1999. • Presented a photo survey taken that day and disagreed about the characterizations of the area made. (she pointed out the various high rise buildings that are in the general vicinity and demonstrated the existing conditions) • Presented a copy of a letter dated September 23, 1998 from Lennar Partners to Mr. Jim Janulius at the Quail Business Center explaining the upcoming project. Both Mr. Lennar and Mr. Holtze have made every attempt to talk to the neighbors about this project in a timely manner. Commission asked that the following issues be included for deliberation at the next Planning Commission meeting: 1. Parking for day and night use -to be provided by the applicant. +il INDEX 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1998 2. Shadow analysis- to be provided by staff. 3. Plot Quail Business Center office building - to be provided by the applicant. Public Comment was left open. Ms. Temple stated that in regards to Ms. Nichols notification, the official list received as part of the completed application was dated April 1998. Based on a review of the assessor's records, it does indicate that the Nichols acquired the propertyin June of 1998, which was subsequentto the submittal of the list. Staff will add this new propertyowner to our list for future notifications. Mr. Edmonston clarified the following: • 20% credit is applied within the traffic phasing analysis that includes existing traffic to projects that have been approved in the city that are not yet fully occupied. There is no further reduction in terms of the new traffic from the project. • The net impact of the hotel is less than the 304 keys because of the typical mix they have found at their other projects in Colorado. • The connector at the 73/55 interchange, it is a fully funded project, it is nearly completed in design, the right -of -way acquisition is underway, the City is a financial contributorto the project and has been a budgeted item for a number of years. It is expected to take traffic off of Bristol Street couplet and put them right on the highway. A 15% shift would be needed which will bring it to Level Service D. The City of Costa Mesa is taking the lead on this project and construction is expected in two years. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to January 7, 1999. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None + >s SUBJECT: Street names for the Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes Area (Final Tract No. 15584) Adopt Resolution approving the new street names "Campanile ", "Loggia ", "Residencia ", "Rivoli" and "Viloggio" for the Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes Area. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt Resolution No. 1487 approving the street names for Bonita Canyon Apartment Homes. 22 INDEX Item No. 5 FTM No. 15584 Approved q/ IBaffaule & Hargrave, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law RECEIVED BY 110 Newport Center Drive. Suite 200 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Newport Bexdi, California 92660 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM iivq 0 4 i999 PM 718191101111121112131 1516 December 31, 1998 The Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re.: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: 0 (714) 719.1120 Fax (714) 719 -1326 I am writing on behalf of Quail Business Center ( "QBC') to supplement QBC's objections to the referenced project ( "Project') and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. I ask that each of you review my letter dated December 8, 1998 addressed to Mr. Marc Myers and my letter dated December 10, 1998 to you. Attached are a report prepared by P &D Environmental which corroborates the conclusions set forth in the reports from Pirzadeh & Associates and from Gin Wong Associates which we previously submitted. QBC wants the Planning Commissioners to understand that QBC is not attempting to prevent development of adjacent properties. The members of QBC are experienced business people and property owners themselves. They believe strongly in property rights. The point of their opposition to the Project is that the applicant is asking for dramatic special privileges which other neighboring property owners, including QBC, can not exercise. QBC lives within limitations on the use of their property and they reasonably expect neighboring owners to live within the same limitations. All that QBC asks is that the Project applicant be required to play by the same set of rules imposed on QBC. The Project should be modified to comply with existing land use restrictions. QBC is particularly offended by the misleading characterization of the surrounding environment. QBC has already submitted photographs to show that the surrounding buildings are all one and two story buildings, despite the applicant's and staffs characterization of the environment as consisting of mid and high rise buildings. Also, the fact that the applicant must obtain numerous amendments to the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Standards demonstrates that the Project is out of step with the surroundings. QBC emphasizes V . Page 2 of 2 again that the proposed four story and five story buildings are completely out of character with the surroundings. In order to make this point clear, QBC is submitting additional photographs taken from QBC's building on Quail Street. The photographs show the view from QBC looking out in all directions. While taller buildings are visible in the distance, none of them are in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. There is not a single building in the immediate vicinity that is more than two stories tall. At the hearing QBC will also present an oversize aerial photograph showing distances from QBC to the nearest buildings taller than two stories. (The distances were measured by a professional engineer.) The closest such building is a three story building on Dove Street. It is 950 feet, almost 0.2 miles, from QBC. The next closest "tall" buildings are a seven story building and an eight story building at the corner of Quail and Westerly. They are 1220 feet and 1080 feet respectively from QBC. The applicant proposes to place their hotel buildings within TEN FEET of QBC. Ten feet is 1% of the distance to the three story building on Dove Street. That is, the four story hotel will be ONE HUNDRED TIMES CLOSER than the next closest building that is more than two stories tall. Photograph 11 is particularly instructive. It shows the existing parking structure on the proposed office building site. The parking structure is three stories tall. QBC asks the Planning Commissioners to look at Photograph 11 and imagine hotel buildings four stories tall within ten feet of the viewer. The aerial photograph also demonstrates that all of the buildings taller than two stories are surrounded by parking lots and/or landscaping. While some sites include more than one tall building on a single lot, not one of them is within ten feet of another property owner's building. The Project is completely out of character with the surrounding environment. It requires a grant of numerous special privileges to the applicant with no justification whatsoever for doing so. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is flawed and the Project can not go forward without preparation of an EIR. QBC urges the Planning Commission to reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to recommend disapproval of the Project. Very • cc: Mr. Victor Mahoney, Quail Business Center FA December 10, 1998 Mr. Frank Battaile Battaile & Hargrave, L.L.P 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project Dear Mr. Battaile: We have reviewed the Mitigated negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project and have the following comments: Land Use The IS checklist (LA-) indicates a less than significant impact related to General Plan • designation or zoning. However, the project requires an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards to allow for the proposed land uses. This seems somewhat misleading as the General Plan amendment and Development Standards amendment should serve as mitigation for the project which is apparently inconsistent with the existing General Plan and zoning. The City has chosen to include the General Plan amendment and Development Standards amendment as project actions however it has not adequately addressed the individual policy impacts as well as the cumulative impact of these land use policy changes on the land use character of the area. The MND does not indicate what the allowable FAR is for the affected property under the current zoning. In no way can the reader determine the magnitude of the change in current allowable versus proposed density. It is clear that there will be a more than fivefold increase in developed floor area for the combined projects. This is substantial. A blanket conclusory statement is made on Page 3 -1 of the MND that "Existing business office and retail/service commercial land uses surrounding the project parcels are unlikely to be affected by the noise, air quality, and aesthetic impacts that serve as indicators of land use compatibility." This statement is not supported by fact. The noise generated by excavation, grading and construction could create significant short term noise impacts, NO. emissions during construction will be nearly double AQMD threshholds as described on Page 3 -17 of the MND, and shadows from the hotel project will affect adjacent uses during the winter months. • 9� VIP` P&D Environmental A Division of PA Consu(tantt 999 TOWN 8 COUNTRY ROAD. 4TH FLO* ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92868 714/835.4447 714/953.6989 FAX w .pdconsuIlanls.com December 10, 1998 Mr. Frank Battaile Battaile & Hargrave, L.L.P 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project Dear Mr. Battaile: We have reviewed the Mitigated negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project and have the following comments: Land Use The IS checklist (LA-) indicates a less than significant impact related to General Plan • designation or zoning. However, the project requires an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards to allow for the proposed land uses. This seems somewhat misleading as the General Plan amendment and Development Standards amendment should serve as mitigation for the project which is apparently inconsistent with the existing General Plan and zoning. The City has chosen to include the General Plan amendment and Development Standards amendment as project actions however it has not adequately addressed the individual policy impacts as well as the cumulative impact of these land use policy changes on the land use character of the area. The MND does not indicate what the allowable FAR is for the affected property under the current zoning. In no way can the reader determine the magnitude of the change in current allowable versus proposed density. It is clear that there will be a more than fivefold increase in developed floor area for the combined projects. This is substantial. A blanket conclusory statement is made on Page 3 -1 of the MND that "Existing business office and retail/service commercial land uses surrounding the project parcels are unlikely to be affected by the noise, air quality, and aesthetic impacts that serve as indicators of land use compatibility." This statement is not supported by fact. The noise generated by excavation, grading and construction could create significant short term noise impacts, NO. emissions during construction will be nearly double AQMD threshholds as described on Page 3 -17 of the MND, and shadows from the hotel project will affect adjacent uses during the winter months. • 9� Mr. Frank Battaile Page 2 • The City's noise ordinance limits hours of construction to daytime hours, precisely those hours when workers are present in adjacent offices. It is doubtful the NOx tune ups can reduce emissions by 50 percent; no documentation as to that level of effectiveness is provided. The shadow issue is not readily apparent because both of the site plans for the project (NE*;D Exhibits 4 and 5) have incorrect North arrows, implying that their shadows are cast on adjacent streets. Air Quality Since it appears that the project will substantially increase site development density and may also substantially increase allowable densities under current General Plan and zoning designations, it is likely that it is also inconsistent with the AQMP. The AQMP uses existing development and General Plan data to calculate overall regional emissions, and when a project substantially increases allowable densities, inconsistencies with the AQMP can arise. This issue is not addressed in the MND at all. All we know is that the project will increase the developed densities on the two sites by more than fivefold and that average daily vehicle trips will increase by a factor of 2.25. This would result in a cumulative increase in regional emissions, emissions that will incrementally contribute to the continued violation of air quality standards. Given that the proposed hotel structures are taller than the QBC building, and other buildings in the immediate vicinity, the HIND should also discuss potential effects associated with the alteration of air movement. The MND states that "no component of the project will result in the • significant movement of air" but what should be addressed are those components of the project which could result in alteration of existing air movement. From the conclusory statements made, it is impossible to determine if the height of the new structures will increase wind speeds adjacent to existing structures. Transportation and Circulation The IS checklist (F.I.) indicates a less than significant impact related to increased vehicle trips and traffic congestion. The text of the MND states: "One of the intersections analyzed would operate at LOSE under existing, projected, and/or with project conditions. The intersection of Bristol North/Campus would operate at LOS E in the evening peak hour due to the project - related ICU increase of 0.02. Thus, the [Transportation Phasing Ordinance] guidelines require that improvements be developed for this intersection The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is currently planning the provision of a direct ramp from the westbound SR- 73 to southbound SR -55. This ramp, when constructed, will mitigate impacts at the intersection of Bristol North/Campus, as well as improve the ICU conditions at Bristol North/Birch. Westbound SR -73 traffic destined to southbound SR -55 currently must exit from SR -73, or not use SR -73 at all and use Bristol Street North. If 15% of the existing westbound Bristol Street North trafc were to use SR -73, the evening peak hour ICU value would be 0.89 at Bristol North/Campus and the requirements of the TPO would be satisfied Potential project - related impacts would be reduced to a less than sign (cant level with implementation of the planned OCTA improvements. No addition mitigation measures would be necessary. " 95 Mr. Frank Battaile There are several problems with this argument: Page 3 1. This impact has been incorrectly classified by the City as "less than significant ". Clearly, the existing traffic conditions at this intersection are operating at an unsatisfactory level of service and the proposed project is anticipated to add 191 morning peak hour trips and 233 evening peak hour trips to the surrounding intersections. This impact should be characterized as a "potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated" or a "potentially significant impact" 2. The CEQA guidelines (Section 21064.5. Mitigated Negative Declaration) state that a " "Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially sign (cant effects on the environment, but (I) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole public record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. " (Emphasis added.] u It is clear that the proposed project is relying on the implementation of an entirely separate project to mitigate a potentially significant impact to the LOS at the Bristol North/Campus intersection. There are no project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant • that would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. Therefore, the proposed project does not actually include mitigation for the significant adverse effect to which it contributes. It relies entirely on a separate and unrelated project, the status of which is not clear, for this mitigation. No indication of the timing between the OCTA improvements and the proposed project is provided, nor is any indication that the ramp project has been funded or scheduled by OCTA. The MND also relies on a General Plan level of analysis but it does not state whether or not the OCTA ramp improvement has been considered in the City's Transportation Element of the General Plan. If the ramp has been included and the intersection continues to operate at an unacceptable level of service, then the argument cannot be made that the OCTA improvement will mitigate impacts to this intersection. Therefore, it is not possible to say if or when the impacts of the proposed project, which is anticipated to be constructed in late 1988 or early 1999, will be mitigated with the information that has been provided. The anticipated trip generation of the proposed project appears to be a significant adverse impact that may be reduced by the development of a future OCTA project. This impact may therefore not be sufficiently evaluated by a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. The IS checklist (F.4.) indicates a less than significant impact related to parking capacity, however, the MND states that the number of parking stalls for the office building will not meet the City's parking requirements (by one parking space). A mitigation measure is provided in the MND to require a the applicant to obtain a parking requirement modification prior to the issuance of building permits. This impact should therefore be classified as "potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated." 9� Mr. Frank Battaile • Aesthetics Page 4 The MND completely ignores the potential for shadow effects when five story structures are erected immediately adjacent to existing two story buildings. Based on the description provided to us, the two story QBC property is situated between the two parcels being developed under the Holtze Project. Figures in the MND indicate that the hotel complex would be located northwest of the adjacent QBC site and the office building would be located southeast of the QBC site. It appears that the eastern corner of the hotel site would be the most likely portion of the project site that could project the greatest shadows across the QBC property. It would be a partial shading effect from the west due to the proximity of the hotel project and would be limited to the winter months. However, such shadows may result in complete shading of facing windows of adjacent existing structures during winter afternoons, increasing winter their heating costs. This has not been evaluated in the MND General Opinion Certain impacts in the MND appear to be inaccurately represented as "Less Than Significant' as discussed above. The MND is in some cases self contradicting in that it provides specific mitigation measures for impacts that are characterized as less that significant but are later described as exceeding thresholds of significance without mitigation. Such impacts should be described as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ". The OCTA SR -73 to SR -55 ramp project should be investigated more fully to be sure that it is a real project (i.e., funded and scheduled) and that it occurs within a reasonable similar time -frame as the proposed project. We thank you for contacting us to assist you with this matter and hope that we can be of service to you in the future. Sincerely, P &D Consultants y v Salenius, Vice President 71 I y. IT l •f i /'�' Y Ni f�� � .1 I i)g f EeR _r ' i � �� 1 � I � W , f jMl' �a•. m• rr4 t. J- aims h <f[ 13. 4 _ Jwi ^ fa firrsv rf a t r Soo I ON • -ri 1 r '� t y• 1 � t � r 'fit A:a: :i: :• ��.� r.rr•. FA : - �yi�i - Ii ps, rl : ,1 � i. .c : _ . _ .: . _. :_' =_gym - :� �_ . �� rl : ,1 � i. .c : _ . • Response to Comments Attachment to Quail Business Center Letter Dated December 31, 1998 From P &D Environmental 1. Land Use The proposed actions associated with the project are not mitigation. Mitigation measures are required to lessen identified significant impacts, not to correct any land use inconsistencies. See also Response No. 1 in the prior response to comments of letters dated December 8 and 10, 1998, for a discussion of the land use impacts associated with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards. 2. Floor- Area -Ratio (FAR) The existing FAR of the development on the parcels associated with the proposed project is 0.25 for the hotel site, and 0.04 for the office building site. The project is proposing development that results in a FAR of 1.25 for the hotel site, and 0. 14 for the office site. The increase in FAR is not in and of itself a significant environmental impact. The permitted amount of development for specific blocks within the Newport Place Planned Community is based on entitlement rather than FAR. Additionally, the proposed development for each respective site is below • the planned community development regulations maximum site coverage limitation of 50 %. The hotel site has a proposed site coverage of 35% and the office building has a proposed site coverage of 3 %, each of which falls within the maximum site coverage limitation as indicated by the planned community regulations. As presented in the MND, the increase in FAR would not result in any significant unmitigated environmental effects. 3. Noise As described in the MND, construction noise associated with development of the project will occur in future construction phases involving earth - moving and excavation activities and finished construction. Heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB (A) at 50 feet from the source that the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operators vary load cycles over any extended period of time. Noisiest equipment is typically employed during the grading phase; later phases of finish construction are less noisy. Construction activities are anticipated to involve a period of 16 months. This length of construction time is not uncommon for any development which might occur on the project properties, or any other undeveloped properties within Newport Place. Land uses surrounding the project properties are exclusively office and retail commercial, and are not considered sensitive noise receptors that require mitigation for temporary noise effects. In general, office building and retail establishments are insulated against noise intrusion and do not rely on open 162 windows for ventilation. Temporary noise effects on existing surrounding development would be perceived as a nuisance and would not be significantly adverse. The City has in place regulations that result in limiting construction noise. Although it is correct that the limitation coincides with the typical work -day of an office employee, construction activities would not represent a chronic, permanent noise source and no additional mitigation is required. 4. Air Quality /Air Movement An air quality analysis was prepared for the project by Giroux & Associates. As concluded by that analysis and presented in the MND, emissions from all five pollutant categories evaluated in the air quality analysis are below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The SCAQMD suggests that any increase in project - related emissions not exceeding threshold levels be designated as having an individually and cumulatively less than significant regional air quality impact. To determine whether future traffic changes will create an adverse air quality impact, a microscale air quality screening analysis based on the CALINE4 dispersion model was performed for the traffic analysis grid around the project area. The air quality analysis estimated pollutant exposure adjacent to 14 arterial intersections analyzed in the traffic study. Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator of any "hot spot" potential because CO, unlike regional pollutants such as ozone, is directly related to source activity immediately adjacent to the receptor. Existing peak one -hour CO levels near Newport Beach are 7 parts per million (ppm). It requires a local contribution exceeding 13 ppm to cause the one -hour standard to be exceeded if the maximum local impact and the maximum background concentration were to coincide. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook ( SCAQMD, 1994), Appendix 9, indicates that the per vehicle CO emission factor will decrease by 60 percent between 1997 and 2009, representing annual average reductions of almost five percent. However, traffic growth is projected to increase by only one to two percent per year in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, continued vehicular emissions improvements are forecast to exceed the pace of overall traffic growth. Future hourly background CO levels will likely drop below 7 ppm. Cumulative future CO levels will be well within standards. The project increment will be an immeasurably small amount. Therefore, microscale air quality impacts are considered less than significant. For a discussion of air movement and cumulative impacts please see Response No. 5 and Response No. 10 in the previous response to comments. lay 0 • 0 5. 6. 7 Transportation and Circulation/Parking/ OCTA SR- 73/SR -55 Ramp Project Issues relative to transportation, circulation and parking are addressed by Response No. 7, above. As stated under Response No. 7, 15 percent of the existing traffic on the westbound through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus Drive was allocated to the direct connector. The reduction in this through movement by 386 vehicles per hour (from 2,586 to 2,200 vehicles per hour) during the afternoon peak period, would improve the performance of the intersection to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The reduction of 386 vehicles, or about 15 percent, is commensurate with the City's expectation of changes in travel patterns. The connector between northbound SR -73 and southbound SR -55 is a fully funded OCTA project. OCTA has developed the following general project schedule for the OCTA SR- 73/SR -55 ramp project: Activity Date Begin Work July 1997 Caltrans Geometric and Value Engineering Approval January 1998 Draft PS &E (100%) to District August 1998 Final PS &E to Caltrans Headquarters October 1998 Construction Advertising March 1999 Construction Award May 1999 Completion of Construction May 2000 In accordance with the schedule prepared on December 2, 1998, construction advertising is scheduled for March 1999, construction award in May 1999, and project completion in May 2000. Shadows/Shading & Aesthetics Issues relative to shadows and shading are addressed by Response No. 5 in the prior response to comments. Law Enforcement/Public Safety As indicated in Item K.2 of the Initial Study/MND, the Newport Beach Police Department was consulted during the preparation of the MND. According to the Department, in 1997, the most recent period for which the Department has accurate records, the reporting district for the proposed project shows 1 arson, 16 assaults, 12 burglaries, 27 thefts, and 1 robbery. Past experience in this reporting district with a similar project has not shown any significant impact on crime problems in the area. None would be anticipated with this project, unless there are plans to add a large -scale on -sale alcohol sales operation to the project. To date, no such request has been made by or on behalf of the applicant for a large - scale on -sale alcohol sales operation. /65 The Department indicated that normal crime problems that would be associated with this type of development would center on property crimes such as thefts and burglaries from guestrooms and conference rooms. Standard security measures such as those that already exist in the hotel industry would be adequate to deal with these types of crimes. One other area of concern will be guest security in the parking areas. The Police Department recommends that special attention be paid to landscaping and lighting features in the parking areas and around the exterior of the grounds as these features can enhance guest security for the property. As such, the project lighting, landscape, and site plans will be reviewed by the Police Department prior to project development, in accordance with mitigation measure K2 of the Initial Study/MND. • /C) Nichols & Associates LLP • CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT Tuesday, January 05, 1999 To: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Via Messenger RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project Meeting to be held January 7'h at 7 p.m. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JAN 0 C 1999 PM 7181911011111211121314 1516 I. I wish to voice my concern and implore you to decline the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project. I own and occupy an office condominium located at the Quail Business Center that is situated in the middle and contiguous to the two proposed projects. As a neighbor, I welcome the erection of buildings on the adjacent proposed sites. My concern is that I believe there are several unresolved issues for the proposed project that cannot be explained or have not been adequately addressed by the negative declaration. Further, I believe that the concerns are serious enough that they could only be resolved by the completion of a comprehensive environmental study. As such, I respectfully request that you deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I also ask that you proceed with considering the approval of the project when and only if you are presented with an adequate environmental study for the project site that satisfy all conditions as required by CEQA My concerns and the reasons I believe you should deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration are as follows: ➢ There needs to be further study of the parking per occupant. I personally do not believe the parking proposed by Holtze is adequate to handle full occupancy and that overflow visitors may utilize our reserved parking. Holtze stated at your meeting of December 1998 that they are relying on a certain number of their guests to be arriving by public transportation or caravans. However, they have not demonstrated how they have arrived at this conclusion. ➢ Because of the existing zoning in the neighborhood, there has not been adequate consideration given to public safety, both personal and property, to the adjacent • neighbors brought about by the transient nature of the guests and all night workers of the extended stay hotel. 1107 Quail Street • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 757 -7007 • Fax (949) 757 -7010 /67 0 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Tuesday, January 05, 1999 Page 2 ➢ Traffic flow and traffic patterns appear to have been inadequately considered and need to be further addressed. I believe that access to my property during peak traffic hours will be significantly impacted. Holtze has not, in my opinion, adequately demonstrated by substantive traffic study to the contrary. ➢ I further believe that the Holtze property will overshadow our existing property. I believe this overshadow will negatively impact my employees and will negatively effect the value of my property. At your last meeting I expressed concern that Holtze has demonstrated, wittingly or unwittingly, that they will ignore local ordinances. Last October I called the City of Newport Beach planning department to advise that the property at issue was being razed without the dirt being watered. The resulting plume caused health hazards to my employees. Even when confronted by the city, the construction crew continued to • remove debris without adequately watering the dirt. Although Holtze may not have been directly responsible, surely they must be responsible for the acts of their sub- contractors. Given these concerns, I believe there is only one appropriate course of action and that is to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to request a comprehensive environmental study be performed. I respectfully request that you follow this course of action. Sincerely, Cheryl P. Nichols, CPA Nichols & Associates, LLP 0 IV Response to Comments Nichols & Associates LLP Letter Dated January 5, 1999 The following responses address the comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project, as presented in the Nichols & Associates LLP letter dated January 5, 1999. The responses address each bulleted comment presented in that letter. 1. Hotel Parking The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that all necessary parking for the hotel will be accommodated on -site. Of the 281 total parking stalls provided, 49 will be located on the "rear" lot (i.e., near North Bristol Street), 4 will be located at the Quail Street entrance, and 222 stalls will be provided in a below -grade parking structure. Two ramps will lead down to the garage level -- one will be located off of Quail Street and the other will be located in the southeast comer of the garage near the services building parking lot. The existing Newport Place PC Development Standards do not set forth specific parking requirements for the proposed hotel use. Therefore, standard City policy is to refer to Chapter 20 of the City's Municipal Code, which states that hotel uses shall be parked at a rate of one parking space per two rooms. At that parking requirement, the hotel must provide approximately 150 parking spaces. The provision of 281 parking spaces, as • proposed, would exceed the Municipal Code parking requirement. Further, the project will be subject to a condition of approval that will ensure that those parking spaces exceeding the code requirement will be provided. Full occupancy of the proposed hotel is unlikely and, based on public testimony given by the project applicant at the December 10, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, has never occurred at any of the Holtze hotels. In the unlikely event of full occupancy, the provision of on -site valet parking services would adequately compensate for any parking deficiencies by allowing stacking of cars, thereby maximizing parking area. The project applicant's statement that some hotel guests would arrive by public transportation or caravan is based on their operating experience at other Holtze executive hotels. However, regardless of the frequency of use of alternative transportation, project parking requirements will be met as currently proposed. Since no significant environmental effects will result from parking issues, no additional discussion is required under CEQA. 2. Law Enforcement/Public Safety As indicated in Item K.2 of the Initial Study/MND, the Newport Beach Police Department was consulted during the preparation of the MND. According to the Department, in 1997, the most recent period for which the Department has accurate . records, the reporting district for the proposed project shows 1 arson, 16 assaults, 12 burglaries, 27 thefts, and 1 robbery. Past experience in this reporting district with a similar project has not shown any significant impact on crime problems in the area. None 167 would be anticipated with this project, unless there are plans to add a large- scale, on -site alcohol sales operation to the project. To date, no request has been made by or on behalf of the applicant for such an operation. The Department indicated that normal crime problems that would be associated with this type of development would center on property crimes such as thefts and burglaries from guestrooms and conference rooms. Standard security measures such as those that already exist in the .hotel industry would be adequate to deal with these types of crimes. One other area of concern will be guest security in the parking areas. The Police Department recommends that special attention be paid to landscaping and lighting features in the parking areas and around the exterior of the grounds as these features can enhance guest security for the property. As such, the project lighting, landscape, and site plans will be reviewed by the Police Department prior to project development, in accordance with mitigation measure K2 of the Initial Study/MND. 3. Traffic Distribution/Access The net difference in trips between the former dealerships and the proposed uses was distributed to the roadway system using trip distribution percentages assigned by a traffic/land use distribution model. Trips were distributed individually for the hotel and office uses. The traffic impact study contains the model assumptions used to distribute traffic to area roadways, as well as the trip distribution diagrams. Table 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the proposed • hotel project will generate a net increase of 61 and 73 trips per day during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The hotel will be accessed from two points at Quail Street and Bristol North. Similarly, the proposed office building will be accessed from Quail Street and Dove Street. Split among two access points per site, the increase in incoming and outgoing vehicle trips in the moming and evening peak hours is entirely within the capacity of proposed roadways and access drive to accommodate. No queuing of vehicles on public roadways will result and access to adjacent office sites will not be hindered by project traffic. 4. Shade/Shadows and Solar Access Shadow impacts were analyzed subsequent to the December 10, 1998 Planing Commission hearing. A series of shadow simulations were prepared which illustrate that the orientation of the proposed hotel and office buildings would preclude significant interruption of sunlight on surrounding properties. The analysis methodology and specific impacts of the proposed hotel and office buildings are detailed in Response No. 5 of the responses to comments to the Quail Business Center letters dated December 8 and 10, 1998. As indicated in that response, a by -right (i.e., currently entitled) building would have impacts the same as or worse than the proposed Holtze Hotel at all times of the year. Other mitigating factors, as discussed in that response, support the conclusion that the proposed project will not result in significant environmental effects, as defined by CEQA, and the issue requires no further analysis. 0 2 )/6 Jan -OS -99 04:19P CJ Light Associates 949 SS1 1116 P_01 NEWPORT PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY • 1401 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 120 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 851 -8345 JANUARY 5, 1999 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENDED STAY HOTEL PROJECT MEETING JANUARY 7Ti-I AT 7 P.m. \EVE OWN THE PROPERTY WEST OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF SPRUCE AND QUAIL THERE ARE 5C IE LINRESOLVED ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT CANNOT M ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY A NEGr \TI VE DECLARATION. THE CONCERNS WILL ONLY BE RESOLVED BY THE COMPLETION OF AN EIR. SPECIFICALLY: 1) THERE NEEDS TO BE FURTHER STLID \' OF TIIC PARKING. THE PARKING PROPOSED IS NOT ADEQUATE TO HANDLE FULL OCCUPANCY, AND OVERFLOW VISITORS WILL USE OUR RESERVED PARKING. 2) TRAFFIC FLOW AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, NAIE RESPECTFULLN, REQLICST THAT VOLI REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE. EIR RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT, YOURS VERY TRULY, JACK R. LIGHT PARTNER • IKL: roe Response to Comments Newport Place Investment Company Letter Dated January 5, 1999 The following responses address the comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project, as presented in the Newport Place Investment Company letter dated January 5, 1999. The responses address each numbered comment presented in that letter. 1. Hotel Parking The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that all necessary parking for the hotel will be accommodated on -site. Of the 281 total parking stalls provided, 49 will be located on the "rear" lot (i.e., near North Bristol Street), 4 will be located at the Quail Street entrance, and 222 stalls will be provided in a below -grade parking structure. Two ramps will lead down to the garage level -- one will be located off of Quail Street and the other will be located in the southeast comer of the garage near the services building parking lot. The existing Newport Place PC Development Standards do not set forth specific parking requirements for the proposed hotel use. Therefore, standard City policy is to refer to Chapter 20 of the City's Municipal Code, which states that hotel uses shall be parked at a rate of one parking space per two rooms. At that parking requirement, the hotel must provide approximately 150 parking spaces. The provision of 281 parking spaces, as proposed, would exceed the Municipal Code parking requirement. Further, the project . will be subject to a condition of approval that will ensure that those parking spaces exceeding the code requirement will be provided. Full occupancy of the proposed hotel is unlikely and, based on public testimony given by the project applicant at the December 10, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, has never occurred at any of the Holtze hotels. In the unlikely event of full occupancy, the provision of on -site valet parking services would adequately compensate for any parking deficiencies by allowing stacking of cars, thereby maximizing parking area. The project applicant's statement that some hotel guests would arrive by public transportation or caravan is based on their operating experience at other Holtze executive hotels. However, regardless of the frequency of use of alternative transportation, project parking requirements will be met as currently proposed. Since no significant environmental effects will result from parking issues, no additional discussion is required under CEQA. 2. Traffic Distribution/Access The net difference in trips between the former dealerships and the proposed uses was distributed to the roadway system using trip distribution percentages assigned by a traffic/land use distribution model. Trips were distributed individually for the hotel and office uses. The traffic impact study contains the model assumptions used to distribute • traffic to area roadways, as well as the trip distribution diagrams. lea • • Table 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the proposed hotel project will generate a net increase of 61 and 73 trips per day during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The hotel will be accessed from two points at Quail Street and Bristol North. Similarly, the proposed office building will be accessed from Quail Street and Dove Street. Split among two access points per site, the increase in incoming and outgoing vehicle trips in the morning and evening peak hours is entirely within the capacity of proposed roadways and access drives to accommodate. No queuing of vehicles on public roadways will result and access to adjacent office sites will not be hindered by project traffic. Since no specific comments regarding traffic flow and traffic patterns were presented, the commentor is directed to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Holtze Hotel and Office Development, prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. in August of 1998. That analysis is and has been available for public review since the initial Study/Negative Declaration was distributed for public review in October 1998. 2 P R 0 P E January 7, 1999 BR T I To: Planning Commission E City of Newport Beach S RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OP Nr:WPORT REACH ANI JAN 0 7 1999 PM 7181911011!Ilk I 121311516 i. Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project Meeting to be held January 7"i at 7 p.m. As a property owner of an office building located at 1451 Quail, I wish to express my concern and implore you to reevaluate your decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Holtze Extended Stay HoteVOffice Project. As a neighbor, I welcome new development of these adjacent vacant sites. My concern is that I believe there are several unresolved issues for the proposed project that cannot be explained or have been adequately addressed through a negative declaration. Further, I believe that the concerns are serious enough that they could only be resolved by the completion of a comprehensive environmental study. As such, I respectfully request that you deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I also ask that you proceed with considering the approval of the project when and only if you are presented with an adequate environmental study for the project site that satisfy all conditions as required by CEQA. My concern and the reasons I believe you should deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration is as follows: There needs to be further study of the parking per occupant. If the parking is delinquent, the possibility exists that overflow parking could impact our office building. It is my understanding that Holtze is relying on a certain number of guests to arrive by public transportation. If their projections are inaccurate, what is the city plan to insure that no parking will migrate to the surrounding office buildings. Because of the existing zoning in the neighborhood, there has not been adequate consideration given to public safety, both personal and property, to the adjacent property owners about the transient nature of the guests and all night workers of the extended stay hotel. A hotel, especially an extended stay hotel, is a new use to this office community. I would like to be able to see what impact this change in traffic flow and patterns will have on our property. What will this new use have on peak traffic hours. 242 -37 S. Crawford Canyon Road Orange. CA 92869 (714) 538 -7765 FAX: 1714) 538 -7737 dlq @msn.com 0 11 r] �� y P A 0 P E BR T E S 0 My request is simple and direct. I would like to make sure that you have not relieved yourselves of your responsibility to protect the existing City tenants by giving a negative declaration rather than making sure that all needs are safeguarded by making a complete, comprehensive and thorough study of all of the potential ramifications of this proposed project. Crown Building 242.37 S. Crawford Canyon Road Orange, CA 92869 (714) 538.7765 FAX: (714),938-7737 dlq@msn.com 115 Response to Comments QB Properties Letter Dated January 7, 1999 The following responses address the comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project, as presented in the QB Properties letter dated January 7, 1999. The responses address each bulleted comment presented in that letter. 1. Hotel Parking The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that all necessary parking for the hotel will be accommodated on -site. Of the 281 total parking stalls provided, 49 will be located on the "rear" lot (i.e., near North Bristol Street), 4 will be located at the Quail Street entrance, and 222 stalls will be provided in a below -grade parking structure. Two ramps will lead down to the garage level -- one will be located off of Quail Street and the other will be located in the southeast comer of the garage near the services building parking lot. The existing Newport Place PC Development Standards do not set forth specific parking requirements for the proposed hotel use. Therefore, standard City policy is to refer to Chapter 20 of the City's Municipal Code, which states that hotel uses shall be parked at a rate of one parking space per two rooms. At that parking requirement, the hotel must provide approximately 150 parking spaces. The provision of 281 parking spaces, as proposed, would exceed the Municipal Code parking requirement. Further, the project will be subject to a condition of approval that will ensure that those parking spaces exceeding the code requirement will be provided. Full occupancy of the proposed hotel is unlikely and, based on public testimony given by the project applicant at the December 10, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, has never occurred at any of the Holtze hotels. In the unlikely event of full occupancy, the provision of on -site valet parking services would adequately compensate for any parking deficiencies by allowing stacking of cars, thereby maximizing parking area. The project applicant's statement that some hotel guests would arrive by public transportation or caravan is based on their operating experience at other Holtze executive hotels. However, regardless of the frequency of use of alternative transportation, project parking requirements will be met as currently proposed. Since no significant environmental effects will result from parking issues, no additional discussion is required under CEQA. 2. Law Enforcement/Public Safety As indicated in Item K.2 of the Initial Study/MND, the Newport Beach Police Department was consulted during the preparation of the MND. According to the Department, in 1997, the most recent period for which the Department has accurate records, the reporting district for the proposed project shows I arson, 16 assaults, 12 burglaries, 27 thefts, and I robbery. Past experience in this reporting district with a similar project has not shown any significant impact on crime problems in the area. None r �/6 would be anticipated with this project, unless there are plans to add a large - scale, on -site alcohol sales operation to the project. To date, no request has been made by or on behalf • of the applicant for such an operation. The Department indicated that normal crime problems that would be associated with this type of development would center on property crimes such as thefts and burglaries from guestrooms and conference rooms. Standard security measures such as those that already exist in the hotel industry would be adequate to deal with these types of crimes. One other area of concern will be guest security in the parking areas. The Police Department recommends that special attention be paid to landscaping and lighting features in the parking areas and around the exterior of the grounds as these features can enhance guest security for the property. As such, the project lighting, landscape, and site plans will be reviewed by the Police Department prior to project development, in accordance with mitigation measure K2 of the Initial Study/MND. 3. Traffic Distribution/Access The net difference in trips between the former dealerships and the proposed uses was distributed to the roadway system using trip distribution percentages assigned by a traffic /land use distribution model. Trips were distributed individually for the hotel and office uses. The traffic impact study contains the model assumptions used to distribute traffic to area roadways, as well as the trip distribution diagrams. • Table 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the proposed hotel project will generate a net increase of 61 and 73 trips per day during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The hotel will be accessed from two points at Quail Street and Bristol North. Similarly, the proposed office building will be accessed from Quail Street and Dove Street. Split among two access points per site, the increase in incoming and outgoing vehicle trips in the morning and evening peak hours is entirely within the capacity of proposed roadways and access drives to accommodate. No queuing of vehicles on public roadways will result and access to adjacent office sites will not be hindered by project traffic. u Since no specific comments regarding traffic flow and traffic patterns were presented, the commentor is directed to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Holtze Hotel and Office Development, prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. in August of 1998. That analysis is and has been available for public review since the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was distributed for public review in October 1998. 2 l� 110 Ne%%port Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach. California 92660 Ban calllc & Hargrave, L.L.P. Attorneys at 12w December 10, 1998 The Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re.: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: (714) 719.11= • Fax (714) 719.1326 RECEIVED BY PLANNING [)EPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GEC 'i AM 0 1998 PM 41819110111112111213141516 I am writing on behalf of Quail Business Center ( "QBC') to state QBC's objections to the referenced project ( "Project') and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This letter supplements and should be considered together with my letter dated December 8, 1998 addressed to Mr. Marc Myers. Also attached to this letter is a preliminary review of the Project by the architectural firm of Gin Wong Associates. QBC incorporates that letter into this letter and asks that the Gin Wong letter be included in the record. The Staff Report for the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration completely ignore the existence of QBC's 2 story office building located between the proposed hotel and office building. If the Project is approved QBC's building will be at the bottom of an urban canyon, in shadows, in the path of wind tunneling between Holtze's buildings, contending with increased traffic, noise and other impacts caused by the Project. There is no justification anywhere in the record for giving Holtze preferential treatment at QBC's expense. The Planning Commission should deny all Project applications, should reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and should decline to recommend to the City Council any of the land use amendments Holtze requests. INTRODUCTION QBC first of all urges the Planning Commission to either deny all Project applications and reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration, or continue the hearing so that QBC will have Page 2 of 5 sufficient time to prepare a more thorough presentation. In this letter and my letter of December 81h I will set forth QBC's concerns to the extent we have been able to review the proposed Project as of this time. I will appear at the hearing to state additional concerns we have been able to identify prior to the hearing. However, because of inadequate notice QBC will, if necessary, take the position in court that the City did not observe QBC's due process rights or the notice requirements of CEQA and the Municipal Code and we will seek to have any approvals set aside on that basis alone. With regard to CEQA, QBC stands by the objections set forth in my December 8`h letter to Mr. Myers. In addition, the mitigation measures attached to the Staff Report are not the same ones that were scattered throughout the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for public review and comment. Therefore, the public has not had the opportunity required by CEQA to review and comment on the actual mitigation measures that will be imposed on Holtze. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c)(2); Guidelines § 15070(b)(1).) For that reason alone the Planning Commission should reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration. QBC also objects to the Mitigated Negative Declaration because there was no study or even comment about shades /shadowing and wind tunneling. The Gin Wong letter sets forth Mr. Wong's opinion that there may be a wind tunneling effect directly impacting QBC and that the 4 story hotel will block sun from QBC's windows. In the face of expert opinion that an effect may . be significant the Planning Commission must require an EIR. (Guidelines § 15064(h).) QBC also objects to Project approval because it constitutes a violation of QBC's equal protection and substantive due process rights, as well as the rights of other neighboring property owners. Stated more simply, the Project gives Holtze unfair preferential treatment at QBC's expense. SURROUNDING LAND USES ANDQBC'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT The Project consists of two separate "sub- projects," one being a 4 story sprawling extended stay hotel, and the other being a 5 story office building. QBC is particularly impacted by the Project because QBC's 2 story office building is located literally in the middle of the Project, between the hotel and the office building. The enclosed photographs show QBC's property in relation to the Project sites. The enclosed photographs also show that, despite statements to the contrary in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Staff Report, the Project is entirely out of character with the surrounding land uses. The photographs submitted with this letter show that all of the buildings in the vicinity of the Project are two story office buildings. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the table at the bottom of page 3 of the Staff Report for this Project. The table says that "Across Quail Street are mid to high rise professional office buildings and related parking." Photographs 3, 6 and 10 attached to )/q Page 3 of 5 this letter show that there is not a single mid or high rise building anywhere across Quail Street • from the Project. All of the buildings are 2 stories tall. The table on page 3 of the staff report says that "Across Spruce Street are additional mid to high rise professional office buildings." Photographs 7 and 8 show the actual situation. Again, there are no mid or high rises. There are only 2 buildings and both of them are 2 stories tall. Photographs 4 and 5 show neighboring buildings to the north and northeast. While taller buildings are visible in the distance, every building in the vicinity is 2 stories tall. The Holtze Project is not compatible with the local environment. Photograph 1 shows QBC as viewed from across the lot where the proposed 4 story hotel would be. Photograph 2 shows QBC from the lot where the 5 story office building would be. The photographs support the attached commentary from Gin Wong Associates expressing Gin Wong's opinion that the Project may cause wind tunneling (Paragraph 3) and that the 4 story hotel will block out all sun to QBC's windows (Paragraph 7). Once again, if the Project is approved QBC would find itself at the bottom of a dark and windy urban canyon. EQUAL PROTECTION 0 The proposed amendment to the PC Development Standards constitutes a spot rezoning. (Millbrae Ass'n for Residential Survival v City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222.) There is no demonstrated need for a variance or zoning amendment. There is nothing unusual about the shape, topography or other characteristics of Holtze's property which would prevent Holtze from enjoying the same property benefits as other landowners in the area. Instead, with the benefit of the proposed amendments and land use approvals, Holtze will be able to enjoy special benefits denied to QBC and all other nearby property owners. In the absence of at least a rational basis for favorable treatment, the amendments and approvals must be denied. QBC and all other property owners have foregone certain land uses under existing zoning as set forth in the PCD Standards. Property owners give up rights under zoning laws with the understanding that no one property owner will be singled out for either unfair or preferential treatment. Courts have said that zoning restrictions amount to a compact among neighboring property owners. That is, all of the area property owners are in the same boat together, and each will enjoy the benefits derived from having their neighbors make the same land use sacrifices he makes. (Tonanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v County of Los AnQeks (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 617.) Here, the Holtze Project violates that compact by singling out one property owner for preferential treatment. All property owners in the area will have to live with the consequences of Holtze's favored treatment, such as increased traffic, noise and a competitive advantage for . l)n Page 4 of 5 Holtze, while at the same time living within the land use restrictions from which Holtze alone is excepted. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Aside from unequal treatment under the law, the Holtze Project will also have a profound impact on QBC's property uses and property values, thereby implicating QBC's substantive due process rights. QBC's building will be dwarfed between Holtze's hotel and office building. QBC will not be able to offer potential tenants the same quantity of space or the same views as Holtze will. Prospective tenants or purchasers will necessarily be influenced by the immediate availability of the Holtze office building. Once again, in the absence of at least a rational basis for preferential treatment, the proposed amendments and approvals should be denied. ABSENCE OF JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The proposed amendments to the Planned Community Standards appear on their face to be proposed zoning amendments. However, the amendments are site specific and are, in fact, zoning variances for building height and setback. Therefore, approval of the amendments must satisfy the conditions for approval of a variance. A variance can only be granted when special circumstances such as unusual size, shape, topography, location or surroundings would deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under the same zoning. Any variation granted must be conditioned so that the owner shall not enjoy pecial privileges. (Gov. Code § 65906.) The City's own Municipal Code sets forth a required finding "That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district." (Municipal Code § 20.91.035(A)(3).) There is nothing in the record to show that any special conditions exist here. Based on the actual land uses permitted to nearby landowners the Planning Commission can not find that approval of the Holtz Project will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Planning Commission should not recommend adoption of the use permit, the zoning amendments, or any other approvals requested for the Holtze Project. r -1 L_J Page 5 of 5 LACK OF NOTICE - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS QBC did not receive the required advance notice of the hearing. The Municipal Code requires 10 days notice by mail. (Municipal Code §§ 20.91.030(C)(1), 20.94.030(B)(1).) QBC received mail notice of the hearing on December 3, 1998, only 7 days before the hearing. The net effect is that QBC did not receive adequate advance notice of the hearing and has not had sufficient time to review the Project and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Planning Commission goes forward with the hearing on December 10 they will do so in violation of the Municipal Code and QBC's due process rights. Therefore, QBC asks that the Planning Commission either reject the Project entirely or continue the hearing until after January 1, 1999. CONCLUSION As discussed above, QBC will continue to review the City's documents and will obtain the review of professionals as QBC deems necessary. QBC will submit additional written objections if needed and will appear at the Planning Commission to state its concerns. Very cc: Mr. Victor Mahoney, Quail Business Center 0 • 1] 0 • • LETTER FROM GIN WONG ASSOCIATES RE THE HOLTZE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT APPROVAL HEARINGS DECEMBER 10, 1998 1G' 1U.:18 u6: 31 (j —G•6: 1 1 = J-1A.: C, t I., ' /v01., GWA GIN WONG ASSOCIATES FLnNNIN� •NO •RCNITCnTI1CC To: Vic Mahoney Cameo Homes From: Gin D. Wong Project: Proposed Holtz otel Development : SI Ui_.)VtiMX Memorandum I just received the site plan material you sent over regarding the proposed Holtz Hotel Development. The following are my comments for you and your representatives to consider. 1. Does the site plan satisfy the density issue that is allowed on the site? 2. Based on this layout, what is the building coverage? It is within the approved guidelines for the property. Usually most properties must have a maximum building coverage and required percentage for landscaping. This plan indicates more hardscape than landscape. 3. Has the developer done a "shades & shadows' study, as well as a wind study. It appears that there may be a wind tunnel effect through the development based on the layout. 4. Has the plan received the Fire Department approval? Normally, you need the Fire Department's approval for accessibility of their trucks and equipment so that they can reach the building in case of a fire. 5. Based on the site plan, it is not clear If the leg of the °L" on the site, it's intended us� and also who owns it or is it used for parking. 6. Looking at the klan and assuming below grade parking will be built as a concrete s ructure and above grade a Type 5 wood structure - Does it meet z ning for the site? Some city's have Fire Zone Designation that requires certain classification of building structure. �oua J.), Y 1' 10, 4b 1) 6:.31 U 9a- 5 -ae: 11-S °.• , -0: Gl h.i W,: l•:• - =JGI iTPF. GWA GIN WONG ASSOCIATES awMltlG aMD aQ1.'TVCTUnZ 11 0 Program: Proposed Holtz Hotel Development .:.l 13 1.r.:ll�. Memorandum 7. Units close to your property line - they seem awfully close. Do they have the proper set back? The 4 -story building next to yours will block out all sun to your windows. B. What is the permitted height under the original development guidelines for this area, by story or so many feet above grade. 9. What is the attitude of the property owner immediately south of the project? Vic, this is my preliminary assessment. I did not go into any Architectural Guidelines, if any, that is required by the City of Newport Beach. Give me a call after you receive this. 10390 Santa Monica Soulevard. Su¢e 100 Angeles. CA 90 2. Te 0phona (310) 27-1.6888 FAY (31 0) 277 -8988 U004 - 3; ��J PHOTOGRAPHS OF LAND USES SURROUNDING THE HOLTZE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT APPROVAL HEARINGS DECEMBER 10, 1998 0 1 J� N h nj b ,t y v y,4 \ P- G w P -C - � 5 F � r N IZ V 3 « a w rc " L 7691C h STREET NORTH DEL. MAR FREEWAY STREET /a 0 cc y �F_. i 'A yr r rPS it t IE r. � i I Al,, 1 5 _ _ ..-r.� r_r_ ..�,ry,y�y _)y +a+T� .+� fir• f 4. {-•'�•��S -. :y'.... r-rt ..:- w'w.+ —': w` '�.,.e,.� � -rt„FaS '4i'•r `'�� �w• %Y �`� -''n .: i C K r ). 4 E e,: T S, r 1 W-v iii .� _s!1' •— ��1; — R ��TF: 4?4`'_ ;i Y_ . . . . . . . . . . OA �'��,61r jir�i , I � �� .;• a.,�� :� "^ fir. �: � ,� ry ,w� (% ,gym 9j�.`,',4•; r. .t- ...•L +��d i r.. .. r riV o 1. •• tea': :1 ., � l . t • :� Fla ' '. 't !/ 1 • ° I v I . 4- � - I . . . .......... IA E, 0 0 yy REM PHOTO - 12 From the Intersection of Spruce and Bristol Looking East Across the Holtze Hotel Site toward QBC. /313 Fps iv�- -son PHOTO 11 From QBC Looking Northwest Along Quail. PHOTO - 12 From the Intersection of Spruce and Bristol Looking East Across the Holtze Hotel Site toward QBC. /313 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 Baffalle & Hargrave, L.L.P. Attornevs at Law December 8, 1998 Marc Myers, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re.: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project Dear Mr. Myers: (714) 719.11200 Fax(714)719.1326 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM DEC 0 8 1998 PM 71813110 111112111213141516 A I am writing on behalf of Quail Business Center ( "QBC ") to state QBC's objections to the referenced project ( "Project ") and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Attached to this letter is a copy of a review prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates of the Traffic Study for the Project. We request that the Pirzadeh study be included in the record of proceedings together with this letter. QBC is also obtaining a written report from an architect regarding shadows and wind funneling caused by the Project. QBC will present that report as soon as we have it and we will ask that it also become a part of the record. OBC'S INTEREST IN THE PROJECT QBC's property is located on Quail Avenue in the middle of the Project between the proposed hotel and the proposed office building. QBC will be profoundly affected by the Project. The Project requires substantial deviations from the General Plan and a total departure from the Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place. In particular, building height and lot coverage will be dramatically increased beyond existing standards. In the face of these dramatic departures from existing conditions it is simply unreasonable to conclude that there will be no unmitigated environmental impacts. 0 /9 V Page 2 of 7 INTRODUCTION QBC first of all urges the Planning Commission to continue the hearing so that QBC will have sufficient time to prepare a presentation. In this letter I will set forth QBC's concerns to the extent we have been able to review the proposed Project and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as of this time. I will appear at the hearing to state additional concerns we have been able to identify prior to the hearing. However, because of inadequate notice QBC will, if necessary, take the position in court that the City did not observe QBC's due process rights or the notice requirements of CEQA and we will seek to have any approvals set aside on that basis alone. If the hearing goes forward the Planning Commission should reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration because there is substantial evidence creating a fair argument that there are significant environmental impacts which will not be mitigated and which the City and the developer must study. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Univ. Of Cal. (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123.) The Planning Commission should reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the additional reason that the Initial Study is inadequate and because there is not substantial evidence in the record to support many of the most important conclusions in both the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Also, the enclosed Pirzadeh study concludes that the City's Traffic Study is inadequate and that it cannot be relied on to make any conclusions about the traffic impacts created by this Project. Because the "fair argument" standard applies to adoption of a negative declaration, the Planning Commission may not weigh conflicting expert opinions. Instead, when qualified experts present conflicting evidence on a project's impacts, the Planning Commission must accept the evidence tending to show that the impact might occur and prepare an EIR. (City _of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 249; Guidelines § 15064(h).) Therefore, based on the Pirzadeh study the Planning Commission must reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration. LACK OF NOTICE —DUE PROCESS QBC objects to the hearing going forward at all on December 10. The public, including QBC, must be given a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Guidelines §§ 15072- 15073.) The first notice QBC ever received that the Planning Commission would consider anything relating to the Project was received on December 3, 1998. That notice states that the Planning Commission will consider various amendments of the General Plan and the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards. However, it does not say that the Planning Commission will consider adopting a negative declaration. The references in the notice to the negative declaration are unclear and do not appear on the list of proposed approvals. Also, the notice posted on the property is unclear as to exactly what the Planning Commission will consider. The first absolute confirmation QBC received that the Planning Commission would consider adopting a negative declaration was a 85 Page 3 of 7 portion of the Planning Commission Agenda I received from you by fax on December 7, 1998. A further irregularity in receipt of notice is a statement contained in the "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated October 29, 1998. Section II of that document says: "No schedule is currently established for public hearings on the proposed project." A further impediment to QBC's participation is your absence during the later part of November. I called your office and was told that you were out of town and that there was no other person who could answer questions or retrieve relevant documents. QBC was forced to wait for your return in order to obtain necessary documents to understand and evaluate the Project. The net effect is that QBC did not received adequate advance notice of the hearing and has not had sufficient time to review the Project and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Planning Commission goes forward with the hearing on December 10 they will do so in violation of QBC's due process rights and in violation of CEQA. Therefore, QBC asks that the Planning Commission continue the hearing until after January 1, 1999. INADEQUATE INITIAL STUDY/IMPROPER MITIGATION As stated above, QBC has not had sufficient time to review the Initial Study or the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We will set forth here the defects we have identified as of this date. In general, the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration contain numerous conclusions which are not supported by evidence. Because the Initial Study does not have evidentiary support in many respects it is improper to rely on it in making the decision to prepare a negative declaration rather than an EIR. (Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.) Item A. : The Project may be incompatible with existing land uses because of the height of the buildings and the site coverage. The hotel and office building will each be five stories tall. The height is incompatible with existing uses because, among other things, the Project will place QBC's building in shadows and will cause funneling of wind between the hotel and the office building, directly impacting QBC. The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not even attempt to address the problems of shadow and wind funneling in spite of the obvious fact that taller buildings have at least the potential of creating shadow and wind funneling problems. QBC is obtaining a report from an architect regarding shadows and wind funneling and will submit that report as soon as it is available. Item B - Population and Housine. The Initial Study concludes that there will be a "Less Than Significant Impact" or "No Impact" with regard to population and housing. However, the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not even attempt to quantify the impact of the Project on population or housing demand. "However, it is not within the purview of this analysis to predict 1,36 Page 4 of 7 how many tenants are new to the region or merely moving from one office space to another." (Mitigated Negative Declaration, p. 3 -3.) That statement plainly demonstrates the need for an EIR. The Mitigated Negative Declaration says that "it is reasonable to conclude that the generation of potential new employment in the context of the City's overall workforce will not adversely affect housing or regional growth management projections. While the hotel and office will generate a number of employees, the project does not have the potential to cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections." (Id.) However, these self serving statements are made in an admitted information vacuum without the benefit of any study whatsoever. It is simply impossible for the City to determine that there is "No Impact" or a "Less Than Significant Impact" when the City has not even attempted to measure the impact. Item F. Transportation/Circulation. Transportation and circulation are a vital concern to QBC as they should be to the City. The analysis of traffic impacts is deeply flawed for many reasons, one of wich is the City's allowance of numerous unjustified trip credits. Also, the Initial Study improperly starts with a baseline that is not the existing condition. With regard to traffic impacts at the intersection of Bristol/North Campus, the Mitigated Negative Declaration states, without justification or logic, that the OCTA planned ramp from SR -73 to southbound SR 55 will mitigate those impacts. (Mitigated Negative Declaration, p. 3 -26.) The Mitigated Negative Declaration simply assumes, without explanation, that the new ramp will mitigate impacts at the Is intersection. However, it is not at all obvious how that mitigation will take place. These and other faults with the City's conclusions regarding traffic and circulation are set forth in more detail below and in the attached review of the Traffic Study. With regard to parking the required mitigation measure is submission of an application for a parking requirement modification, subject to the review and approval of the City's modification committee. (Mitigated Negative Declaration, p. 3 -29.) This "mitigation measure" does not really mitigate anything. It simply puts off mitigation to a future date and leaves it in the hands of the developer, subject to a future study by City staff, but with no opportunity for public review. It violates Public Resources Code section 21080(c)(2) and Guidelines section 15070(b)(1). (See, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306 -307, setting aside a negative declaration which was rationalized on the basis of proposed future mitigation measures and future studies.) L.3 Utilities d- Service �Systems. The Initial Study concludes that there will a "Less Than Significant Impact" based on an improper reliance on data to be developed in the future. "The applicant's engineer will calculate an accurate water demand figure ...." (Mitigated Negative Declaration pp. 3 -43.) "The applicant's engineer will estimate the sewage flow generation expected of the proposed development and calculate facility sizing within the development." (Id., at 3 -44.) This reliance on future studies also violates Public Resources Code section . 21080(c)(2) and Guidelines section 15070(b)(1). Page 5 of 7 IMPROPER BASELINE Under CEQA the City is obligated to compare possible environmental effects to existing conditions. Here, the existing conditions include two vacant unused lots which generate no appreciable environmental effects at all. However, the City has adopted as a baseline the presence of car lots which no longer exist at the site. The City's use of past conditions as the baseline for environmental review is in violation of CEQA. The Planning Commission should reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff to conduct a review based on existing conditions. The use of an improper baseline is of particular concern with regard to the Traffic Study prepared by Kimley -Horn. The Mitigated Negative Declaration gives improper credits to be deducted from anticipated traffic generated by the Project. The City gave credit for the number of trips generated by the uses which existed on the site in the past. However, CEQA requires the City to use existing conditions as the baseline. Stated another way, a "No Project" alternative would generate no traffic at all. Giving credits for a use that no longer exists violates CEQA. 0 QBC is also concerned that the traffic counts the City provided to Mmley -Horn are counts made after the car lots closed so that the baseline counts do not include the credited trips. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Traffic Study do not give any information regarding the timing of the traffic counts and it is therefore impossible to determine if the traffic counts are . proper. • ,21 t . .110V u The Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend amendment of the City's General Plan. Amendment of a General Plan is itself a "project" subject to CEQA. (Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Ca1.App.3d 180, 186.) While the Initial Study at least purports to study the impact of the Holtze Project, there is not even an attempt to discuss the environmental impact of the proposed General Plan amendments. The ultimate environmental impacts of General Plan amendments can be sweeping, and may go far beyond the Holtze Project. However, based on the documentation available it is impossible for anyone from the City or the public to determine what impacts the proposed amendments will have. Therefore, the Planning Commission should decline to recommend approval of the amendments until there has been CEQA compliance. 1J • Page 6 of 7 • FAILURE TO ANALYZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Planning Commission must require an EIR if the Project's impacts are cumulatively considerable when considered together with the effect of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); Guidelines § 15065(c).) Here, the proposed amendments to the General Plan open the possibility of other future projects not consistent with existing General Plan requirements. The effects of the Holtze Project must be considered in the context of future projects which would not otherwise occur. This is particularly true with regard to impacts such as traffic, parking, noise, population and housing. The Initial Study for this Project is already inadequate regarding those impacts and it is not possible to adequately determine the cumulatively effects of this Project based on the existing record. PRESUMED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The CEQA Guidelines set forth numerous types of projects which are presumed to have a significant environmental effect. (Guidelines, App. G.) The first listed projects are those that "conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." (Appendix G (a).) The Holtze Project conflicts with the existing General Plan. Therefore, there • is a strong presumption that the Project has significant environmental effects requiring preparation of an EIR. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the City or the developer has even attempted to study the consequences of deviating from the existing General Plan. There are numerous other types of effects listed in Appendix G which the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration fail to address. The Mitigated Negative Declaration puts off to a later date a determination of the amount of water the Project will consume and the amount of wastewater it will produce. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence in the record to conclude that there will not be significant effects on water quality, water supply or ground water resources. (See, Appendix G (f), (g), (h) and (o).) Also, as discussed above and in the Pirzadeh study, there is not substantial evidence in the record to conclude that traffic impacts will not be significant. (See, Appendix G (1).) Because these environmental effects are presumed to be significant, it is imperative that the Planning Commission require that those effects be adequately studied. Because the present record is inadequate the Planning Commission must reject the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. ) 3 `I Page 7 of 7 CONCLUSION As discussed above, QBC will continue to review the City's documents and will obtain the review of professionals as QBC deems necessary. QBC will submit additional written objections if needed and will appear at the Planning Commission to state its concerns. cc: Mr. Victor Mahoney, Quail Business Center E • l VO • 0 L� & A S S O C I A T E S December 7. 1998 Ms. Allison Hargrave Battaile & Hargrave 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Holtze Hotel and Office Development Dear Ms. Hargrave: Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the traffic analysis conducted by Kimley -Horne and Associates, Inc. (August 1998) for the subject project. Based on the review of the traffic analysis, it is our opinion that additional information and analysis are required to support the findings of the study. We have concerns regarding some of the assumptions and the methodology used in this study. Also, the data presented in the report does not support some of the conclusions and findings of the study. The following are our comments on the traffic study: The reduction of the hotel use trip generation is based on occupancy data collected in Colorado. Occupancy data for similar hotels in Orange County would be more appropriate for this analysis since trip generation characteristics could vary depending on location of the land uses. 2. The reduction of total project generation by 20 percent due to potential interaction between the office- and the hotel uses is not supported by any data. This is a significant reduction in the project trip generation which could change the findings of the traffic analysis. The proposed project is not a mixed use type development which could benefit from a significant level of internal trip making /capture. Therefore, trip generation data for similar development projects must be presented in the analysis before any reduction in trip generation is utilized in the analysis. 3. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis shows that the project will have an impact at the intersection of Bristol North and Campus. However, the report indicates that the potential future implementation of the westbound SR -73 direct connector to southbound SR -55 could improve this intersection. There is no data in the report to support this finding. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Model can be utilized to analyze this scenario for the short range scenario. 4. It is not clear if the General Plan analysis is based on a no- project to project comparison or project to previous land use comparison. Project Management • Transportation Planning & Engineering • Government Liaison 30 Executive Park, Suite 270, Irvine, CA 92614 -4726 • (949) 851 -1367 • Facsimile (949) 851 -5179 1 yj Ms. Allison Hargrave Page 2 • December 7. 1998 5. The general plan analysis shows that the proposed project will increase the Volume to Capacity ratio (V /C) along Bristol Street North from Campus to Birch and along Bristol Street between Birch Street and Jamboree Road exit ramp by 0.04. This is a significant impact for a roadway that is projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F. 6. The proposed project is shown to have an impact at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. The report does not present an analysis to show the feasibility and impacts of potential future improvements at this intersection. In our opinion, additional information and analysis must be provided to support the findings of the traffic study. Also, the finding of item No. 1 of section "F" of the Environmental Analysis Checklist is not supported by the information presented in the traffic study. A project impact analysis should be provided without the use of any trip generation adjustments unless such adjustments can be justified. Additionally, if any trip generation reduction is applied to the proposed project, then a trip cap must be applied to the development to assure that additional trips would not be generated in by the project in the future. A complete project mitigation listing and related traffic analysis must be provided in the report. . The project should also be required to participate, on a fair share basis, in the funding of any improvement that could mitigate the potential impacts of the project. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our comments, or if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Peter K. Pirzadeh, P.E. Principal HcftHOrolonO�Wawm TrftSwdy a wAHU9rwa 11.7.99 • rEW Ppq U141-- W • PROJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 7, 1999 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Marc Myers 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949) 644 -3210 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: 14 days SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: ACTION: 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street HEV- Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners (applicants) A request to permit the construction of an extended stay hotel and an office building. The project involves the approval of: • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment involves modifications to the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC text modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to: • increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community, • changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from Industrial to Hotel, • changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from Auto Center to Professional and Business Office, • establishing a 60 foot height limit for the hotel site, • establishing a 95 foot height limit for the office site, • establishing new street -side front yard, and side yard setback requirements, • a Use Permit for the establishment of an extended stay hotel, • a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels, and • a Traffic Study. Recommend to the City Council approval of the project and: • Accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and • Adopt Resolution 98 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98 -I(C); and • Adopt Resolution 98-. recommending approval of Planned Community Amendment No. 880; and Approve: • Use Permit No. 3640 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -13 • Traffic Study No. 118 With findings and conditions in Exhibit "A." IV ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff and the City's consultants have prepared responses to the comments raised in two letters dated 0 December 8" and 10", 1998, by the owners of the Quail Business Center (QBC). A response has been prepared for each of the issues raised in the letters. The responses are attached for the Commission's review. Additionally, the Assistant City Attorney has also reviewed the letters received and the response to comments and has provided a memorandum in regards to the letters from the project opponent's attorney. The memo is attached for the Planning Commission's review. The Planning Commission also requested additional information for this meeting. The information requested includes the following: • parking availability in the structure for night use by the hotel, • shade /shadow analysis, • building heights, and • setback of the QBC Building from the property lines. The applicant has prepared the attached letter in response to the shared parking inquiry. The shade /shadow analysis has been prepared by the City's consultant and is included in the response to comments. Additionally, graphic displays of the shade /shadow analysis have been prepared and will be available for the Commission's review at the meeting. The height limit for the subject property is 35 feet (Hotel Site). Although some of the existing buildings in the general vicinity are two or three stories in height, the Newport Place Planned Community Regulations permit a 6 story building across Quail Street to the northeast, and an 8 story building across Spruce Street to the north west. While the existing development may not reflect the full potential of the height limit, the existing development regulations do permit a structure to be built to the height limit. Additionally, the Planned Community Regulations allow the Planning Commission to approve a structure in excess of the permitted height limit upon approval of a use permit. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed height limits for the subject properties are consistent with the Planned Community Regulations and are in keeping with the permitted heights on other sites in the vicinity. Staff has identified the location of the Quail Business Center Building from the property lines. The existing building is located 30 feet from the front property line, 10 feet 6 inches from the right side or north property line (adjacent to the proposed hotel site), 68 feet from the rear property line, and 70 feet 6 inches from the left side or south property line. The height of the existing building is 35. feet. Reduced copies of the original plans are attached for the Planning Commission's review. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment 0 Use Permit No. o. 364 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 January 7, 1999 Page 2 Iqq CONCLUSION: The response to comments provides additional information on issues raised by the public and the Planning Commission during the public hearing on December 10, 1998. Because specific evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the public noticing, Negative Declaration or staff report analysis are inadequate, staff concludes that the Commission may rely on that information and take action on the project. Submitted by SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: Response to Comments Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Associate Planner Rutan & Tucker Response to Comments Letter Memo from Assistant City Attorney Letter from Cora Newman Shade - Shadow Analysis Table QBC Site Plan and Elevations I* F: \USERS \PLN\SHARED\ I PLANCOM\ 1999 \1- 7 \GPA98- 1C -suppl GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 680 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 January 7, 1999 Page 3 I t-I5 Response to Comments Quail Business Center Letters Dated December 8 and 10, 1998 The following responses address the comments pertaining to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project, as presented in the Quail Business Center letters dated December 8 and 10, 1998. These responses are arranged topically according to the relevant environmental issues raised in those letters. 1. Failure to Analyze General Plan Amendments The effects of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Standards would not represent a departure from existing plans that would have the potential to result in significant, physical effects on the environment, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has prepared a General Plan consistency analysis and has determined that the physical effects of the adoption of the proposed amendments, as analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, will be less than significant with the implementation of required mitigation measures and. conditions of project approval. The proposed General Plan and PC Development Standards amendments are riot "sweeping" and only apply to the project properties, not to an entire General Plan land use designation or an entire sub -area of the Newport Place PC. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, correctly identified the logical outcome of the proposed. amendments and their effects on the physical environment of the project parcels and other adjacent or potentially affected properties. 2. Scheduling of Public Hearings Section 15072(f)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines note that a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration shall specify "the date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project, when known to the lead azencv at the time of notice" (emphasis added). As of October 29, 1998 when the notice of intent was distributed, no public hearings before either the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission or City Council had been scheduled. Therefore, such was stated in the notice of intent. 3. Need to Prepare an EIR The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064[h]) state that "... in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. " However, substantial evidence must accompany the "fair /y(o W. argument" assertion, not merely speculation, unsubstantiated narrative or opinion, or inaccurate evidence. The Lead Agency must consider the entire record, including the testimony before the Planning Commission, to decide whether the information relating to potential impacts is "substantial evidence" to support a "fair argument" that the impacts may occur and whether the identified impacts that may occur should be considered "significant ". To -date, no new or additional information has been presented which is supported by facts that the project would, in fact, result in a significant effect on the environment. 4. Noticing Requirements Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was properly completed in accordance with the noticing requirements of Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines. All property owners in the Quail Business Center were sent a notice of intent to adopted a mitigated negative declaration, as well as a complete copy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, on October 28, 1998. The notice of intent was also published in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice of intent stated that the recipient had 20 days to comment on the Draft MND. No response was received from any representative of the Quail Business Center until December 7, 1998 -- an additional 20 days after the public review and comment period ended on November 17, 1998. While CEQA states that a Lead Agency is not legally obligated to respond to comments received after the public review and comment period has ended, the Lead Agency may • opt to do so to demonstrate a good faith effort in providing full disclosure of the project's potential environmental effects (Guidelines, Section 15207). Furthermore, no request for a specific extension of time was made by or on behalf of Quail Business Center owners at any time during the 20 -day public review period. Notice of the December 10, 1998 Planning Commission hearing was provided by posting on the project site, by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, and by public notice in a newspaper of general circulation. All noticing requirements were met at least 10 days prior to the December 10, 1998 Planning Commission hearing. The following items describe the public noticing timeline that was followed for the public review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the subsequent public hearing. 1. October 29, 1998: Public Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration • Published in Daily Pilot Newspaper. • Posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office. • Mailed notification to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject properties. • Mailed notification to 22 additional interested/affected parties. 2. November 25, 1998: Public Hearing Notice • Mailed to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject properties. • Posted at two places on the property located at 1001 Quail St. PA 'q7 • Posted at two places on the property located at 1301 Quail St. • Affidavit of Posting on file. 3. November 30, 1998: Public Hearing Notice/Planning Commission Hearing Agenda • Published in Daily Pilot Newspaper. Refer to Response No. 2 above regarding the statement on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration that public hearings had not been scheduled as of the time the NOI was distributed. 5. Land Use /Solar Access/Wind Funneling Land use incompatibilities with regard to building height and site coverage are said to be manifest in the form of shadows and wind funneling effects. The Mitigated Negative Declaration did not analyze those potential effects since they were deemed inconsequential given the nature of the project and the surrounding. environmental conditions. However, insofar as the following discussion addresses and.dismisses those effects as less than significant, the public record contains adequate information to properly inform decision - makers and public of the project's potential shade and wind funneling effects. Wind Funneling With regard to potential wind funneling effects, prevailing winds in the project vicinity are from the southwest, parallel to the runway at John Wayne Airport. Based on previous wind tunneling studies performed by Giroux and Associates at various locations in Orange County, specifically at South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island, no substantial wind tunneling effects have been documented. Sustained wind speeds are not high enough to create a substantial eddy effect, nor do the structures have enough vertical mass to significantly inhibit the flow of air and cause noticeable horizontal dispersion. Even at South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island, which have more vertical elements and a higher density of buildings, no such effects have ever been documented to the extent that they could be classified as even adverse, much less potentially significant. The largest structure, the proposed office building, is approximately 160 feet from the adjacent parking structure. No significant air flow restrictions will occur within such a large open area, particularly given the average wind speed of 8 to 12 miles per hour. Although the layout of the hotel site includes more closely spaced structures, only localized (i.e., on- site) eddies would occur as a result of prevailing on -shore breezes. No wind funneling" with the potential to topple objects or adversely affect humans would occur. Shade /Shadow Effects Shadow impacts are generally analyzed in those instances where a particular project would interfere with solar access as a necessary component of another property's energy or heating source, or would interfere with the passage of sunlight to recreational areas, 3 ) qr both public and private (i.e., parks, pools, outdoor patios, etc.). Since the nearby office buildings, including the Quail Business Center, do not have outdoor recreational • components or solar energy equipment, the issue was deemed less than significant. Although not prepared for the MND, a solar access and shade /shadow analyses were prepared in response to the QBC letter questioning the potential for such impacts. In general, the orientation of the proposed hotel and office buildings would preclude significant interruption of sunlight on surrounding properties. The specific impacts of each project component are discussed below. The proposed office building is located southeast of the QBC building. The office building would have to cast a northwesterly trending shadow of over 350 feet long to affect the QBC building. However, modeling of the shade /shadow effects at those times of the year when insolation angles are at their extremes (i.e., at the summer and winter solstices and at the autumnal equinox) shows that no shadow will be cast on the QBC building. Modeling of the shadows on December 21 (winter solstice) shows that at 9:00 a.m. a northeasterly trending shadow approximately 200 feet long would be cast by the office building. That shadow would not encompass even the existing parking structure, much less the QBC building. Modeling for the 9:00 a.m. hour on June 21 (summer solstice) shows a shadow extending northwesterly approximately 60 feet from the building and approximately 110 feet for the same hour on September 21 (autumnal equinox). No shadow effects will adversely impact the QBC office building or other nearby office structures. . The proposed hotel buildings are located northwest of the QBC building. Since sunlight comes from a general southerly direction, the QBC building would only be impacted by the hotel buildings for a short time in the afternoon, yet no more so than any other nearby buildings are affected by neighboring buildings. Solar shade /shadow modeling indicates that development of the site with the proposed hotel, as well as with a building that reflects current land use entitlements (i.e., the "by- right" building), would result in the blockage of direct sunlight to the northwest- facing windows of the QBC building. Although the proposed hotel structures would cast a longer shadow during the afternoon hours (in any season) than currently permitted development, the impacts on direct sunlight access are the same regardless of the development scenario. • The QBC building is oriented such that the northwest face receives sunlight during the afternoon hours (at all times of the year). Solar shade /shadow modeling indicates that the northwest- facing QBC windows receive direct sunlight during the last one to two hours before sunset in the winter, and in the last several hours before sunset in the summer. Total sunlight occlusion generally occurs between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. for the by -right and hotel development scenarios. However, as the table below indicates, the by -right building would occlude sunlight by 3:00 p.m. during the winter, as compared to 3:30 p.m. for the proposed hotel. Therefore, a by -right building would have impacts the same as or worse than the proposed Holtze Hotel. a Iii Date By -Right Occlusion Holtze Hotel Occlusion Difference Spring /fall equinox 3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. none Winter solstice 3:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. By -right building has greater impact that the proposed hotel Summer solstice 3:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. none As noted previously, the project- related impacts of sunlight occlusion are limited given the ambient conditions under which most office buildings in the vicinity exist. Virtually every building in the Newport Place PC is impacted to some degree by neighboring structures casting shadows. Again, the level of significance is not determined merely by the presence of shadows, but by the potential inability of specific land uses and facilities to serve their intended function as a result of sunlight occlusion. No such potential exists for the QBC office building since it lacks sunlight- dependent uses. Direct sunlight has little or no passive solar heating value on the northwest side of the QBC building during the winter. The QBC building receives most of its daily direct sunlight on its southeast - facing side, which has extensive, optimized window coverage for taking advantage of such conditions. Passive solar heating and the passage of sunlight to the building interior are maximized on the south and southeast- facing sides of the QBC building. The modeling results indicate that the hotel project will not affect that portion of the QBC building. • At most times of the year, direct sunlight possibly satisfies personal aesthetic preferences • by contributing direct natural light to the interiors of some QBC offices. However, the absence of direct sunlight is not a condition that is unique or adverse to the QBC building occupants. Since no view easements or solar access easements exist on the QBC property, the impact to QBC tenants can only be deemed a potential inconvenience that is shared by most office buildings in the area at one time of day or another, depending on their orientation. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in significant environmental effects, as defined by CEQA, and requires no further analysis. 6. Population and Housing The Draft MND indicates that population and housing impacts are only considered significant under CEQA if the project will substantially alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the area and result in a demand for housing and public and private services which exceeds supply in the short- or long -term. Impacts would also be considered significant if the project's generation of population or employment is inconsistent with the regional growth management plans. Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines approved on October 26, 1998, provide clearer direction in evaluating adverse impacts associated with population and housing. Revisions made to Appendix G include a sample environmental checklist form. • According to the environmental checklist, the following questions are provided to direct the evaluation of potentially significant impacts associated with population and housing: 5 1.56) Would the project: • a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed construction of an extended stay hotel and an office building would not result in substantial population growth in the area and would not result in a displacement of people or housing. Additionally, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) reviewed the Draft MND and determined that no significant population, housing, or employment impacts would result. Therefore, the issue requires no further consideration under CEQA. 7. Transportation and Circulation/Baseline Traffic Conditions Trip Generation The trip generation rate used for the hotel is the rate contained in the publication by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) entitled "Trip Generation, Sixth Edition." The trip generation rate for the hotel use was not reduced. The configuration of the hotel proposed by Holtze Executive Village is such that the hotel operator can rent the rooms as individual units or two -room suites. If all rooms were rented as single units, there would be a total of 304 individual "keys." Occupancy data for two years from three Holtze properties in the metropolitan area of Colorado indicates that, in actual use and operating experience, not all rooms are rented as individual units. Based on the actual two -year occupancy data, an equivalent number of single -unit rooms was calculated. The total 304 single units would be the equivalent of 250 "keys," or tenants per night, on an annual average. The ITE rate, without any reduction, was applied to the equivalent number of rooms. The issue to be addressed is not trip - making characteristics but the renting practices and guest preferences for the single -unit rooms vs. two -unit suites. In this matter, executive travelers, the primary clientele of Holtze Hotels, would be expected to have the same preferences in Denver as they would in Orange County. Since there are no Holtze Hotels in operation in Orange County, the use of equivalent occupancy data from the Denver area is appropriate. Contrary to the assertion by Pirzadeh & Associates, total project trip generation was not • reduced by 20 percent due to interaction between the office and hotel uses. While the basis of that assertion is not clear, it is possible that the project traffic report may have 6 i5/ 0 been misunderstood, possibly by misinterpretation of two key factors used to determine project trip generation. 1. In accordance with standard City policy for all traffic studies, traffic for other approved projects (i.e., cumulative project trips) is in fact reduced by 20 percent to reflect interaction among all other approved projects. However, this reduction has not been applied to the proposed office/hotel project. It could have been misunderstood to have been applied to the project- related trips in addition to cumulative traffic from other approved projects. 2. Ten percent of the traffic for the hotel and ten percent of the traffic for the office (ten percent of the total project) was allocated to an "internal" area. In this case, the internal area is bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road. This is a large area with a multitude of opportunities within which many trip purposes (such as having a meal, making copies, attending a meeting, go to hotel, purchase stationary, and many others) can be fulfilled without trips reaching any of the intersections analyzed. Using ten percent of the trips as "internal" to this large area is reasonable and consistent with typical trip lengths associated with hotels and offices. It is possible that the ten percent "internal" for the hotel and ten percent "internal" for the office were added together incorrectly by Pirzadeh as the basis of the assertion that a 20- percent interaction was assumed within the project, rather than ten percent within the broad area described. Mitigation Efficacy In assessing the potential mitigating effect of the direct connection from northbound SR- 73 to southbound SR -55, 15 percent of the existing traffic on the westbound through movement at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Campus Drive was allocated to the direct connector. The reduction in this through movement by 386 vehicles per hour (from 2,586 to 2,200 vehicles per hour) during the afternoon peak period, would improve the performance of the intersection to be in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The reduction of 386 vehicles, or about 15 percent, is commensurate with the City's expectation of changes in travel patterns. The connector between northbound SR -73 and southbound SR -55 is a fully funded OCTA project. In accordance with a schedule prepared on December 2, 1998, construction advertising is scheduled for March 1999, construction award in May 1999, and project completion in May 2000. General Plan Analysis The General Plan analysis is on the basis of a comparison of the proposed project to the previous land use. This procedure is consistent with the most recent CEQA guidelines. 7 0 Roadway Link Volumes The City of Newport Beach uses traffic impact analysis procedures that focus on intersection rather than links, or roadway segments. The City uses this procedure because the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial segments is governed by the LOS at the intersections, except in very unusual conditions where a great disparity might exist between the number of lanes at an intersection and the number of lanes along the arterial segment. The General Plan numbers presented in the traffic study with and without the proposed project are rounded to the nearest 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd), which in turn indicate a change in the volume /capacity (V /C) ratio of 0.04. The City's modeling consultant has since identified an inconsistency in the rounding procedures that were used. A communication dated December 21, 1998 indicates that the difference in daily traffic volume is 16 vehicles (with or without the project) and that the daily traffic volume would be rounded to 29,000 vpd in either case. Thus, there would be no change in the V/C ratio with or without the project on the two segments referenced in the letter by Pirzadeh & Associates. Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive Improvements The County of Orange has 'a project under design for the widening of Irvine Avenue and the improvement of the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive. This is an approved and funded project of the County, developed with input from the City of Newport Beach. The County and the City agree that the project is feasible, and the County is proceeding • with the design of the project. 8. Parking Mitigation and Text Changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Newport Beach calculates parking requirements based on the net usable square footage of the proposed office building and not on the gross square footage. The Draft MND incorrectly used the gross building square footage (i.e., 109,200 sq. ft.) in its calculation of required parking. City requirements call for one parking space for each 225 square feet of net floor area (i.e., 4.44 stalls per 1,000 square feet). The proposed revisions to the Newport Place PC Development Standards indicate that the net square footage of the office building will be approximately 106,500 sq. ft., thereby requiring 473 parking spaces. The office building proposal includes the provision of 483 parking spaces. Evaluated at a "worst- case" level in the MND, the proposed 483 total stalls on the office site would exceed the City parking requirement. Therefore, the revised MND and the Report to the Planning Commission (December 10, 1998) both state that on -site parking requirements will be met without the need for a parking modification. Accordingly, mitigation measure F1 requiring the applicant to apply for and obtain a parking requirement modification was deleted from the MND. The revised MND was provided in the Report to the Planning Commission. Section 15073.5 states that "[a] lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given ... J A "substantial revision" is defined in CEQA 8 J53 Guidelines to mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revision will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. CEQA allows the incorporation of "[nJew information ... which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." As discussed in the responses to the comments received during the public review, the various modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are minor text changes and do not constitute substantial revisions that would change the outcome of the environmental analysis or require recirculation of the document (Guidelines Section 15073.5). 9. Utilities and Service Systems The City was consulted during the preparation of the Draft MND and informed that the provision of water and . sewer services would not result in the need for significant . expansion of existing facilities, nor would it require the development of new potable water sources or sewage treatment capacity. The condition of approval that requires the . project applicant to submit water and sewer plans for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach will ensure that no development occurs without the provision of adequate . facilities to serve the site. Connections to existing facilities will not result in either direct or secondary environmental effects. 10. Cumulative Impacts Section 15064(i)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. The Guidelines state that "[w]hen a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the in study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable. " The findings in the staff report, the mitigation monitoring program, and the conditions of project approval provide ample assurance that all mitigation measures required in the MND will be implemented, thus reducing any potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 0 .� 1 December 21, 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPOR T LEACH VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL DEC 2 2 1998 The Honorable Planning Commissioners Ah1 PM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 71819110i1111211,213,41516 3300 Newport Blvd. p Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 �C Re: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: This law firm is counsel for the E.J. Holtze Corporation ( "Holtze11) in connection with the above referenced project. This letter is in response to the Quail Business Center (11QBC11) correspondence dated December 8, 1998, and December 10, 1998, which correspondence attempts to derail the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project (11MND11) to be considered by the planning commission on January 7, 1999. In preparing this letter, representatives of Lennar Partners have been consulted, and Lennar has indicated its concurrence in the responses contained herein. As demonstrated below, the challenges raised by QBC are without merit. The City has taken all appropriate steps in noticing and preparing the initial study upon which the MND is predicated, and there are no legal or factual deficiencies that require rejection of the MND. The Planning Commission Has Provided Adequate Notice of the Hearing Regarding the MND. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., (110EQA11), members of the public must receive notice of a lead agency's intent to adopt a negative declaration, and an opportunity to review the supporting initial study and attendant documentation. Under CEQA Guideline 680 /018298AMI/3225668..12/21/98 r.� --14 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD. SUITE 1900 SCOTT R. SANTAGATA ,WNAID A, HAM111- NICHOLS THOMAS BOO ox COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92526-1998 jEFFREY wn ..W —IN. Wu DOUGLAS �e xL nlcxn o DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P. O. BOX 1950 s. UCO A. x Sx IOOTx TO D 0. UTFIN THEODORE I WAL CE jB COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92 62 8 -19 5 0 CERUFT, KXRA S. CARUPON JOSEPH D. CARR U ED H MICHAEL I. SrtSB TELEPHONE (719) 691 -5100 PATRICK D. MCCALUX F... 0OUx RICHARD P. SIMS THOMAS J. CRANE RICHAR D K. HOWELL nE CRIS LOMENZO TsC Ee FACSIMILE (719) 5969035 K. SOOCx O S. SSAUNGEO' x.80¢0 MARLENE POSE DAV Ew C.0 5Ex' INTERNET WWW.EU1d R.CO R1 xSTEEIT CI FIPOBD [ RICH— 6 O HOCHNEu KAREN m IC—El D Ix B' GARNER SMITH NSUATEU EES 1B11W.D DUND^S NEST W. KIATTE III A, W. RUTAN IIBBO.IDTEI P.u4 J. SIEVE.. ^W.o. x wx.S. xw [O wx UZ^SKTx l ES B uCxE.. S. 0501 B4 S. D E x. Jx. STAN OECOTT MPSONT, LOPSw S. IIiD •DDB 01 M. CUPION� SCHINID T S. B xwCE . H. R000KA How Ell IIDES'IDBOI JOSEP. l I.C. —C, J. DAVIS 1. e 1R cosonOVE xnw10 C. K.O.E. TEIIENCE Owll ... ED AOCN w 5 VAN l TICOOExw STEP x EN w wPOO.cYiOwlconrounox xES4 .IS NCAP4AN .055 J JEEI'u E. w[uTx E�x EB .NSEI N IC xIwEI T....Nwx oC 5.BES w,J December 21, 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPOR T LEACH VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL DEC 2 2 1998 The Honorable Planning Commissioners Ah1 PM City of Newport Beach Planning Department 71819110i1111211,213,41516 3300 Newport Blvd. p Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 �C Re: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners: This law firm is counsel for the E.J. Holtze Corporation ( "Holtze11) in connection with the above referenced project. This letter is in response to the Quail Business Center (11QBC11) correspondence dated December 8, 1998, and December 10, 1998, which correspondence attempts to derail the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project (11MND11) to be considered by the planning commission on January 7, 1999. In preparing this letter, representatives of Lennar Partners have been consulted, and Lennar has indicated its concurrence in the responses contained herein. As demonstrated below, the challenges raised by QBC are without merit. The City has taken all appropriate steps in noticing and preparing the initial study upon which the MND is predicated, and there are no legal or factual deficiencies that require rejection of the MND. The Planning Commission Has Provided Adequate Notice of the Hearing Regarding the MND. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., (110EQA11), members of the public must receive notice of a lead agency's intent to adopt a negative declaration, and an opportunity to review the supporting initial study and attendant documentation. Under CEQA Guideline 680 /018298AMI/3225668..12/21/98 r.� --14 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW L PARTNEASwin i.c.um.O .00rosSIO.n. COnron.nOs Honorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 2 Section 150721, this requirement is fulfilled by utilizing, inter alia, "at least one of the following procedures: (1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. (2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is located." (CEQA Guidelines § 15072). Here, the City exceeded the necessary requirements by implementing both of the above methods of notice. It published notice in the Newport Beach -Costa Mesa Daily Pilot on November 30, 1998, as well as posting a copy of said notice on the subject property. What is more, the content of the subject notice was altogether adequate. It unambiguously advised that it involved an "acceptance of a Negative Declaration." This clear language establishes that QBC was provided with the statutorily mandated notice, and has had a full and fair opportunity to prepare for a hearing on the MND. An additional note with respect to notice is important here. Specifically, a "Public Notice of Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration" was published in the Daily Pilot on October 29, 1998. Said notice advised that "written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Planning Department at the above address by NOVEMBER 17, 1998.11 (Emphasis added.) In addition, a copy of this notice was mailed to QBC, attention to Jeffrey Jennings, roughly concurrent with October 29 publication. Notwithstanding the exhaustive efforts that the City's Planning Department undertook to ensure adequate notice, QBC delayed until only two days before the scheduled hearing, and almost a month after closure of the specified comment period, to raise its objection. Notwithstanding, in a further effort to remove any doubt as to the fairness of its proceedings, the Planning Commission has continued the December 10, 1998 hearing on this matter to January 7, 1999. This continuance, at the request of QBC, has removed all due process concerns and, as such, review of the merits of the MND is appropriate and warranted. ' The CEQA Guidelines appear at 14 Cal. Code Regs, §§ 14100, et seg. 680 /018298. 0001/3225668..12 (2I /98 16(o (/ _ �_ AI RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSKm iNCL —Nc R.IESS..NAL cORPOR -045 iHonorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 3 0 II. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY AND ATTENDANT DOCUMENTATION IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE MND. In its December 8 correspondence, QBC states that a mitigated negative declaration should be rejected if there is substantial evidence creating a fair argument that there are significant environmental impacts which will not be mitigated. (December 9 Correspondence, p. 2 [ "when qualified experts present conflicting evidence on a project's impacts, the Planning Commission must accept the evidence tending to show that the impact might occur and prepare an EIR.11].) While the standard of review is properly cited, QBC ignores the applicable case law that "fears and . . . desires of project opponents do not qualify as substantial evidence. Perley v. County of Calaveras (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, 436. Further, "speculative possibilities are not substantial evidence of environmental impact." Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 22 Cal.App.3d 748, 758. Consistent with this authority, in an opinion released just last week, the Court held: Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence. Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (December 9, 1998) 1998 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12579 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a); italics in original.] The Pala court further noted that CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b) specifies 11[s]ubstantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." (Id. at 12587; emphasis added.) Nevertheless, a thorough review of QBC's December 8 and December 10 correspondence reveals no facts, data or other information that constitutes substantial evidence. To the contrary, the submitted information consists of unsubstantiated speculation based on the fears and desires of QBC as a project opponent. 680/018298 -W 01/3225668..12/21198 i RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A RNRTRCFSRIR MCIU..N. RR.ICSSIORLL Om RR R.TIoNS Honorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 4 A. ABC's Comments Concerning Shadows and Wind Funnelling are Unsupported. At page 3 of its December 8 letter, QBC claims that the "obvious fact that taller buildings have at least the potential of creating shadow and wind funnelling problems" requires rejection of the MND. However, an exhaustive search of the December 8 letter, as well as the Initial Study and attendant documentation does not reveal the existence of any evidence to support this conclusion in the instant case. QC's December 10 letter (and the attached Gin D. Wong Memorandum) are also devoid of facts giving rise to substantial evidence of an environmental impact on shades, shadows and wind funnelling. In fact, the entire discussion of this issue appears in a single sentence of the Gin Wong Memorandum stating- "It appears that there may be a wind tunnel effect through the development based on the layout." This bare statement is not an opinion based on facts. Rather, it is an unsubstantiated statement made in a factual vacuum. under Perlev, Thornley, and Pala this bare statement does not provide a basis for rejection of the MND. M Impacts. In its next attempted challenge to the MND, QBC claims that the Initial Study's conclusion that there will be less than significant impacts on population and housing is incorrect. Here again, QBC has failed to provide any data that suggests that a contrary conclusion is in order. Indeed, the suggestion that the addition of a single office building will have significant county- wide impacts on population and housing demonstrates that QBC is searching for any pretense to hold up the proposed project. Without any evidence, QC's effort in this regard must fail. C. The MND's Discussion of Transportation /Circulation is Legally Sufficient QBC challenges the MND's discussion of Transportation/ Circulation based on (a) allowance of trip credits, (b) utilization of a base -line condition, and (c) accounting for completion of a planned ramp from Route 73 to Route 55. Each of these contentions is addressed, in turn, below. 6NWUIN29N- ULKII /322566N. x12/21/9N E 0 E l5G' .a4,- RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIV wCLuniNG .no.c5510.« CO—ORATIONS . Honorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 5 As to trip credits, the underlying study incorrectly states that the hotel trip generation figure has been reduced. The number of trips per hotel room utilized in the Kimley -Horn study is based on a nationally- recognized figure. In point of fact, the Colorado - based data referenced in the Pizradeh letter was employed in determining the number of rooms to be attributed to the hotel. Neither QBC nor Pizradeh explain why different data was required, or in what respects the data utilized in the preparation of the MND is insufficient. In fact, the Pizradeh letter merely assumes that "occupancy data for similar hotels in Orange County would be more appropriate" without providing any evidentiary support for this claim. Absent such data, no substantial evidence of a fair argument has been presented and approval of the MND is warranted. With respect to the base -line condition, the so- called Pizradeh traffic study states that "it is not clear if the General Plan analysis is based on a no- project to project comparison or project to previous land use comparison. ,2 However, the no- project condition of the land consists of a permitted auto- . dealership use. Therefore, the comparison of dealership conditions to anticipated conditions upon completion of the project is appropriate.3 Equally important, QBC has, again, failed to provide any countervailing substantial evidence that demonstrates that the MND's conclusion is inaccurate. Regarding the impact of the completion of the ramp between Highways 55 and 73, QBC again fails to present any evidence to controvert the conclusion of the MND. In preparing the MND, a qualified traffic analyst was employed to render an opinion on this matter. With the assistance and cooperation of city staff, the 2 The December 9 correspondence states "QBC is also concerned that the traffic counts the City provided to Kimley- Horn are counts made after the car lots closed so that the baseline counts do not include the credited trips." This concern is unfounded. The counts were taken prior to the car lot closures. 3 QBC's interpretation of CEQA (which is not supported by any authority), on the other hand, makes preparation of environmental documentation functionally impossible because its definition "existing conditions" may change on a minute -by- minute . basis. Under QBC's reasoning, virtually every aspect of the MND can be challenged because the data was not gathered instantaneously with the approval of the MND. 680/018298- (N)01/3225668..12/21/98 —. - RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCLUDING . 01'ESSION.. CORPORATIONS Honorable Planning Commissioners i December 21, 1998 Page 6 analyst reached the conclusion that impacts on the intersection of Bristol and Campus would be offset by traffic reduction associated with completion of the proposed and fully funded highway interchange. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the MND remains proper under CEQA. D. ABC's Attack on the Utilities & Service Systems Facet of the MND is Unavailing QBC next - attacks the MND's treatment of Utilities & Service Systems, contending that it is violative of Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) and Guidelines section 15070(b)(1). The cited authority, however, applies to those portions of a project, identified in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, that require mitigation. Here, the MND found that the impacts on utilities and service systems are properly classified as "less than significant." Specifically, the MND concludes that "[c]urrently, the City water supply capacity from imported and domestic resources is considered adequate for projected development within the City limits, including the proposed project" and that "[g]iven the previous consumptive uses on the project properties and the existence of water facilities to serve the project, no significant impacts are anticipated." (MND 3 -43; emphasis added.) Thus, because the MND has not classified Utilities & Service system issues as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," the cited authority does not apply. E. The " Project" Identified in the MND includes a General Plan Amendment Contrary to QBC's claim, the proposed MND includes a General Plan Amendment as part of the "Project" under consideration. This fact is confirmed in the "Project Description" portion of the MND (pp 2 -2 - 2 -3), which states "[i]mplementation of the proposed project requires that both the City's Land Use Element and the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards be amended to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building as proposed by the project applicants." The exhaustive environmental analysis detailed in the remainder of the MND is based on the specified project description, including the proposed General Plan amendment. Thus, there has been no "Failure to Analyze General Plan Amendments" as claimed by QBC. F. Cumulative Impacts 680/018298 - 0001/3225668..12 /21/98 / RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERS— iNCLU -4 RROISSSIORSL CORe0. —ONS . Honorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 7 In analyzing cumulative impacts, one must determine whether the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (PUb.Res.Code § 21083(b); Guidelines § 15065(c).) QBC challenges the MND's discussion of cumulative impacts because "the General Plan opens the possibility of other future projects not consistent with existing General Plan requirements." (December 10 correspondence, page 6; emphasis added.) However, virtually any type of future development is possible -- the relevant inquiry is what future development is probable. QBC has provided no description of probable future development and, as such, has failed to provide any evidence that contradicts the conclusion reached in the MND. G. Presumption of Significant Impacts QBC's claim that the project must be presumed to have significant environmental impacts based on an alleged conflict with is the existing general plan is faulty because it ignores the fact that the "project" specifically includes an amendment to the General Plan. As a result, the construction of the office building and extended stay hotel will be consistent with the general plan, as amended. This consistency nullifies the alleged presumption advanced by QBC. Accordingly, approval of the mitigated negative declaration is authorized and appropriate. III. The Proposed General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment Do Not Violate Any Equal Protection or Due Process Rights. In its December 10, 1998 correspondence, QBC claims that the City has failed to provide a rational basis for the proposed General Plan and PC Amendments. Contrary to this claim, however, even the most cursory review of the staff report reveals an extensive analysis of General Plan Policies which describe the City's underlying development goals. That analysis reveals that the amendments are consistent with: ► The General Plan Policy allowing for modest growth so long as traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City. ► The General Plan Policy allowing for commercial, recreational, or destination visitor serving facilities, so long as traffic congestion and parking shortages are controlled. OU/016296- U1R11/3225668. a121211W �( RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Honorable Planning December 21, 1998 Page 8 Commissioners ► The General Plan Policy allowing for the siting of new buildings so long as such sitings are regulated to preserve, to the extent practical, public views and unique natural resources. ► The General Plan Policy allowing for the City's promotion of prosperity of its commercial districts through the adoption of appropriate development regulations, so that those districts reflect the high quality of the City's residential areas. In fact, the Staff Report specifically notes 11. . . the proposed amendment will provide for a hotel site and additional professional and business office space. Professional and business office uses are an integral part of an important commercial district in Newport Beach. . . . an additional office building will improve the prosperity of Newport Place and the overall airport area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the area. Also, an extended stay hotel is a use supportive of corporate business office uses." (Staff Report, page 5.) Thus, there exists ample "rational basis" for the proposed amendments and, as such, QBC's challenges based on Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process are unpersuasive.' °It is worthwhile noting that QBC erroneously relies on the case of Topanga Assn for a Scenic Communitv v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, which, unlike the matter currently before the Planning Commission, concerned the propriety of a variance. Because the matters before the Commission are fundamentally legislative in nature, the Supreme Court's discussion of the quasi - judicial handling of variances is inapposite. 680/018298 - 000113225668. SIMI /9% E 0 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS • Honorable Planning Commissioners December 21, 1998 Page 9 r -1 LJ Based on the foregoing, the E.J. Holtze Corporation, with the concurrence of Lennar Partners, respectfully requests that the Planning Commission authorize the MND, and approve the General Plan and PC Amendments as proposed in the Staff Report. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP eonard A. amp LAH:eg cc: Jan Holtze (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Bill Smith (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Robin Clauson (via fascimile and U.S. mail) Patty Temple (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Mark Myers (via facsimile and U.S. mail) David Evans & Associates (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Coralee Newman (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 680/018298 - 0001/3225668. x12/21/98 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 30, 1998 TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney RE: Holtze Project Extended Stay Hotel /Office Development I have reviewed the December 8, 1998 and December 10, 1998 letters from the firm of Battaile & Hargrave on behalf of Quail Business Center ( "QBC "). I have also reviewed the December 21, 1998 letter and response to the opposition prepared by Len Hampel of Rutan & Tucker in support of the Project. In my opinion the analysis by Holtze's attorney adequately states the appropriate response to the legal issues raised by the opposition. I have reviewed the case law cited by Mr. Battaile in his letters and, in my opinion, the cases are not relevant to this Project. While there is case law that discusses spot zoning, those cases discuss a City's actions to down zone the property of the complaining property owner. The proposed Holtze project does not change ABC's zoning. Although the Millbrae case cited by Mr. Battaille deals with a planned development district similar to the City of Newport Beach Planned Community District Zoning, the case is factually and legally inapplicable to this application. Furthermore, Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles is a case that discusses the finding necessary to grant a variance. This Project application is for a general plan amendment and not a variance. I will, of course, be available at the Planning Commission meeting to respond to additional questions. ROBIN CLAUSON RLC: krs F:\ Cat \Shared\Kell i\M emo\Holtze comments.doe //0 SOLUTIONS December 30, 1998 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Holtze Executive Village Parking Rationale Dear Newport Beach Planning Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY CP7 n1F\.A100PT REACH AM DEC 3 0 1996 PM 71819110111112111213141516 At your last Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1998, a public hearing was held on the Holtze Executive Village. During that hearing, several questions were raised regarding the adequacy of the City's parking ratio (I parking space per every two guest • rooms). The specific concern raised questioned the adequacy of the parking at peak occupancy periods. For clarification purposes, please note the following: The project is configured with 120, two- bedroom, two - bathroom suites, 16, three - bedroom, three - bathroom suites, and 16 single guest rooms. These rooms are utilized in various combinations of hotel rooms to account for up to 304, separate, rentable, hotel rooms. Based on the City's parking ratio of I space per 2 hotel rooms, the number of parking spaces required is 153 parking spaces. Our project is providing 281 parking spaces, nearly one space per individual room. ■ Holtze's historical experience with operating other properties in other metropolitan areas, indicates parking during peak occupancy never exceeds 65 -70% of total rooms available. This parking utilization rate is a result, in part, that Holtze rents a certain percentage of its suites on a nightly basis as two - bedroom and three - bedroom suites, thereby reducing the actual number of rooms (i.e., total number of keys) in use, on any particular night. • 120 Newport Center Drive • Newport Beach, California 92660 • (949) 717 -7943 Fax (949) 717 -7942 Newport Beach Planning Commission December 30, 1998 Page 2 In addition, Holtze provides complimentary van transportation service for its patrons to any location within a five -mile radius, 24 hours a day. Holtze expects to have at least four vans operating. For these reasons, Holtze is highly confident that the parking being provided is more than adequate. Sincerely, Coralee Newman Principal, Government Solutions Government Relations Consultant For Holtze Executive Village • 12:22/1998 14:37 3103942424 0 L'TES PAGE 01 Project: l loltze Newport Beach #9802 Date: 22 Dec 98 To: Newport Beach Planning Dept. Attention: Mark Meyers 949 - 6443250 From: Roger Wolf CC: Mike De Vore 949- 588 -5080 Winter. solstice Jan Holtze 376 -2826 Attachment: None r. Re: , , � pik. mq C The time at which the sun is first occluded from the adjacent properties north west facing windows is as follows: Dare By -aght occlusion Holtze Hotel difference occlusion Spring/ fall equinox 3 pm 3 pm none Winter. solstice 3 pm 3:30 pm By right building has greater impact than the proposed hotel Summer solstice 3:30 pm 3:30 pm none Thcrefotc a by -right project will have adverse impacts the same as or worse than the proposed 1 loltze I tote]. •VAN TILBURG, BANVARD & SODERBERGH, ALA PENTHOUSE. 225 ARIZONA AVE, SANTA MONICA CA 90401 TEL 310.394,0273 FAX 310.394.2424 PRINTED: 12/22/98 MEMORANDUM Page I of 1 r� Q z d rW /67 27. . m A...........:..... J a. 7 �a. r a� ' n 1 7 C L Tn _ o M IJ r - t� Is. j r ! - i( I r� y 1 3s��� �, c ( tI _I m 1 Pi t a L- EZ l' ok $ G.'I:L "p4er y N N A Y A ? >> s m m' c Yj cc C •.T tll , 1� z I3 / L:. y Go' ��r FIv \ I I i PI IV] cccz 0 if if Is )I C jq . !'I z 0 M I w Hl Mil hill if CIO cr) Ig if I ZO Tllldl 32 -Mill OL S2 771' I UEIIN30 SS3Nisna flMOPPN wv &u=vjd iel�osw 6UOM PI IV] cccz 0 if if Is )I C jq . !'I z 0 M I w Hl Mil hill if CIO cr) Ig if I ZO Tllldl 32 -Mill OL S2 771' I LJ_ si C)_L_ VINHWIlvo )iovsa I IN3VYdOl3A30 stl V1. is Lp A41 iM, it At Aj Htk sa, TFT ILL. �=Ljj VINHOA11VO 'HOV39 IbOdM3N IN3WcIO-IM30 SVOM _j dnoig jeju9wuojjAu3sp1oufi3H,341 ... ...... n.. 4 Li A I-s [1:7 MHW, ;57, n, -Y it p I psi? � bl ECz KIM I fit N� - �E`wPOgr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o ° COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • �� " ° "�`p NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92655 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1998 4 Marc Myers (949) 644 -3210 14 days PROJECT: 1301 Quail Street and 1001 Quail Street HEV- Newport Beach, LTD. and Lennar Partners (applicants) PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: A request to permit the construction of an extended stay hotel and an office building. The project involves the approval of. • a General Plan Amendment and PC Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is required to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building. The PC Amendment involves modifications to the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The PC text modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to: • increasing the square footage entitlement in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community, • changing the land use designation at 1301 Quail Street from • Industrial to Hotel, • changing the land use designation at 1001 Quail Street from Auto Center to Professional and Business Office, • establishing a 60 foot height limit for the hotel site, • establishing a 95 foot height limit for the office site, • establishing new street -side front yard, and side yard setback requirements, • a Use Permit for the establishment of an extended stay hotel, • a Lot Line Adjustment to combine two adjacent parcels, and • a Traffic Study. ACTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the project and: • Accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and • Adopt Resolution 98- approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C); and • Adopt Resolution 98 -, recommending approval of Planned Community Amendment No. 880; and Approve: • • Use Permit No. 3640 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -13 • Traffic Study No. 118 With findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". /16 LOCATION: 1301 Quail Street: Southeast corner of Spruce Street and Quail Street. 1001 Quail Street: Southwest corner of Dove Street and Quail Street. ZONE: PC (Newport Place Planned Community) OWNERS: HEV- Newport Beach, LTD., Hermosa Beach, CA LNR Corporate Plaza, Inc., Irvine, CA Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the sites for "Retail Service Commercial" uses. Hotel and office uses are permitted within this designation. The Land Use Element currently allows 99,538 square feet of floor area and 7.63 acres for auto center use for a total of 160,578 square feet in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element to increase the entitlement in Block I by 109,200 square feet of office and 304 hotel rooms. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the project, and a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Negative Declaration is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject applications. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Use Permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. • Lot Line Adjustment procedures and requirements are set forth in Title 19 of the Municipal Code. • Traffic Study requirements are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Pemit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Paga-2� !T% • VICINITY MAP DOVE I P -C o5a b � Q u r .0 v G4 o° V 5� ,d QtP •e � � bJ ry a�,�9 6 # NY I w C P -C " J a LOT i 0 Tatc-f No 9394 14.9�A Ac. 3 o I 9) P -C `e p I r Y 4J • V P- G 0 �—tul gUa7c E i 5 ^ t 4 � W M BRISTOL SrREEr CORONA DEL MAR P -C VRPP -tt � �c o q P -C 5 3 769a NORTH FREEWAY WSr,N 3 STREET General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C)i 1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses L Current Development: The site was previously occupied by Fletcher Jones Motor Cars sales and service facilities. To the north: Across Quail Street are mid to high rise professional office buildings and related parking. To the east: Across Dove Street are general retail commercial, professional office and an auto center site. To the south: Are general retail and service commercial uses. To the west: Across Spruce Street are additional mid to high rise professional office buildings. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Tmffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pag,c � Analysis The proposal involves the construction of an extended stay hotel project on the 3.7 acre site located . at 1301 Quail Street, and a professional office building on the 3.9 acre site located at 1001 Quail Street. The proposed extended stay hotel will consist of approximately 200,500 square feet of development including the residential areas, common areas, a clubhouse, a services building, and a mechanical storage room. The hotel will provide 152 two- bedroom suites in five separate, four - story buildings. The required parking for the hotel is provided on -site with the majority of the parking spaces provided in a subterranean parking structure located below the hotel buildings. The proposed office building is approximately 109,200 gross square feet of floor area. The office building is located in the center portion of the lot located at the corner of Quail Street and Dove Street. The required parking will be provided on site and within an existing parking structure on the adjacent lot. General Plan Amendment The Land Use Element of the General Plan is a long range planning document setting forth the City's policies for the use of land. The objective of the Land Use Element is to provide for an orderly balance of residential and commercial uses with an emphasis on preserving the quality of life found in the City. The project is located in Statistical Area L4, Newport Place Block I of the Land Use Element, which does not provide for further growth at this time except for re- establishment of the auto sales which have existed on -site. However, amendments to the General Plan may be approved with the finding that the amendment is consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan policies applicable to this proposal are discussed below. General Plan Policy B allows for some modest growth provided that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City. In order to assess consistency with this policy, a General Plan level traffic analysis was conducted. This analysis showed the proposed hotel and office development would result in an increase in the predicted Level of Service at one of the twelve intersections potentially impacted by the project, at Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive, which is outside city limits. However, an improvement to this intersection has been identified which was not anticipated in the current Circulation Element, an additional southbound right turn lane. This is part of the Orange County Road Design Department design for Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street and University Drive. Implementation of the improvement will allow the intersection to stay within the predicted Level of Service contained in the Circulation Element. Therefore, approval of this amendment would be consistent with policy B, if the project makes a proportional contribution to the improvement. General Plan Policy C in the Land Use Element allows for commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities when traffic congestion and parking shortages are controlled. The proposed hotel is a commercial extended stay hotel seeking to provide support service for the GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 • Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pag1e ' nq professional and business offices that surround the use. Based on the Traffic Study and the number of parking spaces provided on -site for each of the proposed uses, adequate on site parking is . available for the proposed uses. Therefore, the amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to hotel in Block I is consistent with this General Plan policy. General Plan Policy D requires that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to preserve, to the extent practical, public views and unique natural resources. While the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources and environmentally sensitive habitats. The proposed location of the hotel and office building is in Block I of Newport Place Planned Community, which contains a mixture of administrative and financial commercial uses and general retail commercail uses. The previous development was a combination of sales and sevice buildings associated with an automobile dealership. The proposed hotel buildings will maintain an overall height of approximately 50 feet which is comparable to, and lower than many of the existing office buildings in the surrounding area. The hotel will consist of five residential buildings and a clubhouse building with the majority of the required parking provided below in a subterranean parking garage. The office building will be developed on the center portion of the lot, and will integrate the existing adjacent parking structure into the site development. The height of the proposed office building is 95 feet. The height and bulk of the new building is such that it will be visible from many locations within and around the Newport Place area, and will be visible from Quail Street, Dove Street and possibly Bristol Street North. However, the proposed architectural style, finish and color of the hotel and the office buildings are both compatible with the adjacent buildings, and therefore, are in keeping with the general character of the area.. Additionally, the location of the new buildings will not adversely affect natural resources nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat since the sites are currently fully developed. The proposed amendment, therefore, meets the intent of General Plan Policy D. General Plan Policy L provides for the City to promote the prosperity of its commercial districts through the adoption of appropriate development regulations, so that those districts reflect and compliment the high quality of its residential areas. As previously stated, the proposed amendment will provide for a hotel site and additional professional and business office space. Professional and business office uses are an integral part of an important commercial district in Newport Beach. It is the opinion of staff that an additional office building will improve the prosperity of Newport Place and the overall airport area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the area. Also, an extended stay hotel is a use supportive of corporate business office uses. Additionally, the modified development regulations maintain the character of the district and reflect the intent of the Newport Place Planned Community Guidelines, therefore, the amendment meets the intent of General Plan Policy L. GPA 98 -1 C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Page v, n D Planned Community Text Amendments The Newport Place Planned Community Text is intended to implement the policies and development limitations of the General Plan. Should the Planning Commission determine that the General Plan Amendment is appropriate in this case, PC text amendment related to the increased entitlement would be the implementation of the policies of the General Plan. The PC text amendment also includes revisions to the development standards which apply to the site. These are discussed below. Hotel site The applicant is proposing to modify the PC text development standards to accommodate the construction of the proposed buildings. The changes for the hotel include the land use designation for the site from an industrial to a hotel site. Since a hotel use is not permitted within the industrial designation by the PC text, the designation must be amended to a designation consistent with the proposed use. Additional modifications to the PC text development standards include an increase in the height limit and reduced street -side front yard and side yard setback requirements. The proposed height limit for the hotel site is 60 feet, while the current height limit established for this site by the PC text is 35 feet. However, most of the other sites within the Planned Community have a greater height limit, and the existing office buildings surrounding the site are all in excess of 35 feet. Therefore, staff does not believe that any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships would be created by approval of the request. Modifications to the setback requirements for the hotel site also are proposed to accommodate the construction of the hotel facility. Since the site is on the corner of two streets, the PC text requires that a 30 -foot front yard setback be maintained on both "street' sides of the property. Because the facility has five residential buildings and a separate clubhouse building, the facility is spread out over a larger portion of the lot to minimize the bulk in any one portion of the lot and to meet fire separation requirements. The proposed street setback is 17 feet 6 inches minimum, provided that the average setback for all buildings along the linear street frontage is 30 feet. While this does allow the footprints of the buildings to come closer to the street, it does require that articulations be provided in the buildings for relief along the street frontage to maintain the 30 -foot average setback. This will minimize the building mass and presence along the street frontages. Additionally, the side yard setbacks along the interior property lines will be reduced from 10 feet to 7 feet minimum provided that the buildings maintain a 10 -foot average setback similar to the intent of the street side setback modification. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed setbacks will, with the resulting building articulation, meet the intent of the existing requirement. Office Building site The office building is proposed on a site currently designated for auto center usage. To accommodate the proposed office building, this site must also be changed to a designation consistent with the proposed use. The land use designation of the proposed office building site will be changed from auto center to the professional and business office designation. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 I-I-A No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page The proposed office building is within the "6- story" building height limit established by the PC text regulations for this site. However, the existing height limit established by the PC text does not address items such as mechanical rooms, parapet walls and other roof top equipment. The proposed office building is 5 stories, and the total overall height of the structure per the plans is 91 feet. Therefore, staff supports the establishment of a 95 foot height limit. The proposed office building complies with all other site regulations. Fiscal Impact Analysis City Council Policy F -17 provides that all major zoning, subdivision and development permits considered by the City Council or Planning Commission shall be accompanied by an economic analysis describing the costs and revenues to the City associated with the actions. Land use conversions are to be accompanied by a before and after cost/revenue analysis. In keeping with this policy, the Assistant to the City Manager has prepared the fiscal impact analysis attached to this report. The analysis shows that the proposed office and hotel developments will generate approximately $750,438 in revenue annually to the City, while costing the City approximately $86,400 annually to provide municipal services to the developments. Therefore, the project would have a net impact of $664,038 on the City's finances. Staff also analyzed the likely fiscal impact on the City if the land use designations were not changed. In that case, it is assumed that the site at 1301 Quail Street, which has a industrial designation, would be redeveloped with an office building. The site at 1001 Quail Street, which has an auto center designation, would again be used as a new automobile sales facility. With these assumptions, the net impact on the City's finances is estimated to be $1.5 million, primarily as a result of the sales tax generated by automobile sales. This analysis shows a greater positive fiscal impact for the City with the existing than with the proposed land use designations. When considering this analysis, it is important to also consider the likelihood of the development assumed in the analysis to occur. As part of the City's economic development efforts, a feasibility study of an auto center in the area of Quail, Dove, Bristol and Spruce Streets was prepared. That study showed that while the area is suitable for auto uses from geographic and market points of view, the land values are so high that auto uses would locate in the area only if there were a very significant public subsidy. For this reason, staff believes auto uses are not very likely to develop, while the proposed development is likely to occur, given the investment made by the applicants in the land and the entitlement process. A copy of the report is attached for the Planning Commissions review. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 19988 pa Use Permit Hotel development in the Newport Place Planned Community requires the approval of a Use Permit. If approved, this use permit will allow the construction of an extended stay hotel. The hotel will consist of 152 two - bedroom suites. All of the suites in the hotel are 2- bedrooms and 2- bathrooms, with a full sized, fully equipped kitchen, living room with fireplace and dining area. The suites are arranged so that each one can be divided into two separate units. Therefore, the proposed use permit-will allow . a -maximum of 304 hotel rooms to be located on the site. Additionally, the use permit will allow new ancillary uses which include a 9,500 square foot clubhouse, with meeting rooms, front desk, a lounge area, an indoor workout room, outdoor pool/spa, and laundry facilities. The nature of the proposed hotel is such that it serves business people who have a need to stay in town for periods of time which are longer than a typical hotel stay but shorter than a typical apartment lease. Parking The proposed partially subterranean parking structure will provide the parking for the proposed building. The Municipal Code requires 1 parking space for each two guest rooms. With a total of 304 guest rooms, 153 parking spaces are required. However, since the hotel caters to corporate users from out of town with longer stays and lower turnover, staff is of the opinion that the demand on parking may be higher in this case since a rental car is typically utilized for the duration of the stay and parked at the hotel. Therefore, project is providing 281 parking spaces in the subterranean parking garage which is at a ratio of nearly 1 space per individual room rather than a suite. Staff is of the opinion that this is an adequate number of parking for the hotel use. Vehicular Access and On -Site Circulation: The ingress /egress to this parking structure is provided through the existing surface parking lot from Quail Street and a secondary entrance from Bristol Street North. The site plan calls for a 26 foot wide drive aisle with direct access to the parking structure from both Quail and Bristol Streets through the surface parking lot. Since there are two existing access points to the site, access and circulation for the site are considered adequate. Since the hotel is a support or ancillary use to the surrounding area and provides adequate on -site parking and has acceptable vehicular access and on -site circulation and complies with all other Planned Community Development Regulations, staff has no objections to the hotel use on this site. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy L -18. The City Traffic Engineer identified twelve intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections is listed on page 7 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one - percent traffic volume OPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 / Page /B3 analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than one . percent of the projected 21/2-hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. The traffic study indicates that eight of the twelve intersections identified failed the 1% analysis (Table 2, page 7); therefore Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses were conducted at the eight intersections that exceeded the 1% threshold. As indicated in Table 3 of the attached Traffic Study, the project will add between 0.00 and 0.01 to the ICU at six of the eight intersections but will operate at a level of service D or better in both peak hours With the proposed project traffic, the intersection of Bristol North and Birch Street would also increase the ICU in the evening peak hour by 0.01 to 0.95. Therefore, an improvement is also required for this intersection. However, a second northbound left turn lane at the intersection was constructed since the traffic study was prepared. With this improvement, the evening peak hour ICU is reduced to 0.89, resulting in an intersection which complies with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Therefore, it is not necessary to attach a condition to this project approval related to this improvement. With the proposed project traffic, however, the ICU of Bristol North and Campus Drive would increase in the evening peak hour by 0.02 to 0.97. Therefore, under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines, an improvement is required for this intersection. The provision of a direct ramp from westbound State Route 73 (SR 73) to southbound State Route 55 (SR 55) will mitigate impacts at the intersection of Bristol North and Campus Drive and will result in a reduction of the ICU value is to less than 0.90 and mitigate the project impacts. The basic standard for approval of a project pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is summarized below: 1. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any "major, " "primary- modified" or "primary" street; or 2. The project is required to construct major improvements to the circulation system such that: • All unsatisfactory level of service will not be caused or made worse at any intersection for which there is an identified improvement, and • The benefits to traffic circulation resulting from the major improvements substantially outweigh the increased traffic congestion at impacted but unimproved intersections; and • There is an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at impacted intersections, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes at those intersections, because of improvements required of the project. GPA 98 -1C • PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10' 1998 Pag In order to comply with this standard, the improvements identified in the traffic study must be made conditions of approval, because they are feasible. The TPO does provide for relief from this mandate if certain findings are made, as follows: • 1. The time and money to complete the improvement is so clearly disproportional to the size of and traffic generated by, the project that it would be unreasonable for the City to condition the project on completion of the improvement; and 2. There is a strong likelihood construction of the improvement will commence within 48 months from the date of project approval. This finding cannot be made unless the following has been accomplished: • Conceptual plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to permit preparation of cost and fu nding estimates, • Cost and funding estimates have been prepared, • The improvement is consistent with the General Plan, • An account has been established by the City to receive contributions to the project, and 3. Approval of the project is conditioned upon the payment of a fee to fund tine project the amount of which is determined by the Traffic Engineer to be proportional to the project's traffic when compared to other traffic anticipated from other development which will occur from tine date of • approval to completion of the improvement, and 4. Tine financial contribution outweighs the project's temporary impact on tine unimproved intersection. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the improvement at SR 73 and SR 55 is substantial in nature, requiring the acquisition of right -of -way and the construction of a freeway ramp. The project under consideration contributes approximately 2% to the critical movement which causes the ICU to increase from .95 to .97. Therefore, burdening this project with the full cost of this improvement could be considered not roughly proportional to the project's traffic impacts. A fee proportional to the project's small contribution to the overall function of the intersection could be established, which would outweigh the project's temporary impacts on the intersection until the improvement is complete. Also, because improvement plans, cost and funding estimates and establishment of an account to receive funds have been completed, it is the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that it is highly likely that the improvements can be accomplished within a 48 month time frame. Therefore, this project does qualify for approval pursuant to the required TPO findings. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 • Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page CBS Lot Line Adjustment • The applicant is requesting the approval of a lot line adjustment to combine the two lots into one parcel in conjunction with the construction of the new commercial office building. A lot line adjustment is required to remove the lot line between the lot on which the office building will be constructed and the adjacent lot on which the existing parking structure is located. This is necessary so that the required number of parking spaces for the proposed office building are provided on site as required by the Municipal Code. Since the two lots are contiguous, and the existing parking structure is required parking for the proposed office building, staff has no objections to the lot line adjustment. Recommendations The adoption and amendment of the General Plan is considered a legislative act on the part of the City, and State Planning Law does not set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such requests. Zoning actions are required to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed hotel and additional office entitlement could be found consistent with General Plan policies because adverse traffic impacts are not anticipated in association with the project, the visitor accommodation will not create traffic or parking problems, the project will not affect public views or unique natural resources, and the additional office space and hotel will add to the prosperity of Newport Place. Additionally, the project is located within a large regional office • center and therefore is physically compatible with the existing surrounding development. Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff is of the opinion that the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed extended stay hotel facility since the parking requirement can be adequately served by the subterranean parking garage provided on -site. Additionally, issues related to access and site circulation have been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and are adequate. Because of the site's location in a regional office center, there is little potential for problems associated with the hotel operation. In addition, staff also believes that the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations adequately address site requirements and provide for uniform landscape treatment throughout the center. It can also be found that the project meets the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance because, although adverse impacts to two intersections have been identified, an improvement which GPA 98 -1C . PC Amendment No. $90 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Pag� C/ has been constructed which will help mitigate impacts of the projects. Additionally, a proportional contribution to the new ramp between SR -73 and SR -55 will be required. With the improvements constructed, the ICU values during the A.M. and P.M. will not increase with the project within the • timeframes for this analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Further, it can be found that the lot line adjustment would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the project, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial since the proposed use in this particular case conforms to all other requirements of the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations and does not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood. However, should information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE MARC W. MYERS Planning Director Associate Planner • Attachments: Appendix Exhibit "A" with Resolutions Negative Declaration Traffic Study Fiscal Analysis Site Plan, Garage/Parking Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOM\1998\12-10\GPA98-IC-rpt GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment 640 Use Permit ir No. o. 3640 . Traffic Study No. 118 L -A No. 98 -13 December 10, 19.98✓ Pages 2 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C), Planned Community Amendment No. 880, Use Permit No. 3640, Traffic Study No. 118 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 98 -13 A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. • 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall implement each of the design recommendations stipulated in the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project (Medall et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998), subject to the review and approval of the Building Department. Those reports shall serve as the definitive guides to geotechnical mitigation requirements for the proposed office and hotel sites, in addition to standard engineering practice and local and State building codes. 2. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavations, subgrade preparation, and fill placement activities on the project properties. Sufficient in -place field density tests shall be performed during fill placement and in -place compaction to evaluate the overall compaction of the soils. Test areas that do not meet minimum GPA 98 -1 C • PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. I 19 f.lA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Page la compaction requirements shall be reworked and retested prior to placement of any additional fill. 3. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all earthwork during construction on the project properties to confirm that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical reports (Medall et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998) are applicable during construction. 4. The final grading, shoring, and foundation plans for the hotel and office properties shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical consultant as soon as they are available. The analysis, findings, and recommendations of that review shall be presented to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) submitted to the City shall specify that water quality inlets be constructed to filter hydrocarbons from water runoff before entering the storm drains. Inlet design shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practice (BMP) standards in Appendix G of the County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 6. Construction activity mitigations shall include the following measures: Dust Control . • Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to less than the combined project site areas and use enhanced dust control measures. The menu of enhanced dust control measures includes the following: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Emissions Control • Require 90 -day low-NO, tune -ups for off -road equipment • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 . Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Page C Off -Site Impacts • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. 7. The hotel operator shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement, particularly as they relate to pool and/or clubhouse activities. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. Between the hours of 10:00 and 10:00 p.m. p.m. and 7:00 a.m. interior exterior interior exterior Measured at the property line of N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA commercially zoned property: Measured at the property line of residentially N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA • zoned property: Residential property; 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans and engineering plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department in order to demonstrate that adequate emergency access and water supply /pressure are available to the project. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit lighting, landscape, and site plans to the City of Newport Beach Police Department in order to demonstrate that employee and guest security are enhanced by site design elements. 10. The applicant shall prepare a recycling plan specifying source separation methods for both construction and operation of the project. This plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Director of General Services. 11. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning GPA 98 -1 C • PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page �9d Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. B. Use Permit No. 3640: Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designate the site for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial' uses and a hotel is a permitted use within this designation. 2. The proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact based on information presented and incorporated into the Negative Declaration. 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 5. Approval of Use Permit No. 3640 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The hotel use is compatible with the surrounding professional office and general commercial uses in the area since hotel uses are typically a support use. • The hotel operation is compatible with the character of the neighborhood since the surrounding buildings are mid and high -rise structures consisting of office uses. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed use. • There are no significant aesthetic impacts. GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Pag. /% 1 • The hotel use is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and will not result in adverse traffic impacts. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the hotel facility. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The project shall provide 281 parking spaces on site. 3. Intersections of the private drive at Quail Street shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 4. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 5. The existing unused drive approaches shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Spruce Street, Dove Street and Quail Street frontages and that any displaced or cracked sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the same street frontages. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation along the Bristol Street frontage. 6. That all employees shall park on -site. 7. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 8. 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. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Bristol Street North right -of -way. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3640 is subject to final City Council approval of GPA 98 -1 (C). GPA 98 -IC • PC Amendment No. 990 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. L 8 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10. 1998 Page 19a Standard Requirements: 1. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of any required public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a grading or building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. Public easements and utilities crossing the site shall be shown on the grading and building site plans. 5. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 6. Each building shall be served with individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 7. That the proposed hotel facility and related parking structure shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 8. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer 11. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 12. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 L1-A No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pag� �N causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. Traffic Study No. 118 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy L -18. 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will cause and make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more 'major; 'primary- modified,' or 'primary' streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. • 4. The cost of one of the identified mitigation measures for the intersections is not proportional to the size of this project and therefore, not likely to be implemented as a result of this single project. Conditions: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building (1001 Quail Street), the City Traffic Engineer shall determine, and the applicant shall pay, a fee proportional to the projects impact to the intersection at Bristol Street North and Campus Drive as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. D. Lot Line Adjustment: Findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan since the lots are for commercial development which is a permitted use in this area. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pag t/ 2. The proposal will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the lot line adjustment as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the • following reasons: • The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 %. • The project is a minor lot line adjustment which does not create any new parcels. • No additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. • The project will not result in a change in land use or density since no additional lots will be created and the commercial land use will be maintained. • The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities because public improvements and infrastructure are existing. • The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding area and the requirement of the Newport Place Planned Community Text and Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Based on the information of this particular case, the provisions of Title 19 of the Municipal Code (entitled Subdivisions) or the Subdivision Map Act, do not apply to the adjustment of lot lines between adjacent parcels of land and are excepted from such provisions. Conditions: 0 1. Prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. 2. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds shall be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. GPA 96 -IC PC Amendment No. 640 Use Permit No. 3640 . Traffic Study No. I18 LLA No. 96 -13 December 10, 1996 Pag� . Expanded Traffic Study Analysis The attached traffic study has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L -18. The trip generation forecasts are set forth on Page 4 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 3 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified twelve intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are listed in Table 2, located on Page 7 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one - percent traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 21/2-hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. As summarized in Table 2 located on Page 7 of the attached traffic study, an analysis of each of the twelve intersections identified an increase in traffic at eight intersection legs that exceeded 1% of the projected 2 -1/z hour morning and afternoon peak traffic at eight intersections. An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted eight intersections. As indicated in Table 3, located on Page 9 of the attached traffic study, the ICU • values during the A.M. and P.M. peak for six intersections did not exceed 0.90. The ICU values at two intersections do increase in the evening peak hour by 0.01 and 0.02. However, improvements have been completed and additional improvements are planned which mitigate the traffic impacts of the project to acceptable levels. GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 . Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 99 -13 December 10. 1998 Pag 1/ / I � RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INDUSTRIAL TO HOTEL AND AUTO CENTER TO PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICE, AND INCREASE THE ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY [General Plan Amendment No. 98 -1(C)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy B, since the proposed increase in office development will not result in significant changes to the long range traffic service levels with the contribution to an identified improvement; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy C, since adequate on -site parking is provided for the proposed uses, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect public views nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed development is consistent with General Plan Policy L, because additional office space is supportive of the prosperity of the Newport Place area; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment 98 -1 (C) at which time this amendment to the Land Use Element was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon information contained in the Initial Study, it GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pag 171 E 0 i 0 r1 L� C� has been determined that, if proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and accepted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach amend the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4 (NP Blk I) Block I, and the Estimated Growth for Statistical Area L4 Table of the General Plan to read as follows: Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) 2 -8. NP Block I. Block I is bounded by Spruce Street, Quail Street, Dove Street and Bristol Street North. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land uses and is allocated 378,713 sq. ft. and 304 hotel rooms. GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LIA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page.23 I a ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L4 Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq. ft.) Existing Gen. Plan Projected Existing Gen. Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth I -1.KCN OS A -0- -0- -0- 874,346 874,346 -0- 1-2.KCN OS B -0- -0- -0- 1,060,898 1,060,898 -0- 1 -3.KCN OS C -0- -0- -0- 734,641 734,641 -0- 1-4.KCN OS D -0- -0- -0- 250,176 250,176 -0- 1-5.KCN OS E -0- -0- -0- 27,150 32,500 5,350 1 -6.KCN OS F -0- -0- -0- 31,816 34,300 2,484 1 -7.KCN OS G -0- -0- -0- 81,372 81,372 -0- 1-8.KCN OS I -0- -0- -0- 377,520 442,775 65,255 1- 9.KCNRS 1 -0- -0- -0- 52,086 102,110 50,024 1- 10.Court House -0- -0- -0- 69,256 90,000 20,744 2 -INP BLK A -0- -0- -0- 349,000 380,362 31,362 2- 2.NPBLKB -0- -0- -0- 10,150 11,950 1,800 2 -3.NP BLK C -0- -0- -0- 211,487 457,880 246,393 2 -4.NP BLK D -0- -0- -0- 274,300 288,264 13,964 2- 5.NP BLK E -0- -0- -0- 834,762 860,884 26,122 2 -6.NP BLK F -0- -0- -0- 192,675 201,180 8,505 2 -7.NP BLK G & H -0- -0- -0- 255,001 295,952 40,951 2 -8.NP BLK I -0- -0- -0- 99,538 378,713 279,175 2 -9.NP BLK I -0- -0- -0- 190,500 228,530 38,030 3. Campus Drive -0- -0- -0- 885,202 1,261,727 376,525 TOTAL -0- -0- -0- 6,861,876 8,068,560 1,206,684 Population -0- -0- -0- revised 12/10/98 GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LIA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page.23 I a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development authorized by this action is allocated to 1301 and 1001 Quail Street, Newport Beach. • m M ADOPTED this 10" day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Richard Fuller, Secretary AYES ABSENT GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. I IS LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Paw—W /97 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR NEWPORT PLACE BLOCK I AT 378,713 SQUARE FEET (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 880) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to establish or amend a Planned Community Development Plan must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations is consistent with the General Plan; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 10, 1998, at which time this amendment to amend the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the "Retail and Service Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, since the proposed amendment does not alter the character of the subject property or the Newport Place Planned Community District as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment upon implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Negative Declaration prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and GPA 98 -1C PC Amendment No. 880 Use Permit No. 3640 Traffic Study No. 118 LLA No. 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Page WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Newport Place Planned Community District, to increase the permitted amount of development, will apply only to the property at 1301 and 1001 Quail Street and not to any other site in Newport Place, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the development regulations of the Newport Place Planned Community District, specifically related to Professional and Business Office Site 2A and Hotel Site 2B only and not to any other site in Newport Place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 880 as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the additional development authorized by this.action shall be limited to new construction at 1301 and 1001 Quail Street, Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES F. I-4ak I m M Edward Selich, Chairman Richard Fuller, Secretary Attachment: Exhibit I GPA 98 -IC PC Amendment No. 890 Use Permit No. 3640 Tragic Study No. 118 LLA No, 98 -13 December 10, 1998 Pa9�� Jb1 0 11 • ,c--x /4I a, -z PLANNED CONIMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NEWPORT PLACE Emkay Development Company, Inc. Newport Beach, California s CONTENTS General Notes 1 Definitions 2 Statistical Analysis 4 thru 17 PART I - INDUSTRIAL Section I Minimum Site Area 18 Section II Permitted Uses 18 Group I. Light Industrial 18 A 18 B 20 C 20 Group II. Medium Industrial and Indus- trial Service and Support Facilities 20 A 20 B 22 C ! ► 22 D 24 Section III General Development Standards for Industry 25 A. Building Height 25 B. Setbacks 26 C. Site Coverage 26 D. Sign Area 27 E. Sign Standards 28 F. Parking 29 G. Landscaping 30 H. Loading Areas 31 I. Storage Areas 31 J. Refuse Collection Areas 31 K. Telephone and Electrical Services 32 L. Sidewalks 32 M. Nuisances 32 PART II - COMMERCIAL Section I Minimum Site Area 33 Section II Permitted Uses 33 Group I. Professional and Business Offices 33 A. Professional Offices 33 B. Business Offices 34 . C. Support Commercial 34 Group U. Commercial Uses A. Automobile Center 35 B. Hotels and Motels 35 C. City, County, and State Facilities 35 D. Service Stations, Car Wash 35 E. Retail Commercial Uses 35 F. General Commercial 36 Section III General Development Standards for Commerce A. Setbacks 38 B. Signs 39 C. Sign Standards 40 D. Parking 40 E. Landscaping 42 F. Lbading Areas 44 G. Storage Areas 44 H. Refuse Collection Areas 44 . I. Telephone & Electrical Services I Pedestrian Access 44 44 ATTACHED EXHIBITS Exhibit A. Land Use (1,5) (8) Exhibit B. Grading & Roads (1) Exhibit C. Storm Drain (1) Exhibit D. Water & Sewer (1) Exhibit E. Topography (1) Exhibit F. Traffic Analysis (1) r� u d6q l 0 Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place - Ordinance No. 1369 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 21, 1970. Amendment No. 1 Approved on December 13, 1971 by Resolution No. 7572 (A -305) Amendment No. 2 Approved on June 12, 1972 by Resolution No. 7706 (A -325) Amendment No. 3 Approved on October 24, 1972 by Resolution No. 7846 (A -341) Amendment No. 4 Approved on January 8, 1983 by Resolution No. 7901 (A -349) Amendment No. 5 Approved on July 23, 1973 by Resolution No. 8054 (A -369) Amendment No. 6 Approved on June 10, 1974 by Resolution No. 8262 (A -429) Amendment No. 7 Approved on September 8, 1975 by Resolution No. 8588 (A -450) i Amendment No. 8 Approved on February 9, 1976 by Resolution No. 8693 (A -462) Amendment No. 9 Approved on April 11, 1977 by Resolution No. 9050 (A -488) Amendment No. 10 Approved on May 23, 1977 by Resolution No. 9091 (A -490) Amendment No. 11 Approved on April 10, 1978 by Resolution No. 1003 (A -504) Amendment No. 12 Approved on July 11, 1978 by Resolution No. 9393 (A -510) Amendment No. 13 Approved on November 27, 1978 by Resolution No. 9472 (A -514) Amendment No. 14 Approved on June 11, 1979 by Resolution No. 9563 (A -530) Amendment No. 15 Approved on March 23, 1982 by Resolution No. 10003 (A -560) Amendment No. 16 Approved on March 26, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -22 (A -604) Amendment No. 17 Approved on April 23, 1984 by Resolution No. 84-30 (A -597) Amendment No. 18 Approved on June 25, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -58 (A -607) Amendment No. 19 Approved on July 23, 1984 by Resolution No. 84 -79 (A -608) Amendment No. 20 Approved on January 12, 1987 by Resolution No. 87 -1 (A -637) • X05 WPM Amendment No. 21 Approved on March 9, 1987 by Resolution No. 87 -30 (A -638) Amendment No. 22 Approved on March 14, 1988 by Resolution No. 88 -17 (A -658) Amendment No. 23 Approved on August 14, 1989 by Resolution No. 89 -94 (A -684) Amendment No. 24 Approved on July 22, 1991 by Resolution No. 91 -83 (A -740) Amendment No. 25 Approved on March 9, 1992 by Resolution No. 92 -20 (A -749) Amendment No. 26 Approved on June 8, 1992 by Resolution No. 92 -58 (A -745) Amendment No. 27 Approved on September 13, 1993 by Resolution No. 93 -69 (A -783) Amendment No. 28 Approved on January 22, 1996 by Resolution No. 96- (A- ) Amendment No 29: " „!Appiov_ed o��'_;`�1499_by_ResoluUon No {98._,(A, F • • aoh GENERAL NOTES . The Newport Project, a planned community development is a project of Emkay Development Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Morrison - Knudsen Company, Inc. The area is most appropriate for commercial and light industrial use because of its central location, ideal topography, availability to four freeways, accessibility to two railroads and its relation to the Orange County Airport. Attached drawings indicate land use, grading and roads, storm drains, water and sewer, topography and traffic analysis. 2. Water within the Planned Community area will be finished by the City of Newport Beach. 3. Sewerage Disposal facilities within the Planned Community area are by the City of Newport Beach. 4. Prior to or coincidental with the filing of any tentative map or use permit, the developer shall submit a master plan of drainage to the Director of Public Works. 5. The height of all buildings and structures shall comply Alth F.A.A. criteria. 6. Except as otherwise stated in this ordinance, the requirements of the Zoning Code, City of Newport Beach, shall apply. . The contents of this supplemental text notwithstanding, no construction shall be proposed within the boundaries of this Planned Community District except that which shall comply with all provisions of the Building Code and the various mechanical and electrical codes related thereto. 7. Phasin.1ofDevelopment. 1,799,941 sq.ft. of development was existing or under construction as of October 1, 1978. The additional allowable development in the total approved development plan is 566,423 square feet. Any further development subsequent to October 1, 1978, in excess of 30% of the additional allowable development, being 169,927 sq.ft. shall be approved only after it can be demonstrated that adequate traffic facilities will be available to handle that traffic generated by the project at the time of occupancy of the buildings involved. Such demonstration may be made by the presentation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. (Phasing Plan approved by City Council March 12, 1979 for all development subject to this regulation.)(13) • FU 4r • DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of the structure, excluding supports. Area of Elevation: Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. Building Line: An imaginary line parallel to the street right -of -way line specifying the closest point from this street right -of -way line that a building structure may be located (except for overhangs, stairs and sunscreens). Public Safety Area: A strip of land twenty (20) feet In width and running parallel with street rights -of -way. Right- of -Wgy Line: . When reference is made to right -of -way line it shall mean the line which is then established on either the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the filed Tract Map for Minor Roads as the ultimate right -of -way line for roads or streets. Side and Front of Corner Lots: For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, irrespective of the direction in which structures face. Sim Any structure, device or contrivance, electric or non - electric and all parts thereof which are erected or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any poster, bill, bulletin, printing, lettering, painting, device ... h� J Site Area 0 The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit. Special Landscaped Street: Special landscaped streets are designated as MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, ffsstol North and Birch Street. The landscaping requirements for special landscaped streets and for the remaining streets are described in the following text. Streets - Dedicated and Private: Reference to all streets or rights -of -way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights -of -way, In the case of private or non - dedicated streets, a minimum setback from the right -of -way line of said streets of ten (10) feet shall be required for all structures. Except for sidewalks or access drives, this area shall be landscaped according to the setback area standards from dedicated streets herein. • d� �QI 17J 0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART I. INDUSTRIAL* A- Building Site Site IA– .2.0 acres (3)(9) Site 2B.. .3.7 acres ......................c 7 ..................... 57 aeres (3)(9 Site 3A .............21.3 acres (2.4) Site 4 ............... 16.9 acres .................... 43.9 acres (9) B. Building Site IA— 34,130 sq.ft .................0.8 ac. (3)(9) Site 2°... 63,138 sqJ1 .................1.1 ae.....97,268 sq.11 ................ 2.2 ae. (3)(9 **Site 3A ............ . 296,209 sq.ft ............... 6.9 ac. (2,4,14) Site 4 ..................288264 sq.ft ............... 6.6 ac. 691 , 74 - Oqn ff I S 6 Re (9 44) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Parking (Criteria: 3 spaces/1000 sq.ft. @ 363 sq.fi./spac Site IA .................... 102 cars.......... 0.9 acres (3)(9) Site 2B .................... 191 e---s ......... 1.6 aeres .............. 293 Site 3A ....................889 cars......... 7.4 ac. (2,4,14) Site 4 .......................865 cars......... 7.2 ac. 2047 ear-s..17.0 ae. 17. ae.(9,14.) � ) 0 jy'�� D. Landscaped - Open Space 0 Site I .................0.30 acres (3)(9) i n Site 21 3 ........ ..........0.70 Site 3A .................6.6 &Eres, ............. aefe.. (3)(9 acres (2,4,14) Site 4 ................... 3.1 acres (9) -.-o -, --sere (9,14) Open 3.8 5¢aee...A') acres.. ......... ac.4(14) � r 9�7 acres�(9;14,29)�tEOpen * 3.8 acres have been allotted for service stations exclusive of permitted building acres and subject to use permit. ** Industrial site 3A has been reduced by 20,000 sq.ft. with the reduction allocated to the allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of Resubdivision 529. The allowable building area for Parcel No. 3 of Resubdivision 529 is now 61,162 sq.ft. (14). � i 4 �l� STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II. COMMERCIAUPROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES A. Building Sites Site 1 & 2.......38.5 acres Site 2 9tc? 51�9'. Site 3A ..............5.2 acres (5) Site 4 ..................9.0 acres Site 5 ..................7.4 acres Site 6 ..................1.9 acres Site 7 ..................2.5 acres Site 8 ..................1.64 acres ........................ 66.14 acres (20) B. Building Area 1. Site 1 & 2 ....... 734,502 square feet(5)(14)(17) b. Three Story ..............5.61 09;200. square feet_(29) Site 3A ............ 115,530 square feet(5) Site 4 ...............201,180 square feet 2. Site 5 ...............268,743 Site 6 ................42,420 square feet (16)(19)(21)(24)(25) square feet Site 7 ...............55,860 square feet Site 8 ...............54,000 square feet (20) Q61 1,11/15 CR11orp �et 1;58 ).,435 _s'paie;feet (21,29) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include, but shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Area Story heights shown are on average building height. The buildings within each parcel may vary within these ranges. Site 1 & 2 ................ 734,502 square feet (5)(14)(17) a. Two Story .................8.42 acres b. Three Story ..............5.61 acres c. Four Story ....:...........4.21 acres d. Five Story .................3.37 acres e. Six Story ...................2.81 acres 1. Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2 have been reduced by 36,119 feet with the reduction allocated to the allowed building area for Parcels 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585. The allowable building area for Parcel 1 & 2 of Resubdivision 585 is now 272,711 square feet.(14) 2. If commercial uses are constructed on Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 5 which are ancillary to and in the same building as office uses, additional development up to a maximum of 294,600 sq.ft. may be developed, so long as office use does not exceed 268,743 sq.ft. (21)(24)(25) Site 3A....... 115,530 square feet (5) a. Two Story ........................... 1.33 acres b. Three Story . .............................88 acreg c. Four Story ... .............................66 acres d. Five Story ... .............................53 acres e. Six Story ..... .............................44 acres f. Seven Story . .............................37 acres g. Fight Story . .............................33 acres Site 4........ 201,180 square feet a. Two Story .. ...........................2.31 acres b. Three Story ..........................1.54 acres c. Four Story . ...........................1.15 acres d. Five Story ... .............................92 acres e. Six Story .... .............................77 acres Site 5........ 268,743 square feet (16)(19)(21)(25) a. Two Story ..........................1.90 acres b. Three Story ........................1.27 acres c. Four Story ............................95 acres d. Five Story ............................ 76 acres e. Six Story .. .............................63 acres f. Nine Story .............................50 acres . Site 6 ...... 42,420 square feet a. Two Story .............................49 acres b. Three Story ........................... 32 acres c. Four Story ............................24 acres d. Five Story .............................19 acres e. Six Story .. .............................16 acre Site 7 ........... 55,860 square feet a. Two Story .............................64 acres b. Three Story .......................... 43 acres c. Four Story ............................32 acres d. Five Story .............................26 acres e. Six Story .. .............................21 acres Site 8 ............. 54,000 square feet (20) a. Fbur Story ......................... 0.30 acres D. Parking (Criteria: 1 space/225 sa.ft. - 363 sa.ft/s ace) Site 1 & 2..... 3,260 cars......... 27.17 acres (5) (14) Site�2A.,_.___ 414cars! Y?k26 ** acres (29J Site 3A.......... 514 cars ..............4.28 acres (5) Site 4 .............. 894 cars .............. 7.45 acres Site 5........... 1,234 cars........... 6.13 acres (21) Site 6............ 188 cars.......... 1.57 acres Site 7............ 248 cars........... 2.07 acres Site 8............ 231 cars........... 1.34 acres (20) 6,702 ears .............. 50.01 acres (21) _ 7 0,43 'qty,, : =27eacie *,�(2��9) ;.; , E. Landscaped - Open Space Site 1 & 2 (5,14) Gross Site........ 38.5 acres Parking ........... 27.17 acres Net .................11.33 acres Two Story ......... 8.42 acres....... 2.91 acres Three Story ....... 5.61 acres....... 5.72 acres Four Story ......... 4.21 acres....... 7.12 acres Five Story ......... 3.37 acres........ 7.96 acres Six Story ........... 2.81 acres........ 8.52 acres TWo Story" 1:25 acres . -;I A acres. Tfireb Story, , .84 acres ►, :;.1 84;acres ...r -:, Four Storya 63 acres 'j 2 OS`acres Site 3A (5) Gross Site......... 5.2 acres Parking ............4.28acres Net ....................92 acres Two Story .......... 1.33 acres...... N/A Three Story ........ .88 acres ...... . 04 acres Four Story ......... .66 acres ...... . 26 acres Five Story ......... .53 acres ...... . 39 acres Six Story .......... .44 acres ...... .48 acres Seven Story ........ .37 acres ...... . 55 acres Eight Story ........ .33 acres ...... . 59 acre Site 4 Gross Site......... 9.0 acres Parking ............ 7.45 acres Net ..................1.55 acres 0 Two Story .......... 2.31 acres...... N/A Three Story ........ 1.54 acres ....... . 01 acres Four Story .......... 1.15 acres ...... . 40 acres Five Story .............92 acres ...... . 63 acres Six Story ..............77 acres ...... . 78 acres Site 5 Gross Site........ 7.4 acres Parking ............ 6.13 acres Net ..................1.27 acres Two Story .......... 1.90 acres...... N/A Three Story ........ 1.27 acres ...... . 00 acres Four Story .......... .95 acres ...... . 32 acres Five Story ......... .76 acres . ..... . 51 acres Six Story .......... .63 acres ...... . 64 acres Nine Story ......... .50 acres ...... . 77 acres (21) Site 6 Gross Site......... 1.90 acres Parking .............1.57 acres Net ...................0.33 acres Two Story .......... .49 acres...... N/A Three Story ... f....32 acres ...... . 01 acres Four Story ............ 24 acres ...... . 09 acres Five Story .......... . 19 acres ...... . 14 acres • Six Story .............16 acres ....... .17 acres Site 7 Gross Site......... 2.50 acres Parking ............ 2.07 acres Net .................43 acres Two Story ........... .64 acres...... N/A Three Story ......... .43 acres ...... . 00 acres Four Story ........... .32 acres ...... .11 acres Five Story .............26 acres ..... . 17 acres Six Story ..............21 acres ...... . 22 acres Site 8 Gross Site......... 1.64 acres Parking .............1.34 acres Net .....................30 acres Four Story ......................30 acres...... N/A (20) F. Building Heiaht(5)(12)(15)(21)(2 • Maximum building height shall not exceed six (6) stories above ground level, except for Site 3A which shall have a maximum building height of eight (8) stories above ground level, and for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height of ten (10) stories above ground level and Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivision No. 585 which shall have a maximum building height of seven (7) stories above ground level, and except for Site 5 which shall have a maximum of nine (9) ��lIFT3f „`T^:x Pl .,..y._....... : -.e �yr wlrf �xT_•__.��.:.�� stories/167 feet above around level. Maximum', budding: tieiQhf'f oitP. rofessib tial' & °Busniess_Office:Site • STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 0 PART II RETAIL COMNMRCIAL/PERMITTED USES - Part 1 , Section R Group ME A. Building Sites Site 1......5.8 acres (25) Site 2......1.4 acres 7.2 acres ...........................7.2 acres The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. B. BuildingArea Site 1 ...... 50,000 square feet.... 1.14 acres Sitd 2 ...... 10,000 square feet..... 22 acres 60,000 square feet .... 1.36 acres... 1.36 acres C. Parkine (Criteria: 5 /spaces/1000 sg ft @ 363 sq. ft./ space) Site 1......250 cars............ 2.08 acres Site 2.......50 cars ............. .41 acres 300 cars ............. 2.49 acres ... 2.49 acres D. Landscaped - Open Space Site 1........ 2.58 acres Site 2........ .77 acres 3.35 acres........... 3.35 acres E. Building Heieht Building height of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (3 5) feet. air � M STATISTICAL ANALYSIS • PART II COMMERCIAURESTAURANTS A. Building Site Site 1...... 2.9 acres 2.9 acres .......................2.9 acres (5) (20) The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. B. Building Area Site 1....15.000 square feet ...... 34 acres 15,000 square feet ....... 34 acres (5) (20) C. Parldng (Criteria: 300 occupants/10,000 sq.ft. 1 space/3 occupants 363 sq.ft. /space Site 1......150 cars .....................1.25 acres . 150 cars .................... 1.25 acres (5)(20) D. Landscaped - Open Space Site I ... 1.31 acres 1.31 acres ...................... 1.31 acres (5)(20) E. Buildin Hg eight Building height of strictures shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35) feet. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART lI COMMERCIALIHOTEL & MOTEL A Building Site (26. 9) Site 1 - 6.35 acres Spa %2B p` '3', _ ac;resi 29 B. Hotel Room Limit (18,25;29.) Site 1 - 349 rooms' The following statistics are for information only. Development may include but shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Arga(Site — 349 units ton, 400 sq.8. /unit) (Site 2t' 304'units'Ccil S 1Tnet 'sa:ft'hrriitl "( <I8)F251(291 Site 1 - 3.2 acres 3.2 acres Site 2B �`� �� 3:b acres (total enclosed,aiea is 4 5 acres D. Parking (Criteria: 1 space/unit @363 sq.8. /spaace)(18)(26)(29) Site 1 - 349 parking spaces 2.9 acres ! iA.2B'. ,1'52 °parlang'spaces 2' acies;(total) E. Landscaoina -Open Space (18) The following is intended to show some of the variations possible. 'Use permits approved as of November 14, 1983, allow 468 hotel rooms with related restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities. Hotel suites included as part of the hotel room count may be converted to standard hotel rooms consistent with the specified hotel room limit, so long as the approved site plan is maintained. Location and size of restaurant, conference area, and other support facilities may also be revised if the plans meet the intent of the approved site plan and other conditions of approval.(1)(18) • � IJ I -/ Site 1 One Story Development - 0.92 acres Two Story Development - 2.98 acres Three Story Development - 3.67 acres Four Story Development - 4.02 acres Five Story Development - 4.22 acres Six Story Development - 4.36 acres Seven Story Development - 4.46 acres Eight Story Development - 4.53 acres Mine Story Development - 4.59 acres Ten Story Development - 4.64 acres Eleven Story Development - 4.67 acres Twelve Story Development - 4.71 acres Thirteen Story Development - 4.73 acres The above analysis does not include support facilities utilized in many hotel operations. These facilities would also require parking not reflected in the parking requirement criteria. •tom. �•�-� • -- �;.s••- .,,,.r,,. ,,� .-�: .- Biildulgheig�t"= on >�Srte2B shall notezceetlr�0�eetn "( E 0 0 F STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PART II AUTO CENTER AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (8)(9) PERMITTED USES Part II, Section II, Group II A & F A. Auto Center Building Sites (29 Site lb - 3.0 acres Site 2a- 29 -acres `.9 ae eJ B. General Commercial Building Sites (8)(26) Site 1 - 3.0 acres 0.80 acres Site 2 - 1.0 acres (9) Site 3 - 3.9 acres (9) Site 4 - 2.0 acres (9) Site 5 - 2.45 acres' (26) 0.72 acres (26) 12.35 acres C. Building Area (26)(27) Site 1 - 35,000 sq.ft. - 0.80 acres • Site 2 - 11,700 sq.ft. - 0.27 acres (9) • Site 33 - 49,380 sq.ft. - 1.13 acres (27) ** Site 4 - 20,870 sq. ft. (19)- 0.57 acres (9) * Site 5 - 31.362 soft. - 0.72 acres (26) 148,312 sq.ft. - 3.47 acres (26)(27) * Restaurants are permitted uses in sites 1, 2, 3 and 5, subject to a use permit. (9)(23)(26)(27) ** If the development of General Commercial Site 4 is limited solely to Professional and Business Office use, then the allowable Building Area shall not exceed 30,000 sq.ft. (19) rA recorded reciprocal easement shall be provided for ingress, egress and parking for mutual benefit between Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5. The following statistics are for information only. Development may include, but shall not be limited to the following. (8) D. Parking (Criteria 4 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. ci 363 sq.ft. /space)(9)(26) Site 1 - 140 cars - 1.17 acres Site 2 - 47 cars - 0.39 acres Site 3 - 193 cars - 1.61 acres Site 4 - 100 cars - 0.83 acres Site 5 - 167 cars - 1.39 acres 647 cars - 5.39 acres E. Landscaping - Open Space (9)(26) Site 1 - 1.03 acres Site 2 - 0.34 acres Site 3 - 1.18 acres Site 4 - 0.60 acres Site 5 (1 & 2 story) - 0.24 acres Total 3.39 acres Site 5 (3 story) - 0.49 acres Total 3.64 acres Site 5 (4 story) - 0.75 acres Total 3.90 acres F. Building Height (8)(9)(26 %01 Building height of structures on Auto Center Site la and 2b shall be limited to a height of thirty -five feet (35 ft.). Building height of structures on General Commercial Site 1,2,3, and 4 shall be limited to a height of thirty -five (35 ft.) and on General Commercial Site 5 shall be limited to a height of fifty feet (50 ft.). i i .10 . a � 4_7" 11 PART II COMIvIERCIAUSERVICE STATION" A Building Site Site 1 - 1.2 acres PART I. INDUSTRIAL Section I. Minimum Site Area A Thirty Thousand (30,000) square feet. B. Exception: (1 11 1.2 acres The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: 1. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 2. That the development considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development Standards are substantially met. Section II. Permitted Use Group I. Light Industrial A. To allow uses primarily engaged in research activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings that do not contribute excess noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic, or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential, due to the matter of the product material or processes involved. Such activities may include but shall not be limited to research laboratories and facilities, .developmental laboratories and facilities and compatible light manufacturing related to the following list of examples: Bio- Chemical Chemical Film and Photography Medical and Dental Metallurgy Pharmaceutical X -Ray • "Reference Page 4, Part I, Item D. �a�f � 2. Manufacture, research assembly, testing and repair of components, devices, equipment and systems and parts and components such as but not limited to the following list of examples: Coils, Tubes, Semi - Conductors Communication, Navigation Control, Transmission and Reception Equipment, Control Equipment and Systems, Guidance Equipment and Systems Data Processing Equipment and Systems Glass Edging, Beveling, and Silvering Graphics, Art Equipment Metering Instruments Optical Devices, Equipment and Systems Phonographs, Audio Units, Radio Equipment and Television Equipment Photographic Equipment Radar, infra -red and Ultra- Violet Equipment and Systems Scientific and Mechanical Instruments Testing Equipment t B. To allow the location of offices and areas associated with and accessory to the permitted uses listed under A. Administrative, professional and business offices. 2. Regional or home offices of industries which are limited to a single use. Blueprinting, photostating, photo engraving, printing, publishing and bookbinding, provided that no on -site commercial services is associated with said uses. 4. Cafeteria, cafe, restaurant or auditorium. 5. Service stations will be permitted, subject to a use permit provided that no on -site commercial service is associated with said uses. C. Service stations subject to a use permit. Group H. Medium Industrial and Industrial Service and Support Facilities. A, To allow the location of general manufacturing activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, material or processes involved. Manufacture and/or assembly of the following or similar products: Aircraft and Related Components Clocks and Watches Coffins Ceramic Products Concrete Products Electrical Appliances Farm Equipment Heating & Ventilating Equipment Linoleum Machinery & Machine Tools Musical Instruments Neon Signs Novelties Oil Well Valves & Repairs Optical Goods Ref igeration • Screw Machine Products Sheet Metal Products 2. 9 Shoes Silk Screens Sporting Goods Springs Stencils Toys Trailers Trucks The manufacture of products or products made from the following or similar materials: Aluminum Iron Bags, except Burlap Bags or Linoleum Sacks Matches Batteries Mattresses Boxes, Paper Paper Brass Steel Cans Tih Copper Tools Glass Wool Grinding Wheels Yam . The manufacturing, compounding, processing or treatment of the following or similar items: Acids, Non - Corrosive Candles Cigarettes & Cigars Detergents Disinfectants Dye Food Products Lubricating Oil Pharmaceutical Products Plastics Toiletries Vitamin Products Waxes and Polishes 4. Woodworking Shops, such as: (Provided that, if a planer, router, sticker or moulder is maintained, all doors and windows in the outside walls of the room in which said machinery is located shall be kept closed while said machinery is in use.) Box Furniture Wood Products • 0 5. Distribution and Warehousing Plants B. To allow the location of general manufacturing activities, service industry and activities related to contractor and construction industry, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, materials or processes involved. I. Service industries or those industries providing a service as opposed to the man- ufacture of a specific product, such as the repair and maintenance of appliances or component parts, tooling, printers, testing shops, small machine shops, shops engaged in the repair, maintenance and servicing of items excluding automobile repair, providing that such industries are not the point of customer delivery or collection. 2. Contractor and construction industries relating to building industry, such as general contractors, electrical contractors, plumbing contractors. C. To allow a combination ofgeneM industry, business and professional offices, and industrial support activities, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings, and do not contribute excessive noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor, toxic or noxious • matter to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, materials or processes involved. The industrial support activities shall be defined as and limited to the sale of products or services relating only to the immediate industrial complex. Any activity which could be classified as retail commercial shall be restricted to activities strictly accessory and/or supplementary to the industrial community. M 1. All uses permitted under A, B, and D. . a. Business and Professional Offices. b. Industrial Support Facilities, to include activities limited to the sale of products or services related to only the industrial complex. Activities of a commercial nature shall be restricted in scope so as to service and to be accessory and/or supplementary to the industrial complex. C. Service stations subject to a use permit. 2. Except as herein indicated, the General Development Standards for Industry shall apply. a. Simi Area Industry Support Facilities and Business and Professional Offices. Only one (1) facia mounted identification siEln shall be permitted p& street frontage for each individual business or office. No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one -half (1 -1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. b. Site Identification Ground Sien One (1) site identification sign listing only the name of the site or major tenant on the site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet and a width of eight (8) feet and may be double faced. • 0 C. Pedestrian Access It is required of all developments in the industrial support facility area to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plan will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right of way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. A. To allow for the location of a storage facility for new car inventory. Located within Industrial Site I between Quail Street on the east, adjacent to Auto Center Sites 2A and 2B on the south, 10 Bristol Street on the west This use shall be subject to a use permit. (3) E. (Deleted)(2,4) U � > j Section III. General Development Standards for Industry 0 Maximum building areas shall be as noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part I.A and Part I.B. A Building Height (22) Building heights of structures shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35) feet; provided, however, that on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 86 -33 -34 (Resubdivision No. 529) in Industrial Site 3A, the Planning Commission or the City Council on review or appeal may approve a structure up to a maximum height of 50 feet after the approval of a use permit. The Planning Commission or City Council in granting any use permit for structures in excess of thirty-five (3 5) feet shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: (a) The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required bykhe basic height limit. PArticular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. (b) The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. (c) The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. (d) The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. (22) a3 ��J 0 B. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that line created by the ultimate right -of -way line of the frontage street. 1. Front Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum, except that unsupported roofs or sun - screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Side Yard Setback Ten (10) feet, except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. In the case of a comer lot, the street side setback shall be thirty (30) feet, except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. Interibr lot lines for a comer lot shall be considered side lot lines. 3. Rear Yard Setback No rear yard setback is required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. C. Site Coverage Maximum building coverage of fifty (50) percent is allowed. Parking structures shall not be calculated as building area, however, said structures shall be used only for the parking of company vehicles, employee's vehicles, or vehicles belonging to persons visiting the subject firm. RIMOM D. Signs 1. Sign Area Only one (1) single faced or double faced signs shall be permitted per street frontage. No sign or combination of signs shall exceed one (1) square foot in area for each six hundred (600) square feet of total site area. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area per face. An additional twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed for each additional business conducted on the site. 2. Sale or Lease Sien A sign, advertising the sale, lease, or hire of the site shall be permitted in addition to the other signs fisted in this section. Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of thirty-two (32) square feet. Ground Sign All ground signs shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess of one - hundred fifty (150) square feet in area (single face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback area. However, the above standards shall not apply to the Community Directional Sign and Special Purpose Sign. 4. Special Purpose Sign Signs used to give directions to traffic or pedestrians or give instructions as to special .conditions shall not exceed a total of six (6) square feet (single face) in area and shall be permitted in addition to the other signs fisted in this section. 5. Wall Signs Wall signs shall not comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs; signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. • In the instance of a multiple tenancy building, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the industry. Said sign shall give only the name of the company and shall be limited to four (4) inch high letters. Said sign must be oriented toward the parking area for that building. 6. Construction Sign One (1) construction sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects, shall be permitted upon the commencement of construction. Said sign shall conform with the requirements of Item 3 above, Ground Sign, and will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy, or the tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. 7. Future Tenant Identification Sign A sign listing the name of the future tenant, responsible agent or realtor, and identification of the industrial complex shall be permitted. Said sign shall bonform with the requirements of Item 3 above, Ground Sign, find will be permitted until such time as a final inspection of the building(s) designates said structure(s) fit for occupancy or tenant is occupying said building(s), whichever occurs first. 8. Community Directional and/or Identification Sim Permanent directional and identification signs, not exceeding two - hundred fifty (250) square feet (single face), shall be permitted but subject to use permit. E. Sign Standards 1. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. 2. Signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firm, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products or sold thereon. i - c-0 `� i 3. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. 4. All signs attached to the building shall be flush mounted. F. Parldne Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on- street parking. Required off - street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site or within three hundred (300) feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Building and Planning Departments and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. The following guide shall be used to determine parking requirements: Office One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may • be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. Manufacture. Research and Assembiv Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than three (3) spaces for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area. Warehouse Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area for the first twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; one (1) space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area for the second twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; one (1) space for each four thousand (4,000) square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial forty thousand (40,000) square feet of floor area of the building. If there is more than one shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. a35 a9� . G. Landscaping Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, prepared by a landscaping architect, licensed contractor of architect shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuing of building permit and installed prior to issue of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. All landscaping referred to in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. 1. Front Yard Setback Area a. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. All unpaved areas not utilized for parking shall be landscaped in a similar manner. b. 1 Spdcial Landscaped Street 6 The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any access driveway in said area. C. Other Streets The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet in back of the front property line shall be landscaped, except for any access driveway in said area. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback Area a. General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. b. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition but need not be landscaped. C. Screening • Areas used for parking shall be landscaped and/or fenced in such a manner as to interrupt or screen said areas from view from access streets, freeways, and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for this purpose shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees. 3. Pazlang_Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls shall be provided in the parking area. 4. Slowed Banks All sloped banks greater than 5 -1 or 6 feet in vertical height and adjacent to public right -of -way shall be stabilized, planted and irrigated in accordance with plans submitted and approved by Planning Director. H. Loading Areas 1. On other than special landscaped streets street side loading shall be allowed i provided the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -ofway line or one hundred ten (110) from the street centerline, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. I. Storage Areas All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways, and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I Refuse Collection Areas 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways, and adjacent property by a complete opaque screen. 2. No refuse collection areas shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. 0 ,?3 0 K. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12 KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformers or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. L. Sidewalks The requirement for sidewalks in the Planned Community District may be waived by the Planning Director if it is demonstrated that such facilities are not needed. However, the City retains the right to require installations of sidewalks i1; in the future, a need is established by the City. A Nuisances No portion of the property shall be used is such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent sites, such as but not limited to vibration, sound, electro- mechanical disturbance and radiation, electro- magnetic disturbahce, radiation, air or Iwater pollution, dust, emission of odorous, toxic or noxious matter. L� 3 3 r`' PART 11. COMMERCIAL Section I. Minimum Site Area A Thirty Thousand (30,000) square feet B. Exception: (11) The Planning Commission may authorize an exception to the minimum site area. Application for any such exception shall be made at the time of the filing of a tentative map by the applicant. In order for an exception to be granted, the Planning Commission shall find the following facts with respect thereto: 1. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. 2. That the development considerations and intent of this Planned Community Development' Standards are substantially met. Section 11. Permitted Uses • Group I. Professional and Business Offices. To allow the location of commercial activities engaged in the sale of products or services relating to and supporting the Development Plan, provided that such activities are confined within a building or buildings. A. Professional Offices 1. Accountants 2. Attorneys 3. Doctors, dentists, optometrists, oculists, chiropractors and others licensed by the State of California to practice the healing arts. 4. Engineers, architects, surveyors and lanners. 5. on OffiCC a39 3�" • B. 0 13 1. Advertising agencies 2. Banks 3. Economic consultants 4. Employment agencies 5. Escrow offices 6. Insurance agencies 7. Laboratories: a. Dental b. Medical c. X -Ray d. Biochemical e. Film, wholesale only f. Optometrical 8. Stock Brokers 9. Studios for interior decorators, photographers, artists and draftsmen. 10. Telephone answering services 11. Tourist information and +travel agencies and ticket reshrvation services but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight. (2) 12. AnyJgtliei'jgeneralusiiiess gffcas;;(29) Support Commercial (21) 1. Retail sales and services, so long as said retail sales are of a convenience nature ancillary to the operation and use of office facilities including tobacco stores, card shops, confectionery and newspaper stands, and other uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. Retail uses shall be located in the basement or on the fast floor of a building. Storage for such uses shall be within a building. 2. Service uses which are for building tenants and patrons, such as a car wash and gymnasium/health club facilities. Car washes shall drain into the sanitary sewer system. 3. Restaurants - outdoor restaurants and take -out restaurants - subject to securing a use permit in each case. Group II. Commercial Use A. Automobile Center, subject to a use permit. (28) Automobile dealership selling only new cars. The sale of used cars, automobile repair, and automobile detailing may be permitted in conjunction with the sales of new vehicles but only accessory uses. 2. Service stations subject to the issuance of the use permit and a finding that the use is supportive of the principal uses permitted in the Newport Place Planned Community text. B. Hotels and Motels, subject to a use permit. C. State. County and Municipal Facilities (2) D. Service Stations & Mechanical Car Wash within Service Station Site #1, subject to a ,use permit. (4) E. Retail Commercial uses such as: Restaurants, including outdoor, drive-in or take -out restaurants shall be permitted subject to the securing of a use permit except as noted under "a" and "b" below: (7) a. Restaurants, other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, shall be pemnitted in Retail- Commercial Site Iwithout a use pemnit provided that the net floor area of all restaurant uses does not exceed 20% of the net floor area of the retail- commercial center. b. Outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants shall be designed and located so as to be an integral element of the retail- commercial center and shall not be permitted as a free-standing independent use in any case. 2. Barber shop and beauty parlor 3. Book and stationery store 4. Blueprinting and photostatics Revisions of "Retail Commercial" land uses contained on pages 31 (E-1 -a) and -32 (b -14), 3127197 5. Camera shop 6. ..... Delicatessen store 7. Florist 0 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Shoe store or repair shop Tailor Tobacco store Office equipment retail and repair Pharmacies Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight Instructional dance facility for adults and related retail sales. Subject to a use permit Other uses similar to the above list F. General Commercial (8)(9)(23)(26) 1. New car dealership, subject to a use permit, including ancillary uses listed under Part B, Section B, Group II,A. 2. Service stations subject to a use permit. 3. Restaurants, including outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants, shall be subject to a use permit. Restaurant uses are permitted zwithin General Commercial Sites 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 not permitted within General Commercial Site 4. 4. Hobby, Arts and Crafts, including: a. Sporting goods store b. Camera store C. Art gallery d. Craft store e. Pet store f. Bicycle store g. Other uses of similar nature 5. Book and Office Support Stores, including: a. Book store b. Office supplies C. Other uses of similar nature 6. Retail stores and professional service establishments, including: a. Pharmacies b. Specialty food C. Fabric shops d. Jewelry shops e. Furrier f Formal Wear g. Barber and hair styling h. Clothing store i. Liquor store 7, a Q 10. 11. *12. j. Tourist information and travel agencies and ticket reservation services, but not to include any airline terminal services or facilities for the transport of passengers, baggage or freight. k. Other uses of similar nature Home and Office Furnishings, including: a Home furniture store b. Office furniture store C. Interior decorators d. Home appliances e. Antique store f. Other uses of similar nature Athletic Clubs, including: a. Spa b. Health club C, Recreation facility d. Other uses of similar nature Home improvement stores, including: a. Hardware store b. Paint store C, Wallcovering store d. Other uses of similar nature Retail nursery subject to a use permit Institutional, instructional and educational uses, subject to a use permit in each case. Professional and Business Offices - see Part II, Section II, Group I for permitted uses. *Office uses are permitted within General Commercial Sites 3, 4 and 6 and not permitted within General Commercial Sites 1 and 2. (9)(26)(29) a q3 10 E MM 0 Section 111. FA I] 0 1 General Development Standards for Commerce Maximum building areas and building heights shall be noted in the Statistical Analysis, Part ILA and Part II.B. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a street side property line is that he created by the ultimate right -of -way line of the frontage street. 1 2. 3. Front Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum; except that unsupported roofs or sun- screens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. Side Yard Side yard setbacks will be required only when any one of the following conditions exist: a. Corner lot: Thirty (30) feet (street side setback only), except that unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into setback area. b. Where property abuts other than commercially zoned property, a ten (10) foot setback is required. Unsupported roofs and sun - screens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. Rear Yard None required except on a through -lot in which case the required front yard setback shall be observed. q 13-K- B. Signs • 1. Sign Area: General Standard Building identification shall be limited to a single (1) entity. Building identification signs shall have an area not to exceed 1 1/2 square feet of surface for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of building. However, no sign shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet per face. Building identification signs shall be limited to two (2) facades. 2. Pole Sign: One (1) identification pole sign site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses: a Restaurant I b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar t C. Motel and hotel If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identifications signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double faced. 3. Wall Sim: In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than ten (10) percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. 4. Ground Sign: An identification ground sign shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade in vertical height. Also, ground signs in excess on one - hundred and fifty (150) square feet in area (single face) shall not be erected in the first twenty (20) feet, as measured from the property line, of any street side setback. However, the above standards shall not apply to the Community Directional Sign and Special Purpose Sign. "216 • 5. Multi -Tenant Directory Sign: One (1) directory sign listing only the name of the firms or businesses on a site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. Panels identifying each individual story shall be no longer than one (1) foot in width and five (5) feet in length 6. Special Purpose Sian: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item DA 7. Construction Sian: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item D.6. 8. Future Tenant Identification: Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item D.7. 9. Community Direction and/or Identification Sion: • Subject to the standards established in Part I, Section III, Item C.B. C. Sign Standards Except as noted above, the same sign standards as outlined in Sub - Section D, Section III, Part I of this ordinance, shall prevail for developments in this area. D. Parkin 1. Medical and Dental Five (5) spaces for each doctor or one (1) space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area whichever is greater. 2. Professional Offices One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. 3. Lodse, Halls, Private Clubs, Union Headquarters One (1) space for each 75 square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross office floor area. 4. Restaurants Outdoor. Drive -In and Take -Out (7) Restaurants. a. Restaurant parking shall be in accordance with Section 20.38.030(d) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except as noted under "b" and "c" below. b. Restaurants other than outdoor, drive -in or take -out restaurants within Retail - Commercial Sites 1 and 2 shall provide one (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area and one (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, to the extent that the net floor area of all restaurants does not exceed 20% of the net floor area of the retail- commercial center. In the event that any restaurant causes the total of all restaurant uses in the retail- commercial center to exceed 20 %" limitation noted above, that entire restaurant and any subsequent restaurants shall provide parking as noted under "a" above. E C. Parking for outdoor, drive -in and take -out restaurants shall be provided • in accordance with Section 20.53.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Retail Commercial One (1) space for each 200 square feet of net floor area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Hotels and Motels (6) Parking for Hotel and Motel guest rooms; all related restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet and meeting rooms, retail shops; and all employees shall be based on a demonstrated formula to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The parking formula shall contain the minimum parking which would be required for each of the separate uses evaluated independently. Any reductions from this minimum parking requirement must be based on the joint usage of the facilities by hotel and motel patrons. (10) • 7. General Commercial (8)(9) a. One (1) space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area. One (1) loading space for each 10,000 sq.ft. ofgross floor area. b. If the development of General Commercial Site 3 or 4 is limited soley to Professional and Business Office use, the parking shall be: One (1) space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area. The parking requirements may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 sq.ft. of net floor area upon review and approval of the modifications committee. C. Specific parking requirements shall be developed for uses such as furniture stores, athletic clubs, theaters, bowling alleys, home improvement stores, retail nurseries or tire stores based upon functions and occupancies within these uses. Parking shall be in conformance to existing City of Newport Beach requirements for said occupancies, or at a demonstrated formula agreeable to the Director of Community Development. In the event that any use described above is converted to another use parking requirements for the new use shall;be sdbject to review by the Director of Community Development. I* d. For restaurant parking see Part 11, Section III, D.4. E. Landscapine Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, prepared by a landscaping architect, licensed landscaping contractor or architect shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuing of Building Permits and installed prior to issue of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. All landscaping referred to in this section shall be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion. Front Yard Setback Area a. General Statement Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery. b. Special Landscaped Street The entire area between the curb and the building setback line shall be landscaped, except for any driveway in said area. 2. 3. C. Other Streets • The entire area between the curb and a point ten (10) feet in back of the front property line shall be landscaped except for any driveway in said area. Side Yazd and Rear Yazd a. M C. 9 General Statement All unpaved areas not utilized for parking and storage, shall be landscaped utilizing ground cover and/or shrub and tree materials. Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed free condition, but need not be landscaped. Screening ' + Areas used for parking shall be screened from view or have the view interrupted by landscaping and/or fencing from access streets, freeways, and adjacent properties. Plant materials used for screening purposes shall consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees. Boundary Areas Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas shall be placed along the entire length of these property lines or be of sufficient length to accommodate the number of required trees. Trees, equal in number to one (1) tree per twenty -five (25) lineal feet of each property line, shall be planted in the above defined areas in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. e. All landscaped areas shall be separated from adjacent vehicular areas by a wall or curb, at least (6) inches higher that the adjacent vehicular area. Parking Areas Trees, equal in number to one (1) er each five (5) parking stalls shall be provided in the n a parking area C . 0 F. Loading Areas 1. Street side loading on other than special landscaped streets, shall be allowed providing the loading dock is set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the street right -of -way line, or one hundred ten (I 10) feet from the street center line, whichever is greater. Said loading area must be screened from view from adjacent streets. G. Storage Areas 1. All outdoor storage shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen up to a point eight (8) feet in vertical height but need not be opaque above that point. 2. Outdoor storage shall be meant to include all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles. 3. No storage shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. H. Refuse Collection Areas 1. All outdoor refuse collection areas shall be visually screened from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. Said screening shall form a complete opaque screen. 2." No refuse collection area shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building line. I. Telephone and Electrical Service All "on- site" electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. J. Pedestrian Access It is required of all developments in the commercial areas to submit a plan of pedestrian access to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Said plans will detail consideration for pedestrian access to the subject property and to adjacent properties, and shall be binding on subsequent development of the property. The plan shall show all interior walkways and all walkways in the public right -of -way, if such walkways are proposed or necessary. �5� Area Surnrnary Industrial Office Retail Commerc;al Commercial /Restaurant Cornmerclal /Hotel 8, Motel Auto Center Service station Total vi. S a, d1v `ri 0 aQL� �9Qa a Land Plan port Place Planned Coy 40.2 ac. 70.0 ac. 7.2 ac. 2.9 ac, 10.1 ac, 3.0 ac, 12 ac. 134.6 ac, lndus(rlal S$e 1 Aro, R pug. p11i ces Sites 7 R 2 Pd� �a Newport Place Du Q Nos"" �C dam/ i X/I of], a2 0 Jill o X/I of], a2 0 1i1�•�' s I, sa;,il IVEG w X J Q J all I N � z a a x a c U R: W H � F m z a � w M O`O W O ' Q I w y� W y Y w 0 M&I 1 0 0 111Y$A v allm " V i V W qc J 1 Z z < a c x W _ m � F a •• m W �•° _ W a m ` Y f W 1111' I:i .It It H I }o. 4Y � arvo..not • to i Y Y •a 1 � I `i1 � I o. I �j! r - o. o. �::;�` II Rol 11 fo \ a .`� i .•I r /-.. Icy,' 1 , I^ I I t y +� /': V � �•y ��� / /... `•\ l.'��•� I' `` •tII �w / \.`f.`e - •. �1 n;�.. :•4y !� �—i Ili. i II'If • \ \V'C�y /' /'I Y' \ Oo I ' rl I ' III.: 111 � • '�``•� 1 1111 111111111 \ ..' `. tip\ .�'�� ✓11, ��'��.+ ♦ .. a \. • •' _ � . 1 i ./r YI / /•:•/ / �� • • E 1 Q0 z 484 Ifj ti �IA J //?;*1q( , V� I IV y FOOTNOTES (1) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 1, dated December 13, 1971, incorporating a revised land use plan. (2) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2, dated June 12, 1972, incorporating the following changes: a. Relocation of Fire Station site. b. Limitation of tourist information, travel agencies and ticket reservations within Retail Commercial sites. C. Addition of specific restaurant density within Retail Commercial sites. (3) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 3, dated October 24, 1972, permitting Auto Centers as an additional use within Industrial Site 2B. (4) + Planned Communit} Text Amendment No. 4, dated January 8, 1973; incorporating the following changes: a. Provision for a Mechanical Car Wash within Service Station Site No. 1. b. Eliminate provision for a Fire Station within Industrial Site 3A (5) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 5, dated July 23, 1973, incorporating the following changes: a. Rearrangement of Office Site 3 and Restaurant Site 2 and reapportionment of land allotted to each. b. Reduce allowable building area in Office Sites 1 and 2 and increase allowable building area in Office Site 3A. C. Increase allowable building height in Office Site 3A to 8 stories. (6) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 6, dated June 10, 1974, establishing parking requirements for Hotels and Motels based on a demonstrated formula. (7) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 7, dated September 8, 1975, revising off - street parking requirements for restaurants to conform with existing City Standards. (8) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 8, dated February 9, 1976, penmitting General Commercial uses on Auto Center Site 1 a and 2b. S r� t� FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (9) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 9, dated April 11, 1977, incorporating the following changes: a. Expand the pernitted uses for General Commercial. b. Re- designate General Commercial Site 1 -A and 2 -B to General Commercial Sites 1, 2 and 3. C. Expand General Commercial Site 3 to include one half of Industrial Site lA- d. Convert Industrial Site 2A to General Commercial Site 4. e. Restrict the allowable building area and the permitted uses for General Commercial Sites 1, 2,3 and 4. (10) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 10, dated May 23, 1977, incorporating the following change: a. Delete the provision added by Resolution No. 8261 adopted by the City Council on June 10, 1974 from Section III, D, 6. (11) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 11, dated April 10, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Establish guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. (12) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 12, dated July 11, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Revised the allowable building height for Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 585. (13) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 13, dated November 27, 1978, incorporating the following change: a. Requirement that a Phasing Plan be approved by the Planning Conunission for seventy (70) percent of the undeveloped allowable building area existing as of October 1, 1978. (14) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 14, dated June 11, 1979, incorporating the following changes: a. Reduce the allowable building area of Industrial Site 3A b. Reduce the allowable building area of Commercial/Professional and Business • Office Site 1 and 2. FOOTNOTES (Cont.) 0 (15) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 15, dated March 23, 1981, incorporating the following changes: a. Specification of a maximum building height of seven (7) stories on Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivision No. 585. (16) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 16, dated March 8, 1984 incorporating the following change: a. Increase of 16,154 square feet of office space in Professional and Business Offices Site 5. (17) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 17, dated April 23, 1984, incorporating the following change: a. Increase of 1,091 square feet of office space in Professional and Business Offices Saes 1 and 2. l (18) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 18, dated June 25, 1984, incorporating the following changes: a. Establish a specific limit on hotel rooms in Hotel Sites 1 A and 1 B. (19) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 19, dated July 23, 1984, incorporating the following changes: a. Transfer of 4,130 square feet of allowable building area from General Commercial Site 4 to Professional and Business Offices Site 5. (20) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 20, dated January 12, 1987, incorporating the following changes: a. Add Professional and Business Offices Site 8, with 54,000 square feet allowed. b. Delete Restaurant Site 2A, with 8,400 square feet deleted. (21) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 21, dated March 9, 1987, incorporating the following change: a. Increase allowed development in Professional and Business Offices Site 5 to 241,570 square feet; allow additional support retail uses up to 294,600 square feet total; add support commercial as permitted land use. (2 1) 9 FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (22) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 22, dated February 4, 1988, incorporating the following change: a. Allow structures located within a portion of Industrial Site 3 A to be construct- ed in excess of the 35 foot height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. (23) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 23, dated July 6, 1989 incorporating the following change: a. Allow restaurant uses on General Commercial Site 1, subject to the approval of a use pen-nit in each case. (24) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 24, dated June 6, 1991, incorporating the following change: a. Increase the allowable office development in Professional Business Offices, Site No. 5 to 257,287 square feet, and reduce the allowable retail development to • 37,315 square feet. (25) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 25, approved by the City Council on March 9, 1992, incorporating the following change: a. Increase the allowable office development in Professional Business Offices, Site No. 5 to 268,743 square feet, and reduce the allowable retail development to 25,857 square feet. (26) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 26, approved by the City Council on June 8, 1992, incorporating the following changes: a. Redesignate the Sheraton Hotel Site from Hotel Site 1 A and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5. b. Reduce the hotel room entitlement on Hotel Site 1 by 119 rooms and establish a development entitlement of 3 1,3 62 square feet for General Commercial Site 5. C. Establish a height limit of 50 feet within General Commercial Site 5. . d. The Requirement for a reciprocal easement to provide ingress, egress, and parking for mutual benefit between Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5: '/o FOOTNOTES (Cont.) (27) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 27, approved by the City Council on September 13, 1993, incorporating the following changes: a. Increase the allowable commercial development in General Commercial Site 3 from 48,300 square feet to 49,380 square feet. b. Delete the provision which counts one square foot of floor area devoted to restaurants as two square feet of permitted commercial floor area in General Commercial Sites 2, 3, and 5. C. Delete the provision which restricts the maximum amount of gross floor area devoted to restaurants to 8,000 square feet each in General Commercial Sites 3 and 5. (28) ?Planned Community Te4t Amendment No. 28, approved by the City Council on January 22, 1996, incorporating the following changes. a. Restricting automobile repair and detailing as an accessory use only in conjunction with sales of new vehicles. b. Eliminate other permitted uses. (29) PlaririedC a. b. C. d. e. f. 0 • 0 —u" • 9. h. I* 0 f-.\planning\pctext\newprtpl. ace "a -1 L r FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HOLTZE EXTENDED ,STA Y HOTELIOFFICE PROJECT GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT 8 -I(Q AMENDMENT NO. SSO USE PERMIT364o PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PREPARED BY. DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING FIRM 23382 MILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 225 LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 (949) 588 -5o5o FAX (949) 588-5°58 CONTACT: MIKE DEVORE SENIOR PLANNER NOVEMBER 23, 1998 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, /VJ 0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the proposed HOLTZE EXTENDED STAY HOTEUOFFICE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Lead Agency The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Marc Myers, Associate Planner Applicants E. J. Holtze Corporation 6380 S. Boston Street Englewood, CO 80111 Mr. Jan Holtze Lennar Partners, Inc 18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 540 Irvine, CA 92612 Mr. Allen Cashion Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 23382 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 225 Laguna Hills, California 92653 Mike DeVore, Senior Planner • � i November 23, 1998 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponents: E. J. Holtze Corporation Lennar Partners, Inc. 2. Addresses: 6380 S. Boston Street 18401 Von Karman, Suite 540 Englewood, CO 80111 Irvine, CA 92612 3. Telephone Numbers: 310/376 -2826 714/442 -6100 4. Date Checklist Submitted: October 29, 1998 5. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Newport Beach 6. Proposal /Project Title: Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project IL EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues and Supporting Data Sources: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact A. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: No Impact 1. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (source[s] #: 7) 2. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (7,8,15,16) 3. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (7,14) 4. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (7,14,17) 5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (4,7,14) B. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 1. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ population projections? (4,16) is Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project 1, November 23, 1998 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ! November 23, 1998 to 1 -2 0 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (4,7) 3. Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ housing? (4,7) C. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 1. Fault rupture? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 2. Seismic ground shaking? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 3. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (12,13) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 4. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 5. Landslides or mudflows? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 6. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ conditions from excavation, grading or fill? (9,12,13) 7. Subsidence of the land? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 8. Expansive soils? (9,12,13) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 9. Unique geologic or physical features? (9,12,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ D. WATER. Would this proposal result in: 1. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ rate or amount of surface runoff? (9,12,13) 2. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ such as flooding? (6,17) 3. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (17) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ! November 23, 1998 to 1 -2 0 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Mitigated Negative Declaration for the . Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -3 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ body? (14,17) 5. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ movements? (14,17) 6. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( 1,2,12) 7. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,2) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 8. Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,2,12,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 9. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ otherwise available for public water supplies? (1,12) E. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 1. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (10,15) 2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (10,15) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ any change in climate? (10,15) 4. Create objectionable odors? (10,15) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ F. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 1. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (11) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (11,14) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the . Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -3 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -4 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (11,14) 4. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (11) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 5. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (14) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 6. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (11) 7. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 1. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (8,14) 2. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 3. Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (8,14) 4. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (8,14,17) 5. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 1. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (16) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 2. Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ inefficient manner? (16) 3. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (16) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -4 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST I. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 1. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1,2,3) 2. Possible interference with an emergency response plan ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2,3) 3. The creation of any health hazard or potential health ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ hazard? (1,2,3) 4. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ health hazards? (1,2,3) 5. Development on or near a listed hazardous waste site ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 65962.5? (1,2,3) 6. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ grass, or trees? (14,17) J. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 1. Increase in existing noise levels? (5,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (5,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ K. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? (6,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Police protection? (6,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 3. Schools? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 4. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 5. Other governmental services? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -5 • n L._.J M Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 h 1.6 dt SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST Potentially is Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact L. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 1. Power or natural gas? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Communications systems? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 3. Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ facilities? (4,7) 4. Sewer or septic tanks? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 5. Storm water drainage? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 6. Solid waste disposal? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 7. Local or regional water supplies? (4,7) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ M. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 1. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 3. Create light or glare? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 4. Affect a coastal bluff? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ N. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 1. Disturb paleontological resources? (7,14) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 2. Disturb archaeological resources? (7,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 3. Affect historical resources? (7,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 4. Have the potential to cause a physical change which ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (7,14) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 h 1.6 dt SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 1. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities? (8,14) 2. Affect existing recreational opportunities? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? 3. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -7 r." Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ potential impact area? (7,14) O. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 1. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities? (8,14) 2. Affect existing recreational opportunities? (8,14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? 3. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 -7 r." SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect(s) is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated ". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature and Title Marc Myers, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Date Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 r, )r 1 -8 -9=1" SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST IV. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158) ■ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project. ❑ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in accordance with Section 71 1.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk. Signature and Title Marc Myers, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Date Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ; November 23, 1998 I 1 -9 .91-1 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION . A. Project Background The City of Newport Beach is divided into various planning areas. The project properties are in the Jamboree Road /MacArthur Boulevard Area (Statistical Division L). Within Statistical Division L, the Newport Place Planned Community (PC) is located in the Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4), which is a planning sub -unit of Statistical Division L. The Newport Place PC was adopted by the City of Newport Beach in 1970. The Newport Place PC district is further subdivided for the purpose of land use management. Within the larger Newport Place PC, the project parcels are located in an area designated as NP Block I (refer to Exhibit 1). The project properties together comprise approximately 7.6 acres of NP Block 1. The PC Text currently designates its constituent sites as Retail and Service Commercial land uses, with a development allocation up to 99,538 square feet (sq. ft.), plus 7.63 acres for auto center use. Subsequent to the original adoption of the Newport Place PC, numerous Planned Community Text amendments have been approved by the City Council, most recently in 1993. Among the 27 amendments is Amendment No. 3, dated October 24, 1972, which permitted auto centers as an additional use within Industrial Site (IS) 2B located at 1301 Quail Street. That property was occupied by Jim Slemons Imports until 1991, when the automobile sales and service business was purchased by Fletcher Jones Motorcars. Until 1997, that site served as the Fletcher Jones Motor Cars new car sales and service center. The project site located at 1001 Quail Street is designated as Auto Center Site (ACS) 2A and was formerly occupied by the Fletcher Jones used car dealership • and service center. The subject property consists of two individual parcels separated by the existing Quail Business Center office building. The property known as 1001 Quail Street is a rectangular parcel comprising approximately 3.9 acres located at the southwest intersection of Quail and Dove Streets. The 1001 property is further subdivided into Parcel A, which is the 2.9 -acre office site, and Parcel B, which is a one -acre parcel with an existing three -story, 375 -space parking structure. The property at 1301 Quail Street is an irregular- shaped parcel of 3.7 acres located at the southeast intersection of Quail and Spruce Streets. Both properties were once improved as auto sales and service facilities. As indicated, the properties were last occupied by Fletcher )ones Motor Cars for new and used car sales and servicing, but were vacated in August 1997 when Fletcher )ones moved to a new facility 1/2 mile away. B. Project Location The project properties are located in the City of Newport Beach, in southern Orange County. The site is situated inland from coastal Newport Beach, less than one mile south of John Wayne Airport. The project properties are within a mile of the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the north and west, respectively. Exhibit 2 illustrates the project location. • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project November 23, 1998 1 2 -1 M Koll Center Newport Newport Place Airport Area (Statistical Area 1-4) N2.1 mo l�, NP Block A NP Block C r NP Block E 1 0 NP Blocks G &H \ 1 NP Block F a o� 0 d9�, NP Block I �Qa .10// 11%01 NP Block J EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ■ OFFICE PROJECT Iioi'rzE C i t y of N e w p o r t B e a c h JNo Scale Newport Place PC District ��` EXHIBITH n , a r NP Block E 1 0 NP Blocks G &H \ 1 NP Block F a o� 0 d9�, NP Block I �Qa .10// 11%01 NP Block J EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ■ OFFICE PROJECT Iioi'rzE C i t y of N e w p o r t B e a c h JNo Scale Newport Place PC District ��` EXHIBITH r—�--r-T7-Z r - 0 7----7 ij!usv 0 u u 0 47 am / { / ® � u \ cz a4 0 xt- MI, | ./ � . \ &\ & /] . J9 ve 2 o r—�--r-T7-Z r - 0 7----7 ij!usv 0 u u 0 47 am / { / ® � u \ cz a4 0 xt- MI, 0 s 50 ve x u cz a4 xt- MI, 0 o { \} � SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject properties encompass approximately 7.6 acres in NP Block I of the Newport Place PC. The project parcels are bounded by North Bristol Street, Spruce Avenue, Quail Street, and . Dove Street. NP Block I currently supports varied commercial uses, including a retail and service commercial center (Plaza Newport), as well as professional business offices. In the immediate project vicinity, development along Quail Street and Spruce Avenue consists entirely of business office uses. Also nearby, Dove Street and North Bristol Street provide access to various office, retail, and service commercial uses, including Avis Car Rentals and the Plaza Newport retail center. Exhibit 3 illustrates the relationship of the project parcels to existing surrounding land uses. For purposes of statistical analysis and land use inventory, the Newport Place PC Development Standards have coded each parcel in the PC with a letter designation. As indicated on Exhibit 3, the project parcel at 1301 Quail Street is designated as site WW, and the parcel at 1001 Quail Street is designated as site AB. The PC Development Standards also classify each parcel according to their permitted land use. As previously noted, the project parcel at 1301 Quail Street is designated as Industrial Site 26, and the parcel at 1001 Quail Street is designated as Auto Center Site 2A. Business offices and general commercial uses comprise the major uses in the immediate project vicinity. High -rise business office buildings and hotels are located further north of the project site in the vicinity of Newport Place Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Corinthian Way. Those uses located north of Quail Street in the Newport Place PC, as well as in Koll Center Newport northeast of the project area, comprise major employment centers with a host of financial institutions and a professional business offices. Regional access to the project site is currently provided via the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73) located within several hundred feet of the project site, just south of North Bristol Street. The Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) is located 1.5 miles to the west. The San Diego Freeway (1 -405), located approximately two miles to the north, also provides access to the site via a number of major arterials, including Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard approximately 1/4 mile east of the project site. C. Project Description Amendments to the Planned Community Development Standards The applicants are proposing to construct an extended stay hotel project on the 3.68 -acre (gross) IS 2B site at 1301 Quail Street, and a professional office building on the 3.94 -acre (gross) ACS 2A site at 1001 Quail Street. At the present time, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates both parcels for Retail and Service Commercial. As identified above, and consistent with the City's General Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the . Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 2 -2 0 0 0 § - a � A r f lab 1 R 7 1 3� 1 ; $/ 1 � / 1 a � e � 1 1 1 � !max x \ 1 1 QZ) /° § [ k \ z \ � Q� :f � f 2/� + 2 a L2 a , / ca § _ y { ! } a � � f ! _ £ � x 2 § � } § u R ° ® %&O-V d� - § E $ , \ ! § - a � A r f lab 1 R 7 1 3� 1 ; $/ 1 � / 1 a � e � 1 1 1 � !max x \ 1 1 QZ) /° § [ k \ z \ � Q� :f � f 2/� + 2 a L2 a , / ca § _ y { ! } a � � f ! _ £ � x 2 § � } § u R ° ® %&O-V d� - SECTION 2: PROTECT DESCRIPTION the Newport Place Planned Community designations for the subject properties are Industrial and Auto Center. These land use designations previously permitted the construction and operation • of 26,905 square feet of office and showroom space and 29,665 square feet of service bay area on the 1301 Quail site. The former development area of the auto sales office and showroom on the 1001 Quail site is unavailable at this time, although it is expected that the site was occupied by sales office and service facilities similar in size to those on the 1301 site. Implementation of the proposed project requires that both the City's Land Use Element and the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards be amended to permit the development of the extended stay hotel and the office building as proposed by the project applicants. The intensity of development currently allowed for the 1301 Quail site will increase with project approval and development. Similarly, the development intensity proposed for the 1001 Quail site will result in an increase in the permitted development intensity. In addition to the General Plan and Planned Community Amendments, the E. J. Holtze Corporation is also requesting approval of a Use Permit for the extended stay hotel. The proposed project will be constructed in a single phase, which is anticipated to begin in late 1998 or early 1999. Extended Stav Hotel The proposed extended stay hotel will consist of approximately 200,500 square feet of development encompassing the residential area, common areas (breezeways), a club house, a services building, and a mechanical /storage room. The proposed hotel would provide 168 guest • rooms and 136 one - bedroom suites in five separate, four -story buildings comprising approximately 154,700 square feet of building space. Centrally located among the five hotel buildings will be an approximately 9,500- square -foot club house aligned with the Quail Street access drive. The majority of the hotel rooms will serve as two - bedroom suites, with amenities such as a full kitchen, living room, dining room, fireplace, and two bathrooms. The suites are arranged such that each can be subdivided into two separate units: a one bedroom suite and a one -bed room. Thus, the hotel could potentially be considered an approximately 150 -suite hotel rather than a 304 -room hotel. Given the hotel's location at the southeast corner of Quail Street and Spruce Street, access to the hotel is proposed via Quail Street. However, the possibility of additional driveway access on North Bristol Street will be investigated in later stages of planning. Additional access from Bristol would provide entry to the site from which a 2,111 square -foot services building and the majority of the on -grade stalls would be accessible. All necessary parking for the hotel will be accommodated on -site. Of the 281 total parking stalls provided, 49 will be located on the "rear" lot (i.e., near North Bristol Street), 4 will be located at the Quail Street entrance, and 222 stalls will be provided in a below -grade parking structure. Two ramps will lead down to the garage level — one will be located off of Quail Street and the other will be located in the southeast corner of the garage near the services building parking lot. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 2 -3 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hotel site plan will achieve a floor- area -ratio (FAR) of 1.25, with a lot coverage of 35 percent. is Buildings will be up to 54 feet in height above the finished grade of the lot. Exhibit 4 depicts the proposed site plan for the extended stay hotel. The proposed office building at 1001 Quail Street will occupy approximately 109, 200 square feet JgrQ5sJ of building space on the 2.9 -acre lot. The five -story office building site plan will achieve a FAR of 0.85, with a lot coverage of about 18 percent. The office site plan is presented on Exhibit 5 and a simulated image of the office site's future appearance is shown on Exhibit 6. The office building would be located at the southwest corner of Quail Street and Dove Street. Access to the office building is proposed via one driveway on Quail Street at the existing parking structure and one driveway on Dove Street, at the southeast corner of the site. Parking will be accommodated through a combination of surface and structural parking. The existing parking structure will provide 375 parking spaces; the site as currently designed will accommodate 108 at -grade parking spaces, for a total of 483 parking spaces. D. Environmental Setting As indicated above, the subject property is located in an urbanized area in the City of Newport . Beach. The site exhibits relatively level topographic conditions. Based on existing and past uses of the site and adjacent parcels, soils on the project properties are considered to be suitable and compatible for development. Vegetation consists of approximately 18 mature London plane tree species at the perimeter of the 1301 Quail site, along both the Spruce Avenue and Quail Street frontages. Several shrubs and mature eucalyptus trees are located adjacent to the existing on -site structures. The 1001 Quail site supports approximately 42 pine trees along its Quail and Dove Street frontages. Wildlife is limited to foraging bird, rodent, and insect species that are common to urbanized areas since the site does not hold any habitat value for sensitive species or larger mammals. No part of the site is located within the 100 -year inundation area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the most recently published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Although the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone is located within five miles of the site, no known active faults are located either within the limits of the site or in the immediate project area. Since both properties are currently graded and undeveloped, runoff is generally maintained on -site as a requirement of the City's construction activity storm water permit. Site elevations are approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on both properties, sloping only to the extent necessary for adequate surface drainage. . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project November 23, 1998 2 -4 Vii+, �, i � �. � r• tJ J ;- A- ( N i�- i �• n F vv ' 1. r 1 � ,e i• .,1` � {ij I SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION The site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Vehicular emissions are the major constituents of air pollution within the SoCAB and within the project area. The subject property is served by a system of north /south and east/west arterial and major roadways and freeways, including the San Joaquin Hills (73) Toll Road near the site's southern boundary, MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard to the east, and the San Diego (405) and Costa Mesa (55) Freeways to the north and west, respectively. D. Compatibility with Adopted Plans The proposed extended stay hotel and office project is proposed to be located on property that is designated for Retail and Service Commercial uses in the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element. The project parcels are in NP Block I of the Newport Place Planned Community. The PC District Regulations currently identify the subject properties for industrial and auto center uses. The project proposes to amend the General Plan and amend the PC district regulations to permit business office and hotel uses. The hotel will also require the issuance of a use permit. 0 • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 13, 1998 r �� 2 -5 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Identification of Environmental Effects . The following analysis reflects the findings contained in the preceding Environmental Checklist. A discussion of all potentially significant impacts checked is provided. All items checked "No Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact" are similarly discussed. A. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed extended stay hotel and business office sites are designated for Retail and Service Commercial uses in the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposal to amend the General Plan and the PC district regulations to permit hotel and office uses will require the issuance of a use permit for the hotel component. The proposed amendments would require discretionary approvals to implement such actions. The established procedures for administrative review and approval of the proposed project will include environmental review and public testimony with respect to the proposal. Insofar as the proposed project conforms to the policies of the City's General Plan, the amendments to the General Plan and PC District Regulations will not conflict with the City's plans and policies. 2. Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact: As indicated previously, the site is located within the South Coast Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Compliance with the AQMD's regional air quality planning goals and with specific regulations of the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan will be discussed in Section E of this Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that the project applicant obtain coverage under the City's General Construction Permit for storm water discharge. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) includes policies related to regional housing, employment and other relevant planning issues which will be discussed and analyzed below in Section B. No other agencies have jurisdiction over the project; therefore, no policy impacts will result. 3. Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Less Than Significant Impact: Existing business office and retail /service commercial land uses surrounding the project parcels are unlikely to be affected by the noise, air quality, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the . Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 r 3 -1 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • and aesthetic impacts that serve as indicators of land use compatibility. Based on the design of the project and the relationship of the proposed uses to those existing in the area, the project is generally consistent with the type and distribution of uses in the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. C-] n LJ 4. Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact: The project site is not in agricultural production, nor is it proposed as such at any time in the future. None of the adjacent properties are currently in or planned for agricultural uses. Therefore, development of the project parcels will not affect any agricultural resources or operations. 5. Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? No Impact: Since the project site is located in a City PC District that is specifically designated for retail, service commercial, industrial, and office uses, and is physically separated from the nearest residential tracts by two major arterials (i.e., South and North Bristol Streets) and one highway (i.e., San Joaquin Hills Toll Road), there is no possibility that the project could disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to land use and planning are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. B. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Would the proposal cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact: Population and housing impacts are only considered significant under CEQA if the project will substantially alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the area and result in a demand for housing and public and private services which exceeds supply in the short- or long -term. Impacts would also be considered significant if the project's generation of population or employment is inconsistent with the regional growth management plans. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project November 23, 1998 32 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES The proposed hotel and business office project would result in the addition of new residents to the local and regional housing markets. Hotel management, maintenance, and service employees would be generated by the proposed project. Office leasing and possibly maintenance staff would be required for the office building. By far, the largest number of employees will be generated by those business that occupy the office building. However, it is not within the purview of this analysis to predict how many tenants are new to the region or merely moving from one office space to another. While those factors ultimately affect the balance of new versus existing residents, as a percentage of existing jobs and households in the City and the region as a whole, the project increases are expected to be less than significant. Although precise figures are not available to estimate future employment, it is reasonable to conclude that the generation of potential new employment in the context of the City's overall workforce will not adversely affect housing or regional growth management projections. While the hotel and office will generate a number of employees, the project does not have the potential to cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The growth projections of the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) adequately account for the proposed project. Included in SCAG's projections for future development within the Orange County Subregion were the adopted land use assumptions for each city within the Subregion. Although land use plan amendments can alter the projections for population, employment, and housing, limited deviation from a previously planned land use would not significantly affect such projections. The proposed PC District amendment, which would allow hotel and office uses on the project properties instead of automobile sales and services, would not substantially alter the traffic or employment generation characteristics of Newport Beach, much less those of the Orange County Subregion as a whole. 2. Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact: Since the proposed project involves only changes in the allowable uses of previously entitled project sites, it would not result in the extension of major infrastructure, nor would it induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project area is currently urbanized and well -served by existing utilities and infrastructure facilities. Generally, projects that have the potential to induce growth are those that are located in isolated, undeveloped or underdeveloped areas; they necessitate the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc), or they could encourage "premature" or unplanned growth (i.e., "leap- frog" development). The City of Newport Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 4 3 -3 r, SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Beach is nearly completely urbanized. All of the necessary infrastructure, including circulation, utilities, sewer, water and other public services, exist in the project area. No major infrastructure will be required to serve the site which would foster unplanned growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth- inducing as commercial development has existed in the past and has always been contemplated for the site, as evidenced by the adopted land use and zoning for the property. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated. 3. Would the proposal displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact: The proposed project does not have the potential to displace existing or future housing since the project parcels do not support nor are designated for future residential development in either the Land Use or Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. C. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS • 1. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture? No Impact: According to the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the only active fault zone to occur within five miles of the project area is the Newport- Inglewood structural zone. Surface faulting is not a potential hazard on the project site, although the Newport- Inglewood structural zone is seismically active and is capable of producing a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. 2. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact: There are no known faults crossing the or projecting through the project site. Additionally, the site is not located within a currently established Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone). Although the Public Safety Element (p. 9) categorizes the project area as a Category 1 seismic hazard area, indicating the lowest potential risk for ground shaking, the site is located in a seismically active zone. • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1 3 -4 � 1� SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Ground shaking from earthquakes associated with nearby and distant faults may occur during the lifetime of the project. Ground shaking or motion is defined in a horizontal and vertical sense and is expressed as an acceleration in percent of gravity. Ground motion is considered to be strong when it equals or exceeds 0.05g, or 5.0 percent of gravity. Based on a deterministic analysis prepared for the geotechnical investigation (Converse, 1998), a peak horizontal ground acceleration of about 0.30g (mean value only) should be expected at the project site due to earthquakes of magnitude 6.8 associated with the Compton Blind Thrust Fault Zone, which is located approximately 11 miles away from the site. Based on historic seismic events review and analysis, the most significant ground shaking occurred at the project site in 1933 from a reported magnitude 6.3 earthquake associated with the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone. Based on this historic data, the site may have been subjected to a calculated peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.22g. As peak accelerations are of short duration, structural designs may apply a two - thirds reduction to approximate "Repeatable Acceleration" values from nearby seismic events (Stoney - Miller, 1998). Under these conditions the Repeatable Accelerations should be considered to range from 0.20g to 0.27g. Those values were used as a basis for the geotechnical analysis and recommendations for project development. As indicated in the mitigation measures at the end of this section, the project design and construction will be subject to the recommendations of all applicable geotechnical investigations prepared for the project properties. Appropriate design of the proposed structures, consistent with the criteria presented in the geotechnical reports and the Uniform Building Code (UBC), will adequately reduce potential seismic impacts to an acceptable level. 3. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact: Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation in extreme cases suspend in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid -like. Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction occur: (1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; (2) a saturated condition; and (3) rapid large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions. Site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction under earthquake ground shaking due to the nature of the subsurface soils (fine - grained silty materials) and absence of shallow groundwater. Furthermore, the Public Safety Element does not identify the proposed project site as being located within an area of potential liquefaction hazard. Although perched water conditions after periods of heavy rainfall could contribute to the potential for liquefaction, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 rt 3 -5 -� )"t SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES the soils overlying the project site will be paved over and percolation will be minimal, thus limiting the occurrence of subsurface water. 4. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No Impact: The proposed project does not have a significant potential to subject persons or property to seismically induced seiche or tsunami. Although the project properties are located approximately one mile northeast of Upper Newport Bay, their elevation (i.e., 50 feet above mean sea level), as well as various topographic and structural impedances, would restrict the movement of seismically- induced water movement. Although not impossible, the potential for flooding by seiche or tsunami is highly improbable given the history of such occurrences in the City. No volcanic hazards are present in the City or the region. 5. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact: The site and the surrounding areas can be characterized as heavily urbanized and void of any perceptible grades and /or landforms which would be subject to slope failure. As previously indicated, the site has been graded and prepared for future • development. The Public Safety Element indicates that the project site is not comprised of any natural or manmade slopes having the potential for failure or mudslide in the event of seismic activity or other triggering mechanism, such as rainfall. Therefore, no significant impacts will result from site development. 6. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: During construction of the proposed extended stay hotel and office projects, excavation and grading will be required. Since the site currently has little topographic relief, the proposed construction modifications will minimally alter the site's topography. Cuts and fills are expected to be in the range of 10 feet or less, of which the bulk of the cut area is at the proposed subterranean parking structure on the hotel site. As indicated in Section C(8), shoring plans will be subject to review by a geotechnical engineer and the Building Department in order to ensure human safety. The grading phase of project implementation might result in an increase in wind or water erosion of soils, depending on wind velocities and precipitation that could occur during Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -6 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES that phase. The Public Safety Element includes the project site in an area of moderate erosion potential. Although only a temporary impact, the erosion potential will increase in the winter months (i.e., southern California's wet season) should construction occur at that time. Erosional effects could cause siltation in flood control facilities and a consequent loss of storm flow capacity. However, the project properties are currently graded and plans have been prepared to meet the City's NPDES General Construction Activity Permit requirements. Ultimately, the site will be landscaped and no exposed earth surfaces will exist on -site. Structures, asphalt, and landscaping will prevent soil erosion from wind and rainfall. The geotechnical investigations conducted forthe project properties indicated the potential for impacts related to expansive soils and unstable fill materials resulting from demolition activities and the removal of underground storage tanks. The discussion related to those impacts is presented in Section C(8) below. Mitigation for those potential impacts is included at the end of this section. 7. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact: The Public Safety Element states that no areas of significant subsidence potential were identified in Newport Beach during a city -wide geological assessment. Although ground subsidence is not anticipated as a result of project implementation, the expansive nature of the on -site soils could create differential settlement problems for structures. The findings of the geotechnical studies conducted for the project properties are summarized below in Section C(8). 8. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The project site and the surrounding properties are identified in the Public Safety Element as being in a zone of likely moderately to highly expansive soils. Shrinking and swelling of soil can cause damage to building foundations, roads, and other structures. In response to potential soils concerns, soil engineering feasibility studies were conducted forthe project properties and are summarized below. Willi • • ._ The investigation of the 1001 Quail site (Medal I et. al, 1998) consisted of: (a) Drilling three investigative borings to a maximum depth of fifty feet; (b) performing in -situ Standard Penetration tests of the local soils; (c) retrieving representative soil samples from the different soil horizons encountered; (d) conducting representative laboratory tests to Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 j 3 -7 M SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 16 evaluate the engineering characteristics of the local soil deposits; (e) engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data; and (f) preparation of this report. The results of the soils testing are only briefly summarized in this environmental analysis; the complete testing results and technical data is contained in the soil engineering feasibility study (Medal) et. al, 1998). In general, subsoils are classified as an artificial fill underlain by natural deposits. The natural materials underlying the fill, explored to a depth of fifty feet, were classified as mostly clayey silt / silty clay deposits (also known as Bay Mud) with minor interbedded layers of sand or silty sand. Most of the fill soils appear to be firm with occasional softer layers, and the natural soil deposits are mostly firm to medium stiff. The Expansion Index test results indicate that the expansive potential of the upper local soils tested was very high. The results of the consolidation tests indicate that the natural soils tested have moderate consolidation characteristics and in general show expansion when water is added. Based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing, it was determined that the site appears to be suitable for the placement of the proposed office building from a geotechnical viewpoint. However, it was recommended that a second phase investigation to develop design parameters be conducted due to potential impacts related to fill quality, foundation types, upper soil expansion, soil sulphate content, and the disturbance of upper soils during demolition activities. Therefore, a subsequent geotechnical investigation, applicable only to the proposed office site, was conducted by Converse Consultants (Converse, 1998). The findings of that study generally concur with the findings of the previous geotechnical investigation. In addition, the Converse study provided numerous specific geotechnical and structural criteria which must be met as project design and construction proceeds. The recommendations of both reports effectively become the mitigation for any potentially significant geotechnical issues identified in those reports, as indicated at the end of this section. The preliminary geotechnical investigation of the 1301 Quail site (Stoney - Miller, 1998) included a literature and map review, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and analysis, and geotechnical analysis and recommendations for the proposed hotel. The site investigation consisted of both field exploration and laboratory testing and was conducted between August and September 1998. The following is a brief summary of the findings and conclusions of the preliminary geotechnical investigation. Subsurface conditions were explored using six borings ranging in depth from 26 to 52 feet below existing grade. The boring logs and laboratory procedures used are described in detail in the preliminary geotechnical investigation. Similar to the 1001 Quail property, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -8 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES the proposed hotel site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits. Subsurface sampling indicated that on -site materials generally consist of one to two feet of compacted fill over natural terrace deposits. On -site terrace soils generally have a low to medium expansion potential. The fill materials previously used on -site consist of locally derived and imported soils. These materials predominantly consist of a mix of silts and sands, with varying amounts of clay and some relatively minor amounts of rock and cobble. These materials are moist to very moist and are well- compacted to a generally medium -dense to dense consistency. Consistent with the findings for the office site, groundwater at the hotel site was encountered at approximately 21.5 to 25 feet below existing grade, but is not expected to present any adverse geotechnical impacts. As with the studies of the 1001 Quail property, the preliminary geotechnical report for the hotel property includes numerous general and specific recommendations relative to shoring, fills, drainage, construction materials, and retaining wall construction. Based on the results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation, it is considered that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations of the report are implemented during design, grading, and construction. Therefore, the geotechnical investigation (Stoney - Miller, 1998), in its final form, will serve as the requisite mitigation for grading and construction of the hotel property, as specified in the mitigation measures at the end of this section. 9. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact: The subject properties are approximately 50 feet above mean sea level within the central block of the Tustin Plain in the Orange County Coastal Basin. The Tustin Plain is a relatively flat physiographic expression of alluvial fans and flood plains. The Orange County Coastal Basin is a large alluvial basin extending from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in the east and from the Los Angeles /Orange County line in the north to the San Joaquin Hills in the south. As indicated on the U.S.G.S. 7.5- minute Tustin quadrangle, no unique geologic or physical features exist on the project site. With only minor alterations to the site's topography resulting from site construction, no impacts to unique geologic features will occur. The site has been graded and developed in accordance with the adopted land use designation and zoning. The grading and site development associated with the existing use did not result in any significant impacts to unique geologic or physical features. As a result, no impacts are anticipated from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -9 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • Mitigation Measures C1. The applicant shall implement each of the design recommendations stipulated in the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project (MedalI et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998), subject to the review and approval of the Building Department. Those reports shall serve as the definitive guides to geotechnical mitigation requirements for the proposed office and hotel sites, in addition to standard engineering practice and local and State building codes. C2. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all excavations, subgrade preparation, and fill placement activities on the project properties. Sufficient in -place field density tests shall be performed during fill placement and in -place compaction to evaluate the overall compaction of the soils. Test areas that do not meet minimum compaction requirements shall be reworked and retested prior to placement of any additional fill. C3. A geotechnical engineer shall observe all earthwork during construction on the project properties to confirm that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical reports (Medal) et. al., 1998; Converse, 1998; Stoney - Miller, 1998) are applicable during construction. C4. The final grading, shoring, and foundation plans for the hotel and office properties shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical consultant as soon as they are available. The analysis, findings, and recommendations of that review shall be presented to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. D. WATER 1. Would this proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate or amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact: The project properties are generally level lots that gently slope to channel surface runoff water either to storm drains located in the parking lots or to the streets via concrete surface drains. No standing water or drainage - related problems were evident during site observation. The proposed office and hotel properties are currently graded, having recently undergone demolition of all structures and asphalt parking and access surfaces. The project applicant is required to maintain runoff on -site or provide de- silting facilities until the site is • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project , November 23, 1998 ; 3 -10 "I t SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES developed, at which time surface runoff will be directed via sheet flow to street curb gutters and storm drain catch basins. Construction of the proposed extended stay hotel and office building structures, walkways, and parking areas will introduce impermeable surfaces to the project properties. The asphalt paving and concrete walkways will decrease absorption rates and increase the rate of surface runoff into adjacent storm drain facilities in Spruce Avenue and Quail and Dove Streets. However, implementation of the proposed project will result in similar runoff volumes as were experienced during the sites' previous use by automobile sales and service facilities. On -site storm drain facilities subject to review by the City Engineer will be included in the project design and will ensure that runoff quantities are maintained at levels that will not exceed the design capacities of off -site flood control facilities. 2. Would this proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact: The Public Safety Element indicates that the proposed project would not result in the exposure of any people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the City of Newport Beach Engineering Department, the subject property is in Flood Zone X on FIRM Panel No. 0047 -E, Community No. 060227, dated September 15, 1989. The Flood Zone X definition from the FIRM Map is "areas of 500 year flood; areas of 100 year flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100 year . floods." By law, only those properties and structures within a 100 -year flood plain are required to employ mitigation against flooding. Although the project site might be located within a 500 -year flood plain as determined by the Federal Insurance Administration, the probability of such an occurrence reduces the potential flooding impact to a less than significant level. The proposed project will not expose additional people or property to an unreasonable risk of flood hazard. 3. Would this proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact: As indicated in D(1), above, drainage will occur as sheet flows and be directed into existing streets until its ultimate discharge into the City's storm drain system. Development of the property could result in additional surface water runoff and an increase in the amount of urban pollutants that enter the storm drainage system. However, the increase in pollutant loads is anticipated to be minor due to the development that currently exists on the property. Because the site is in an urbanized area, these storm flows will not be discharged directly into surface waters and will not Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project G November 23, 1998 r� y 3 -11 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • result in significant adverse impacts to water quality. Further, the applicant will be required to comply with applicable construction activity and long -term NPDES permit requirements through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for urban runoff pollutants. As a standard submittal to the City, the WQMP will implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan to ensure that potential adverse effects on water quality are minimized. 4. Would this proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than Significant Impact: The subsequent development of the project properties will incrementally increase demand for domestic water. A portion of the City's water supply is provided from City reservoirs. However, no discernible change in surface water levels is expected as a result of project implementation. Additionally, surface runoff will enter the local street system before entering the underground storm drain system and ultimate discharge in the ocean. Although the project will result in a slight increase in the amount of surface runoff, the incremental increase in storm flows will not change the amount of surface water in any water body. 5. Would this proposal result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? • Less Than Significant Impact: The site will be graded to generally maintain pre - development drainage patterns. Post - development storm runoff will continue to drain toward adjacent street gutters and inlet structures. The project site is not in the immediate proximity of any surface water bodies and no changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements will occur. 6. Would this proposal result in change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? No Impact: A groundwater monitoring report (Centec, 1996) indicates that groundwater is first encountered in the vicinity of the project properties at a depth of approximately 20- 22 feet below ground surface (bgs). These aquifers are generally perched, unconfined flows of little or no beneficial uses. Groundwater flow is typically to the south - southwest in this vicinity. Cuts and fills on the hotel site will generally be less than 10 feet and will be necessary to prepare the garage and building areas, pavement areas, and to provide site drainage. Although it is possible that the perched aquifers could be intercepted by excavation needed to construct the sub -grade parking, those waters hold no value for . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 t 3 -12 .)A- SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES domestic use and represent only a minimal loss of the County's overall groundwater • resources. In terms of water usage, the City of Newport Beach anticipates pumping a portion of its water supply from underground aquifers. To the extent that subsequent development will increase demand for domestic water, project implementation may incrementally affect the quantity of groundwater through withdrawals. However, water usage for the previous automotive uses has indicated that demands for domestic water could be met based on the City's long -range growth assumptions. Therefore, no significant impacts to groundwater supplies will occur. 7. Would this proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact: Other than the isolated, perched aquifers noted previously, no significant groundwater exists on the subject property. The proposed use (i.e., intensification) of the project properties will neither result in the alteration of the direction nor rate of groundwater flows. The proposed project does not involve either the direct withdrawal of potable groundwater supplies or excavations to a depth which could affect regional groundwater resource flows. As indicated previously, only perched groundwater exists beneath the site; therefore, excavation required for the underground hotel parking lot will not adversely affect significant groundwater resources. 8. Would this proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality? 0 No Impact: The 1996 groundwater monitoring report prepared by Centec Engineering states that in 1991, petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was found in soils near a fuel dispenser on the 1301 Quail site. Centec was further retained to assess and define the extent of the leakage. In October and November 1991, three groundwater monitoring wells, several soil borings, and a soil gas survey were completed in the vicinity of the dispenser. The investigations identified a limited plume of degraded gasoline contamination in the soils near the dispenser, and trace levels of BTEX in two of the monitoring wells. Because the degraded hydrocarbon mass was apparently limited in size, the contaminant levels were relatively low, and the groundwater has no beneficial use, the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) determined that remedial action would not be necessary if the contaminant levels remained low in subsequent quarterly tests. Therefore, a fourth monitoring well was installed to assess the groundwater directly downgradient of the fuel dispenser. Laboratory analyses of the soil samples indicated that only low levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were present in the soil near the dispenser, with no benzene or MTBE Mitigated Negative Declaration for the . Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -13 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES . detected. The groundwater results in early 1996 showed only trace levels of contaminants in one of the four wells. These results suggested there was very little lateral or vertical spread of the older hydrocarbon plume and therefore little threat of health risk to the property. As requested by OCHCA in September 1996, Centec completed additional groundwater sampling from two suspect wells around the fuel dispenser in the service yard of the former Jim Slemons Imports property at 1301 Quail Street. Results from the groundwater sampling indicated trace levels of hydrocarbons were present in one well adjacent to the fuel dispenser island, including TPH and benzene. The only analytes detected in the downgradient well were toluene and xylene. All analytes detected were below the allowable concentrations set by the State and local regulatory agencies for the protection of human health. The groundwater monitoring report concluded that give recent guidelines promulgated by the State Water Resources Control Board, current and historical groundwater data suggests that the site is not considered a high risk to water quality. The four groundwater monitoring wells installed to monitor potential contaminants are still present on the site. The wells will be abandoned according to applicable County guidelines and will not affect groundwater resources. • 9. Would this proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? No Impact: Although local groundwater supplies are used to partially meet domestic water demands in Newport Beach, it is not anticipated that the incremental increase associated with project implementation would cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Mitigation Measures P40 mitigation Measures ate 1'eq t1ired Although no potentially significant impacts were identified the following measure shall be implemented to minimize long -term water quality impacts to the extent feasible. • • ••1. •11 • •• • _ 1• •111 • 1 •• 1, •• • •.1 ♦ 1 1• i• .1• :IlFRIMI i••• l• • _1 • • 1 : • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -14 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES E. AIR QUALITY This section summarizes an Air Impact Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates for the • proposed project. Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that any projects in the south coast air basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: 55 Ibs per day of ROC' 55 Ibs per day of NO,** 550 Ibs per day of CO 150 Ibs per day of PM -10 150 Ibs per day of SO, 75 Ibs/day during construction 100 Ibs/day during construction Beyond emissions magnitude, the SCAQMD also recommends that any relevant secondary evaluation criteria be applied to a proposed project. These additional indicators include the following: Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation; Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot; Project could have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions. For a general development such as an extended stay hotel and office uses whose primary source of potential air quality impact is from vehicular sources, very few of these secondary impact indicators are likely applicable to the proposed project. Nevertheless, those relevant standards are used in the following analysis to determine the air quality impact significance of the proposed project. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3-15 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES . Construction Activity Impacts Project development will entail considerable construction activity to demolish existing uses and build new structures and facilities. The project site comprises 6.6 acres of developable space (7.6 ac. - 1 ac. [existing parking structure]). If the entire site were under simultaneous disturbance, peak daily PM -10 emissions would total 412 pounds if "standard" dust control is implemented (15.6 ac. X 26.4 Ib /aciday = 412 lb/day). Unless enhanced dust control measures are implemented, the SCAQMD significance threshold of 150 pounds per day could be exceeded. Enhanced dust control that increases dust control efficiency from 50 percent for standard dust suppression to an 85 percent efficiency would reduce daily PM -10 emissions during construction to 124 pounds per day. This level would be less than the SCAQMD threshold. Attainment of 85 percent control is a reasonably feasible objective with moderately enhanced dust mitigation. Maintaining a less than significant PM -10 impact is thus achievable. Construction activities generate negligible amounts of PM -2.5, and the very small fraction that is created is typically not chemically/biologically reactive in human lung tissue. From a human health perspective, construction activity dust generation is insignificant. Construction activity dust impacts derive almost exclusively from the largest diameter material that has a residence time of only a few seconds. These large particulates quickly settle out on parked cars, landscaping, outdoor furniture and other horizontal surfaces. With daytime winds from the southwest, office and other commercial units along Quail and Dove Streets will be downwind of site - generated construction dust. The primary zone of impact from heavy particulates, however, is less than 100 feet from the source. The nearest dust - sensitive uses will be generally well beyond 100 feet from any construction disturbance area. The distance buffer between the point of disturbance and the nearest parked cars or other soiling- sensitive uses is thus adequate to minimize any potential local soiling effects. In addition to dust emissions, construction will entail the use of internal combustion engines to power on -road trucks and off -road mobile, semi - mobile and semi - stationary equipment. Construction activities for commercial uses require about 150,000 Brake Horsepower -Hours (BHP -HR) of on- and off -road energy to demolish/develop one acre. Total construction is assumed to require approximately 200 days for grading, rough construction, and finish construction. However, because both sites have been cleared of all structures and because of the flat grade of the two parcels, the use of heavy earth - moving equipment is likely minimal, even with the subterranean parking excavation. The use of the "default" assumption on construction energy consumption thus overestimates the heavy equipment operations and associated emissions that will be needed to build out the project site. Assuming that both parcels are built out simultaneously, and assuming that construction equipment is comprised of a mixture of dozers, excavators, backhoes, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -16 ]may SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES etc., the following emissions (pounds of pollution per day during the project construction • period) will be generated: Average daily NO, emissions would be slightly above the significance threshold. The use of periodic low -NO, tune -ups for on -site equipment can reduce the NO, levels to less than the significance threshold. All other pollutants will be at sub - threshold levels with a large margin of safety. However, the non - attainment status of the airshed dictates that reasonable and feasible available control measures to minimize construction equipment exhaust emissions should be implemented even if thresholds are not exceeded. Off -site, seemingly minor construction activities, such as construction truck traffic, prolonged idling, and dirt tracking off -site may become substantial when summed overall basinwide construction activities. Although not significant for this project alone, as with the on -site impacts, a heightened level of impact mitigation will need to be implemented to maintain an overall tolerable level of impact from project construction activities. Toxic Air Contaminants The comprehensive soil testing and pre- construction remediation completed to date precludes any potential for significant toxic air contaminant impacts during proposed new construction and excavation activities. Additionally, demolition of all previous structures on the project properties is currently nearing completion. Any asbestos - containing materials or lead -based paints were remediated using procedures approved by the SCAQMD. These procedures required removal using techniques that protected both the remediation workers and the public at large. Disposal of any remediated hazardous materials was at approved repositories. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -17 , a Project % of Pollutant Emissions Threshold Threshold ROG 7 75 10% CO 23 550 4 NOx 103 100 103 PM -10 4 150 2% sox 7 150 5% Average daily NO, emissions would be slightly above the significance threshold. The use of periodic low -NO, tune -ups for on -site equipment can reduce the NO, levels to less than the significance threshold. All other pollutants will be at sub - threshold levels with a large margin of safety. However, the non - attainment status of the airshed dictates that reasonable and feasible available control measures to minimize construction equipment exhaust emissions should be implemented even if thresholds are not exceeded. Off -site, seemingly minor construction activities, such as construction truck traffic, prolonged idling, and dirt tracking off -site may become substantial when summed overall basinwide construction activities. Although not significant for this project alone, as with the on -site impacts, a heightened level of impact mitigation will need to be implemented to maintain an overall tolerable level of impact from project construction activities. Toxic Air Contaminants The comprehensive soil testing and pre- construction remediation completed to date precludes any potential for significant toxic air contaminant impacts during proposed new construction and excavation activities. Additionally, demolition of all previous structures on the project properties is currently nearing completion. Any asbestos - containing materials or lead -based paints were remediated using procedures approved by the SCAQMD. These procedures required removal using techniques that protected both the remediation workers and the public at large. Disposal of any remediated hazardous materials was at approved repositories. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -17 , a 0 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Mobile Source Impacts Project implementation will generate a net increase of 1,798 daily vehicle trips compared to the trips formerly generated by the auto dealership. The emissions burden associated with the "new" trips deriving from the proposed project were calculated using the SCAQMD MAAQI computer program. Data from these calculations are summarized in Table 1. Emissions from all five pollutant categories are below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The SCAQMD suggests that any increase in project - related emissions not exceeding threshold levels be designated as having an individually and cumulatively less than significant regional air quality impact. TABLE 1 PROJECT OPERATIONS AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS Source Emissions (pounds per day) CO ROC NOx SOx PM -10 Hotel Site 254.4 20.9 33.5 2.5 3.1 Office Site 104.1 8.6 14.1 1.3 1.4 TOTAL 358.5 29.5 47.6 3.8 4.5 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Exceeds thresholds No No No No No EAodified from 87% passenger /13% truck mix default values to 95% passenger /5% truck mix more appropriate for hotel uses. roux & Associates 0998) Microscale Impact Analysis To determine whether future traffic changes will create an adverse air quality impact, a microscale air quality screening analysis based on the CALINE4 dispersion model was performed for the traffic analysis grid around the project area. Data assumptions and methodology are described in detail in the air quality technical report. The analysis estimated pollutant exposure adjacent to 14 arterial intersections analyzed in the traffic study. Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator of any "hot spot' potential because CO, unlike regional pollutants such as ozone, is directly related to source activity immediately adjacent to the receptor. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project November 23, 1998 30", 3 -18 (d 1 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Existing peak one -hour CO levels near Newport Beach are 7 parts per million (ppm). It requires a local contribution exceeding 13 ppm to cause the one -hour standard to be exceeded if the maximum local impact and the maximum background concentration were to coincide. Table 2 shows that no microscale CO "hot spots" are currently present at any of the intersections analyzed. The existing worst -case microscale CO exposure is 12.5 ppm above the worst -case 7.0 ppm background. Although background levels are continuing to drop, the 7 ppm background was assumed to persist into the future. TABLE 2 MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Intersection (One -hour CO concentrations [ppm] above non -local background) Existing Cumulative Baseline (2010) . - With Project.. -' (2010) '. MacArthur /Campus - 2.3 3.0 MacArthur /Birch 2.4 1.2 1.3 MacArthur /Jamboree 4.2 4.3 4.3 Jamboree/Campus - 4.0 4.0 N. Bristol /Jamboree 4.3 8.1 8.1 Bristol /Jamboree 4.2 2.8 2.8 jam boree/Eastb I uff-Un iversity - 2.3 2.3 N. Bristol /Campus 10.3 3.1 3.1 Bristol /Campus -Irvine 12.5 - - Irvine/Mesa - 2.8 2.8 N. Bristol /Birch 5.9 2.8 2.9 Bristol /Birch 4.3 - - Campus /S. Bristol - 4.6 4.6 Birch/S. Bristol - 2.0 2.1 SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (1998); Caltrans Screening Procedure Based on CALINE4 Roadway Pollution Model. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1994), Appendix 9, indicates that the per vehicle CO emission factor will decrease by 60 percent between 1997 and 2009, representing annual average reductions of almost five percent. However, traffic growth is projected to increase by only one to two percent per year in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, continued vehicular emissions improvements are forecast to exceed the pace 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -19 Td� SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • of overall traffic growth. Future hourly background CO levels will likely drop below 7 ppm. Table 2 shows that possible CO "hot spots" will also not be present for future conditions from a combined 8.1 ppm microscale increment plus the assumed 7 ppm regional background. Both the "no project' and "with project' future microscale maximum CO exposure will be less than in 1998. Maximum "with project' versus "no project' one -hour CO differences for long -range buildout (2010) conditions will be 0.7 ppm. The lowest reportable CO increment in the SCAQMD reporting system is 1.0 ppm. Cumulative future CO levels will be well within standards. The project increment will be an immeasurably small amount. Therefore, microscale air quality impacts are considered less than significant. 2. Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact: The construction, mobile source, and microscale air quality impact analyses summarized in E(1) above indicate that no sensitive receptors will be adversely exposed to air pollutants. 3. Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? . No Impact: No component of the proposed development will result in the significant movement of air and /or the creation of moisture which could, in turn, cause a change in climate. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4. Would the proposal create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact: Project - related equipment emissions are anticipated to be below the SCAQMD thresholds. The mobile nature of the equipment is such that no single receptor is exposed to equipment emissions for any extended period. Since the nearest homes are located approximately 2,000 feet from the project site, odors will not be of a concentration that would create a measurable threat to clean air standards. Onshore wind direction will help to minimize any exhaust impacts by blowing emissions away from, instead of toward, the nearest residences. Therefore, these impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel/Office Project J ' November 23, 1998 3-20 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Mitigation Measures E1. Construction activity mitigations shall include the following measures: Dust Control - Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to less than the combined project site areas and use enhanced dust control measures. The menu of enhanced dust control measures includes the following: - Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. - Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. - Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. - Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. - Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. - Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. - Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. - Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Emissions Control Require 90-day low -NO, tune -ups for off -road equipment . Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off -Site Impacts - Encourage car pooling for construction workers. - Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. - Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. - Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. - Wash or sweep access points daily. - Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. - Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. F. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION This section summarizes a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. for the extended stay hotel/business office project. The traffic analysis, prepared in August 1998, analyzes the circulation plan as it pertains to and affects traffic conditions and transportation system improvements in the study area as a whole. The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The TPO analyses include a one percent traffic analysis, ICU analysis, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project U 5 November 23, 1998 3 -21 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES . and General Plan analysis for the proposed hotel /office development. The traffic impact analysis is available for review at the City of Newport Beach (refer to Section 4 - List of References). 1. Would the proposal result in impacts to increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact: �Ffl • • • Daily and peak hour trips were estimated for the proposed project, as well as for the previous automotive land uses on the project sites. The amount of traffic previously generated by the dealerships will serve as a trip- making credit and will be applied as a reduction for the trips estimated for the proposed hotel and office. Trip rates for the dealership were provided by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Trip rates for the hotel and office uses were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 6th Edition. However, as indicated in the Project Description, the hotel would consist of 150 two - bedroom suites, which are arranged such that each can be subdivided into two separate units: a one bedroom suite and a one -bed room. Thus, the hotel could potentially be considered a 300 -room hotel, • rather than a 150 -suite hotel. However, based on the mix of occupancies as observed in other similar hotels, the 150 -suite hotel is the equivalent of a 250 -room hotel for traffic estimating purposes. A worksheet documenting the anticipated occupancy characteristics is presented in Appendix A of the traffic study. A summary of trip generation for the site is provided on Table 3. Trip generation for the previous auto dealerships (i.e., for both parcels combined) was approximately 1,439 trips on a daily basis. The proposed extended stay hotel would generate approximately 1,818 trips on a daily basis, while the proposed office would generate 1,420 trips on a daily basis. Once the tripmaking credits from the previous auto dealerships are applied to the trip generation for each of the proposed uses, the total net trips remaining is 1,798 trips on a daily basis, 191 trips in the morning peak hour and 233 trips in the evening peak hour. The net difference in trips between the former dealerships and the proposed uses was distributed to the roadway system using trip distribution percentages assigned by a traffic/land use distribution model. Trips were distributed individually for the hotel and office uses. The traffic impact study contains the model assumptions used to distribute traffic to area roadways. • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 J, 3 -22 7�! SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES TABLE $ TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON AND SUMMARY The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO and includes a one percent Traffic Volume Analysis for the study area intersections, which are shown on Exhibit 7. The TPO requires any intersection within the City to be studied if the addition of the proposed project increases the volume of any approach by one percent or more. The analysis worksheets were provided by the City's Public Works Department and are presented in the traffic impact analysis. Included in the worksheets are the existing peak 2.5 -hour volumes for each leg of each of the 12 study area intersections. The City also provided the Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for each roadway segment in the City, as well as a summary of the approved projects volumes at each intersection. Per the City's direction, approved projects volumes were • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ?/J November 23, 1998 3 -23 4 Trip Generation ... AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour: IN OUT IN OUT Land Use Size DAILY Previous Uses Auto Dealership (1301 Quail) 3.6998 ac. 555 25 34 20 27 Auto Dealership (1001 Quail) 5.8966 ac. 884 40 55 32 43 Total Trips 1,439 64 89 53 70 Proposed Uses Business Hotel 250 rooms 1,818 86 59 93 62 General Office 109.2 KSF 1,420 176 24 34 167 Total Trips 3,237 261 83 127 229 Pr000sed minus Previous Uses NA 1,263 61 25 73 35 Hotel Site Office Site NA 535 136 -31 1 124 Net Total Trips 1,798 197 -6 74 159 KSF ® Thousand Square Feet — Not Applicable INA SOURCE: Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. (August 1998); Trip Generation, 6" Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997) The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO and includes a one percent Traffic Volume Analysis for the study area intersections, which are shown on Exhibit 7. The TPO requires any intersection within the City to be studied if the addition of the proposed project increases the volume of any approach by one percent or more. The analysis worksheets were provided by the City's Public Works Department and are presented in the traffic impact analysis. Included in the worksheets are the existing peak 2.5 -hour volumes for each leg of each of the 12 study area intersections. The City also provided the Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for each roadway segment in the City, as well as a summary of the approved projects volumes at each intersection. Per the City's direction, approved projects volumes were • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ?/J November 23, 1998 3 -23 4 SOURCE: IGmley -Hom and Associates, Inc., 1998 HOOF EXTENDED STAY HOTEL ■ OFFICE PROJECT C i t y of N e w p o r t B e a c h • Analysis Intersections 'TY Q N -_ No Slab Study Area Intersections EXHIBIT VA SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES reduced by 20 percent to reflect the City's Land Use Interaction Factor. Table 4 presents the results of the one percent analysis. Traffic volumes associated with the proposed hotel and office development would exceed the one percent criteria in one or both peak hours at the following intersections: • MacArthur /Campus (AM/PM) • MacArthur /Birch (AM) • Bristol North/Jamboree (AM) • Bristol /Jamboree (AM/PM) •Campus /Bristol North (AM/PM) *Campus- Irvine/Bristol (AM) •Birch /Bristol North (AM/PM) •Birch /Bristol (PM) Therefore, the eight intersections listed are subject to an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis as per the requirements of the City's TPO. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Intersection Does the project exceed one percent, of the projected: peak 2.5 -hour traffic volume? Hotel Only Hotel and 109.2 KSF Office AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour. 1. MacArthur /Campus No No Yes Yes 2. MacArthur /Birch No No Yes No 3. MacArthur /Jamboree No No No No 4. Jamboree/Campus No No No No 5. Jamboree/Bristol North No No Yes No 6. Jamboree/Bristol No No Yes Yes 7. Jamboree/Eastbluff- University No No No No 8. Campus/Bristol North No No Yes Yes 9. Campus- Irvine/Bristol No No Yes No 10. Irvine/Mesa No No No No 11. Birch/Bristol North No No Yes Yes 12. Birch/Bristol No No No Yes SOURCE: Kiml -Horn and Associates, Inc. (August 1998) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -24 a-34- • SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES ICU Analysis The ICU analysis worksheets containing existing morning and afternoon peak hourly traffic volumes were provided by the City's Public Works Department. The ICU worksheets and specific traffic growth assumptions (which include cumulative projects) for the next three years are presented in the traffic impact analysis. Table 5 presents the results of the ICU analysis. As indicated in Table 5, six of the eight intersections analyzed would operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours under all conditions. Project traffic will add between 0.00 and 0.01 to the ICU at each of these intersections. TABLE 5 ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersection Existing Conditions Projected Conditions (a) With Project Conditions ICU /LOS ICU /LOS ICU /LOS Increase in ICU (b) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM MacArthur /Campus 0.72/C 0.66/B 10.77/C 0.67/B 0.77/C 0.68/B 0.00 0.01 MacArthur /Birch 0.52/A 0.58/A 0.54/A 0.59/A 0.54/A 0.59/A 0.00 0.00 jamboree/Bristol North 0.46/A 0.62/B 0.51/A 0.70 /B 0.52/A 0.70 /B 0.01 0.00 Jamboree/Bristol 0.60 /A 0.67/B 0.67/B 0.74/C 0.67/B 0.74/C 0.00 0.00 Campus /Bristol North 0.64/B 0.89/D 0.66/B 0.93/E 0.68/B 0.95/E 0.02 0.02 Campus- Irvine/Bristol 0.88/D 0.69/B 0.90 /D 0.71/C 0.90 /D 0.71/C 0.00 0.00 Birch /Bristol North (c) 0.76/C 0.91/E 0.77/C 0.93/E 0.79/C 0.94/E 0.02 0.01 Birch /Bristol 0.64/B 0.63/B 0.65/B 0.65/B 0.66/B 0.65/B 0.01 0.00 (a) Project conditions represents existing traffic plus regional growth traffic plus traffic from committed projects. (b) The project's Increase in ICU is a comparison between "projected conditions" and "with project conditions ". (c) Construction of a second northbound left -turn lane was completed in May 1998. with this Improvement, the evening peak hour ICU value is 0.86 under existing conditions, 0.88 under projected conditions, and 0.89 under "with project" conditions. SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates Inc. (August 1998) . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -25 J�O ,_l � SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES One of the intersections analyzed would operate at LOS E under existing, projected, and/or with project conditions. The intersection of Bristol North /Campus would operate at LOS i E in the evening peak hour due to the project - related ICU increase of 0.02. Thus, the TPO guidelines require that improvements be developed for this intersection. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is currently planning the provision of a direct ramp from westbound SR -73 to southbound SR 55. This ramp, when constructed, will mitigate impacts at the intersection of Bristol North /Campus, as well as improve ICU conditions at Bristol North/Birch. Westbound SR- 73 traffic destined to southbound SR -55 currently must exit from SR -73, or not use SR -73 at all, and use Bristol Street North. If 15% of the existing westbound Bristol Street North traffic were to use SR -73, the evening peak hour ICU value with the project would be 0.89 at Bristol North /Campus and the requirements of the TPO would be satisfied. Potential project - related impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the planned OCTA improvements. No additional mitigation measures would be necessary. As indicated in Table 5, with the recent reconstruction of the Birch Street bridge over SR- 73 and the addition of a second northbound left -turn lane, the intersection of Bristol North/Birch now operates at LOS C in the morning peak hour and LOS D in the evening peak hour under existing and projected conditions. The project would increase the ICU by 0.02 in the morning peak hour and by 0.01 in the evening peak hour. Those ICU values currently satisfy the requirements of the TPO. Additionally, the provision of the direct ramp to SR -55, as planned by OCTA, would further decrease the ICU to 0.83. No significant adverse traffic impacts will result at this intersection. A General Plan analysis was conducted in conjunction with the proposed project in order to determine project impacts, if any, on long -term future (buildout) traffic conditions. Daily and peak hourly buildout traffic volumes without and with the proposed project were obtained from the City's traffic model. Table 4 of the traffic impact analysis presents a comparison of the daily traffic volumes, volume -to- capacity (V/C) ratios, and LOS without and with the proposed project for those roadway segments that are projected to have a V/C ratio in excess of 0.90. As indicated in that table, 14 roadway segments are projected to operate with a V/C ratio in excess of 0.90 or at LOS E or F under buildout conditions without the proposed project. With the proposed project, there would be no change in LOS on any roadway segment. Furthermore, on 12 of the 14 roadway segments, the V/C ratio will remain unchanged. On two roadway segments, the V/C ratios with the proposed hotel and office development would increase by 0.04. These two roadway segments are: • Bristol Street North between Campus Drive and Birch Street • Bristol Street between Birch Street and jamboree Road exit ramp Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -26 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES ICU Analysis ICU analyses for General Plan conditions were conducted at the twelve study area intersections without and with traffic attributed to the proposed project. Table 5 of the traffic study presents the results of the buildout ICU analysis. Six of the twelve intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours without and with the proposed project. The addition of project traffic would add between 0.00 to 0.02 to the ICU at each of these six intersections. The remaining six of the 12 intersections analyzed are projected to operate at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours under buildout conditions without and with the project. At five of these six intersections, the proposed project would not change the ICU value in the deficient peak hours. However, the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive, with an evening peak hour LOS F, would experience a project - related ICU increase of 0.01. Therefore, the need for a southbound right- turn lane at the intersection has been identified by City staff. With the addition of a southbound right -turn lane, the ICU value at the intersection would be 0.94 (LOS E) in the evening peak hour without and with the proposed project. The County of Orange Road Design Department has recently completed the roadway design for improvements to upgrade Irvine Avenue to a six -lane arterial between Bristol Street and University. Since the design for the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive indicates that the southbound approach will include a right -turn lane, project - related impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Would the proposal result in impacts to hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The site has been designed to accommodate vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site. None of the local roadways servicing the project properties are proposed for realignment or alteration as part of this project. No hazards to safety from project design features are anticipated and no incompatible uses exist in the area that would jeopardize either vehicular or pedestrian safety. 3. Would the proposal result in impacts to inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact: The project will allow adequate internal emergency access to the sites and their structures. In terms of loading capacity, turning radii, and pavement width, access drives will be designed to support emergency response vehicles. With the addition of two curb cuts and access drives, all of the on -site structures, including the existing parking structure, will be readily accessible to emergency vehicles. Additionally, the project site plan and Use Permit will be subject to review by the Newport Beach Fire • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 1' 3 -27 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Department, at which time the adequacy of emergency access provisions wi I I be evaluated . and refined, if necessary. 4. Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact: All parking for the proposed extended stay hotel and office building project will be accommodated on -site. Of the 281 total parking stalls provided on the hotel site, 49 at -grade stalls will be located on the "rear" lot (i.e., near North Bristol Street), 4 will be located at the Quail Street entrance, and 222 stalls will be provided in the below -grade parking structure accessible from Quail Street. City parking requirements call for 153 stalls (304 rooms x .5 stalls /room); therefore, the hotel parking requirements will be exceeded. Visitors and employees at the office site will use the existing 375 -stall parking structure. Access to the three -story parking structure will be from Quail Street. In addition, the office site will accommodate approximately 108 at -grade parking stalls, generally concentrated on the southern half of the property. City requirements call for one space for each 225 square feet of net floor area (i.e., 4.44 stalls per 1,000 square feet). Therefore, the office building's 483 total stalls will riot -meet the City parking requirement 1 . TSB, x 4. ,_based on -a maximum net office area of 108.870 square feet (108.78 TSF x 4.44 stalls —483 stalls). I lowevej, the I allowanee 1 V Stan QI 1 iiplementatiort of the jequired mitigation meastire, parking irnpacts will be less IL Ian significarlt. 5. Would the proposal result in impacts to hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed hotel and office building project will not result in adverse modifications to the current state of improvements along the perimeter of the project site, such as driveways, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks. Sidewalks for pedestrian use will be constructed at the perimeters of both properties. All parking will be accommodated off - street and will not interfere with bicycle traffic. 6. Would the proposal result in impacts to conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact: The proposed project will not involve removal or impedance of any public transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site. No roadway modifications are necessary which could potentially affect access to and flow of alternative transportation. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -28 _tl� SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 10 7. Would the proposal result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact: The nature and location of the proposed project is such that the project will not have any rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. The project is not located in close proximity to any such transportation facilities, nor will the project be served by anything other than automobile and truck traffic. Mitigation Measures the City's r-nodification. corn ... ittee.No mitigation measures are required. G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact: The project properties are currently void of natural vegetation and do not serve as habitat for either sensitive plant or animal species. The 1001 Quail property has been graded and contains introduced grasses and trees in the landscaped setbacks. The 1301 Quail site is currently occupied by structures, albeit in the process of demolition, and also supports only landscape vegetation. Neither of the project properties have been identified by the Newport Beach General Plan as being occupied by endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species or their habitats. With the exception of introduced landscape tree species (e.g., London plane and pine) numbering about 60 individuals within the setbacks along the street frontages of both properties, vegetation at the site interior is generally limited to ruderal grasses and invasive weedy species. None of the on -site tree or plant species are listed as locally or regionally important species, and since they are abundant in the vicinity as landscape vegetation, they do not have any particular biological value. However, the City has adopted landscape design guidelines that require the planting of a landscape setback along the road frontage of both project properties. While current site plans do not indicate the future disposition of the London plane trees on the 1301 Quail site, the 1001 Quail site plan indicates that the approximately 42 existing pines will be replaced following site development. However, their removal and replacement with other landscape trees and shrubs is not a biologically significant impact. No endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats exist on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project i November 23, 1998 3 -29 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES site. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive plant and/or animal species will occur if the project is implemented. Ol 2. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? No Impact: While the site is located within an urban setting and is void of any natural vegetation, a number of mature landscape trees will be removed. The City has no provisions regarding the disposition of heritage trees impacted during site development. tree species and will be replaced with other appropriate tree and shrub species, as per the landscaping requirements of the PC District development standards. No significant impacts are anticipated. 3. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact: As indicated above, the site is located in an intensively developed urban area and does not contain any native vegetation communities or habitat for sensitive species. No locally designated natural communities exist on the subject property and no impacts are anticipated. 4. Would the proposal result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 No Impact: As indicated above, the site has been previously graded and developed and does not contain any habitat that would support sensitive species. No wetland habitat occurs on the subject property. No significant impacts to wetland habitat will occur. 5. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact: The site is located within an intensively developed urban area in Newport Beach. As such, neither the site nor nearby areas serve as a wildlife dispersal corridors. No significant impacts to wildlife dispersion will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures No biological resources or habitat exists on the subject property. Project implementation will not adversely affect any sensitive resources or habitat. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay HotelfOffice Project November 23, 1998 3 -30 9 P • SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact: The City of Newport Beach does not have a specific energy conservation plan. However, the proposed project will be required to meet Title 24 energy conservation requirements for low energy usage. No significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact: Electrical service in the project area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds SCE's estimates and providing there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, electrical load requirements are expected to be met for the next several years. The demands for electricity are within the parameters of projected load growth that SCE is planning to meet in the project area. SCE can provide service to the subject properties. Future development of the subject properties would be served from underground extensions from the existing facilities in Quail Street and Dove Street. As indicated above, the implementation of Title 24 energy conservation requirements will further reduce the total demand for electricity created by the proposed recreational facility. Because the demands are within those anticipated by SCE, no significant impacts are anticipated. 3. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact: Project implementation will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project properties have been previously developed and do not contain any energy or mineral resources that are significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 1:1_`/_ ; la i Portions of the analysis in this section are summarized from technical reports and investigations of the project properties. Those reports include Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, a geotechnical feasibility study, and two preliminary geotechnical Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -31 4li9-- SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES reports. Those reports are referenced in the following analyses and are included in the list • of references in Section 4. Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact: The subject properties were previously developed with automotive uses. The sites have been used as automobile sales and service facilities since their. initial development in the early 1970's. A number of underground storage tanks (USTs) have been installed, used, and removed over the years. Currently, there are a total of ten USTs on the properties, including eight at 1301 Quail Street and two at 1001 Quail Street. Since those tanks will be removed prior to site development, as discussed in the following analysis, the potential for accidental explosion or release of the UST contents will be mitigated. No component of the project entails the use of hazardous substances which could be subject to accidental explosion or release; therefore, no significant impacts will result. 2. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan within the City of Newport Beach. Although the Public Safety Element designates jamboree Road as a major northbound evacuation route, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with that roadway's intended emergency function. 3. Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Less Than Significant Impact: As noted previously, there are currently a total of ten underground storage tanks on the project properties, including eight at 1301 Quail Street and two at 1001 Quail Street. To evaluate the potential for subsurface soil and groundwater contamination, Centec Engineering completed an Updated Phase I Environmental Assessment for the project properties. The ESA meets the requirements of Section 21092.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that "the lead agency shall consult the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code to determine whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any list [of potentially contaminated sites]." The Phase I ESA and a Phase 11 report ( Centec, 1998) indicate that the following local, State, and federal agencies were consulted during the preparation of those documents: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project i November 23, 1998 3 -32 l yti A list of specific agencies and individuals contacted is also included in Table 2 in the Appendix of the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA indicates that past gasoline leakage from a fuel dispenser in the service yard at 1301 Quail Street was discovered by Centec in 1991 when Fletcher Jones Motorcars purchased the business from Jim Slemons Mercedes, but the case was "closed" by regulators following a full soil and groundwater investigation. A recent investigation at the site conducted in January 1998 by Centec Engineering found no indications of significant contamination or leakage in samples collected from nine soil borings adjacent to the USTs at the property (Centec Phase 11, 1998). Although hazardous materials were in use at the property in the past, the property has been vacated and all hazardous waste materials have been removed. No significant stains or suspect conditions were noted in the recent site inspections. The complete description of the sub - surface sampling methodology, boring locations, the analytical results of soil testing, and findings are contained in the Limited Phase II Site Investigation Report (Centec, 1998). The Phase I investigation also noted the possible existence of PCB- containing light ballasts on the property. Due to the pre -1980 construction of the subject property, asbestos is considered a possible component of building materials on site. No significant quantities of suspect materials were noted during the on -site inspection, however, and no samples were obtained for, analysis. The on -site structures have since been demolished and removed according to current regulatory standards. The property is also served by Southern California Edison pad- mounted transformers. No stains or signs of leakage were noted. SCE maintains that it is highly unlikely that the transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) at concentration levels requiring special management under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules (Centec, 1998). Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -33 'fJ SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • • • City of Newport Beach Fire Department City of Newport Beach Building and Safety Department • City of Newport Beach Planning Department • Orange County Archives - Historical Aerial Photograph Collection • Orange County Health Care Agency • Orange County Assessor's Office • South Coast Air Quality Management District • California Environmental Protection Agency - Department of Toxic Substances Control • California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region • California Integrated Waste Management Board • California Department of Conservation - Division of Oil and Gas • California Division of Mines and Geology • California Governor's Office of Planning and Research • United States Environmental Protection Agency A list of specific agencies and individuals contacted is also included in Table 2 in the Appendix of the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA indicates that past gasoline leakage from a fuel dispenser in the service yard at 1301 Quail Street was discovered by Centec in 1991 when Fletcher Jones Motorcars purchased the business from Jim Slemons Mercedes, but the case was "closed" by regulators following a full soil and groundwater investigation. A recent investigation at the site conducted in January 1998 by Centec Engineering found no indications of significant contamination or leakage in samples collected from nine soil borings adjacent to the USTs at the property (Centec Phase 11, 1998). Although hazardous materials were in use at the property in the past, the property has been vacated and all hazardous waste materials have been removed. No significant stains or suspect conditions were noted in the recent site inspections. The complete description of the sub - surface sampling methodology, boring locations, the analytical results of soil testing, and findings are contained in the Limited Phase II Site Investigation Report (Centec, 1998). The Phase I investigation also noted the possible existence of PCB- containing light ballasts on the property. Due to the pre -1980 construction of the subject property, asbestos is considered a possible component of building materials on site. No significant quantities of suspect materials were noted during the on -site inspection, however, and no samples were obtained for, analysis. The on -site structures have since been demolished and removed according to current regulatory standards. The property is also served by Southern California Edison pad- mounted transformers. No stains or signs of leakage were noted. SCE maintains that it is highly unlikely that the transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) at concentration levels requiring special management under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules (Centec, 1998). Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -33 'fJ SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES A review of adjacent properties indicated little evidence for serious concern. Although two former auto dealerships east of the 1001 Quail property have been listed as a location • of sub - surface contamination from leaking USTs, the contamination was fully remediated at both sites following removal of the USTs and the cases are pending final "closure" by the regulatory agencies. The Phase I review of known cases of contamination within a one -mile radius of the site found no reasons to suspect that off -site sources of contamination would adversely impact the subject property, although there are a total of 14 listed locations. There are four listed sites within a 1/4 -mile radius of the subject properties, but it is unlikely that any of the listed sites would have an adverse affect on the subject property because the underground storage tank leaks had affected "soil only" and have all been remediated. The Phase I ESA concludes that there are no reasons to suspect that the subject properties are adversely impaired by significant hazardous material contamination. Other than proper removal of the unused underground storage tanks, the Phase I ESA recommends no further action at this time. 4. Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact: As indicated above, the project site has been tested and monitored for soil and groundwater contamination, based on past automotive uses of the • site and suspected leaking USTs. The most recent soil borings and analytical testing, as described in detail in the Limited Phase II Site Investigation Report (Centec, 1998), reveal no hazardous substances that would pose a concern or potential human health threat (i.e., outside established State and federal regulatory limits). Additionally, the landscaping trees, shrubs and grass planted along the streets and against the buildings all appear healthy, displaying no signs of stress normally associated with toxic spills or dumping. 5. Would the proposal involve development on or near a listed hazardous waste site pursuant to Govt. Code Sec. 65962.5? Less Than Significant Impact: As indicated in Sections 1(3) and 1(4) above, the project properties were at one time listed on the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal - EPA) list of leaking underground storage tanks. A 1991 site investigation showed that petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was present in the soil near the fuel dispenser near the center of the former service yard at 1301 Quail Street. Subsequently, additional investigative activities were conducted, including a soil gas survey, additional soil borings, and the installation of four groundwater monitoring wells around the fuel dispenser area. . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -34 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES These activities defined a narrow and limited plume of degraded gasoline near the dispenser, but very little impact to the upper perched groundwater at 22 -23 feet below ground surface. All of the other sampling locations were free of significant concerns. The case was finally "closed' in 1996 by the Orange County Health Care Agency, with review and concurrence by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, following the completion of four groundwater sampling events. Most recently in January 1998, the site was tested and monitored for soil and groundwater contamination and no adverse levels of hazardous substances have been found to exist on the site. With regard to sources of potential contamination on surrounding properties, the area around the subject property is fully developed with office buildings and commercial sites. The nearest residential development is located approximately 2,000 feet south of the property. Adjacent neighbors to the subject property include office buildings and their related parking lots across Quail Street to the north, a car rental business across Dove Street to the east, a commercial shopping center across Dove Street to the southeast, another commercial strip center and office buildings to the south, and office buildings across Spruce Street to the west. There is also an office building with associated parking located on the parcel between the two halves of the car dealership (at 1101 and 1111 Quail Street). None of the neighboring properties appear to pose a likely threat of impairment to the subject property, although former auto dealerships to the east and an office property to the northwest are listed as former locations of UST leakage. The Phase I ESA (Centec, 1998) contains a database report on known or potential sources of off -site contamination in the vicinity of the property prepared by Vista Information Solutions, Inc. (Vista). The Vista report is contained in the Appendix of the Phase I ESA. The Vista database searched federal, State, and local lists of public information, according to appropriate ASTM standards, to identify and geographically locate sites of concern within a maximum radius of one mile of the project properties. The Vista report generally indicates that there are four known cases of off -site contamination within the critical one -mile radius of the property. Beach Imports at 848 Dove Street and Newport Nissan at 888 Dove Street, are two older cases of underground storage tank leaks which have been listed as having affected soil only. The sites are adjacent to each other southeast of the subject property (across Dove Street), and have had substantial excavations of contaminated soil completed. Both sites have been officially "closed" by the regulatory agencies, although the database still shows them open. The third site is an older diesel UST tank that impacted soil only and has also been "closed." It is located several hundred feet northwest of the 1301 site across Quail Street and is now a high -rise office building. The fourth site, known as Koll Company KCN -10 East, is located 1/4 mile to the northeast across MacArthur Boulevard. It too is an older UST leak which affected soil only in the immediate vicinity of a tank that was removed and is Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -35 J SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES "closed." All of these cases are considered too minor and too distant to present a threat of impairment to the subject property. All the remaining listed locations of contamination within a one -mile radius appear to be too distant and lack adequate significance to likely have an adverse environmental impact on the subject property. Most are leaking UST sites that have been remediated and "closed." Also according to the Phase I ESA, there are no National Priority List (NPL) Superfund sites or State Bond Expenditure sites in the vicinity of the subject property. 6. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact: The area in which the project properties are located is heavily urbanized and does not support large areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees that could pose a fire hazard. Furthermore, the Public Safety Element states that the project is subject to flammable cover removal twice a year and has good emergency access, thereby reducing its fire potential to less than significant. The proposed project will not increase the susceptibility of the surrounding areas to potential fire hazards. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. J. NOISE 1. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact: Construction Noise Impacts The proposed office site at 1001 Quail Street has undergone demolition and rough grading. The noise impacts associated with those activities are, therefore, not relevant to this analysis. Likewise, the structures at 1301 Quail Street are currently being demolished, and the noise impacts associated with demolition are not within the purview of this analysis. However, construction noise will occur in future construction phases involving earth- moving and excavation activities and finished construction. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -36 /k,16- SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB(A) and averages about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. The upper end of the noise generation range represents short -term effects, while the longer term averages are most representative of the lower end of the indicated noise curves. Land uses surrounding the project properties are exclusively office and retail commercial, and as such are not considered sensitive receptors requiring the mitigation of temporary construction noise effects. In general, office buildings and retail establishments are well - insulated against noise intrusion and will not experience construction noise at nuisance levels. Additionally, such uses will only be exposed to elevated noise levels temporarily during the construction phase. In later phases of finish construction, equipment such as generators, compressors, saws, etc., are seen to be somewhat less noisy and the physical barrier created by partially completed on -site facilities will further break up line -of -sight propagation. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24 -hour community noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. Construction activities do not represent a chronic, permanent noise source. To abate the potential nuisance from construction noise, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code limits the hours of construction activities through conditions on building permits. The Municipal Code (Section 10.28.040) limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. The City will ensure that construction time limits are enforced for the duration of construction activity on the project site. No additional noise control measures are necessary during the construction period. Vehicular Noise Impacts Vehicular noise will derive from traffic on adjacent arterial roadways and the project - related increase in traffic could increase noise exposures along vicinity roadways. However, none of the proposed project components or surrounding uses are considered noise - sensitive. Modern office buildings are built to meet or exceed noise insulation requirements for interior workspaces. The project- related increase in local traffic volumes will not generate noise at levels to be discernible outdoors along area roadways, much less inside structures protected against sound transmission. Policy 4.2 of the General Plan Noise Element states that projects must Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions "as a means of preventing future noise and land -use incompatibilities. Thus, the City requires that new projects demonstrate compliance with the City noise standards at the time of building permit application. The City also requires acoustical design in new construction. Given the existing noise Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project =' November 23, 1998 3 -37 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES environment, standard noise insulation features will ensure that interior noise levels are maintained in accordance with City standards. Therefore, with the implementation of standard noise reduction conditions, no significant noise impacts will result from project implementation. 2. Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact: Construction activity noise and long -term vehicular noise are the only noise impacts identified that will result from project implementation. Such impacts would be highly localized and temporary. Due to the nature of land uses in the project environs, the project occupants and tenants will not be subject to severe noise levels. Mitigation Measures Although no significant adverse short -term or long -term noise impacts will result from project implementation, the following condition of approval is required by the City of Newport Beach in order to ensure compliance with adopted noise standards. J1. The hotel operator shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement, particularly as they relate to pool and /or clubhouse activities. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ^,•4, November 23, 1998 3 -38 Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. i to erior exterior interior exterio r Measured at the property line of N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA commercially zoned property: Measured at the property line of N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA residentially zoned property: Residential roe 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project ^,•4, November 23, 1998 3 -38 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES K. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in fire protection? No Impact: Fire protection services are provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Fire Station 3, located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, would be the first responding station to the proposed project. The response time is generally five minutes or less and is considered adequate by the Department. In addition, the following equipment and personnel strengths are present in the City and all response times from the stations listed are generally five minutes or less: Station 1 - 110 E. Balboa Blvd. (1) Fire engine w/3 personnel Station 2 - 475 32nd Street (1) Fire engine w/3 personnel (1) Fire truck w/3 personnel (1) Medic van w/2 personnel Station 3 - 868 Santa Barbara Drive (1) Fire engine w/3 personnel (1) Fire truck w/3 personnel (1) Medic van w/2 personnel (1) Ambulance w/2 personnel ation 4 - 124 Marine Avenue (1) Fire engine w/3 personnel Station 5 - 410 Marigold Avenue (1) Paramedic Assessment Unit engine w/3 personnel Station 6 - 1348 Irvine Avenue (1) Paramedic Assessment Unit engine w/3 personnel Although development of the site will increase the demand for fire protection services, additional facilities and manpower will not be required to meet the demands resulting from implementation of this project. The site will be designed and developed in accordance with all requirements established by the Uniform Fire Code, City of Newport Beach policies, and other applicable regulatory procedures related to fire safety. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3-39 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES Although the Fire Department generally does not foresee any problems with the project and its ability to provide adequate services, the Department has expressed concern regarding access, water supply, and fire flow problems. Therefore, the project site plans should be subject to review by the City's Fire Department. This process would be expected to provide adequate resources for the Department to maintain its level of service in the project area and throughout the City. Design review related to square footage, building height, and location of structures; water supply for fire fighting; and access for fire apparatus is more appropriately addressed during site plan review at which time specific recommendations may be made by Fire Department staff to eliminate any potential conflicts with Department policy. 2. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in police protection? Less Than Significant Impact: Police protection and law enforcement services in the City and project area are provided by the Newport Beach Police Department. Newport Beach has one police station. It is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, about three miles from the proposed project. Response times for priority calls to this reporting district average one minute; priority one calls average approximately 30 seconds. This is considered adequate by the Newport Beach Police Department. This facility is equipped to handle both emergency and non - emergency situations. Staffing levels within the Police Department have traditionally been tied to population estimates and projections. The Police Department continually reevaluates its manpower and facilities needs through established planning and budgeting procedures. This process would be expected to provide adequate resources for the Department to maintain its level of service in the project area and throughout the City. The present ratio of sworn officers per 1,000 population is 1.91. This is based on a population of 70,500 with 135 sworn police officers. In 1997, the most recent period for the Department has accurate records, the reporting district for the proposed project shows 1 arson, 16 assaults, 12 burglaries, 27 thefts, and 1 robbery. Past experience in this reporting district with a similar project has not shown any significant impact on crime problems in the area. None would be anticipated with this project, unless there are plans to add a large -scale on -sale alcohol sales operation to the project. Normal crime problems that would be associated with this type of development would center on property crimes such as thefts and burglaries from guestrooms and conference rooms. Standard security measures such as those that already exist in the hotel industry would be adequate to deal with these types of crimes. One other area of concern will be guest security in the parking areas. The Police Department recommends that special Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -40 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • attention be paid to landscaping and lighting features in the parking areas and around the exterior of the grounds as these features can enhance guest security for the property. As such, the project lighting, landscape, and site plans should be reviewed by the Police Department prior to project development. 3. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in schools? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not have an effect on, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the areas of schools, parks and recreational facilities, or maintenance of public facilities. An incremental increase in demand for other governmental services, such as business licensing and construction permitting will result. Neither schools nor parks, as population sensitive services, will be adversely affected because the project does not involve the direct addition of significant residential uses or population increases. 4. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact: As privately owned hotel and business office development, internal circulation and parking facilities will be privately maintained. Public streets and . roadways will be used by employees and patrons of the proposed development. However, maintenance associated with the use of these facilities are considered "normal "; therefore, no significant maintenance impacts are anticipated. Maintenance of the project properties and the facilities contained therein will be the sole responsibility of the property owner and City of Newport Beach resources will not be used. Therefore, no significant impacts to public services are expected. 5. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for other new or altered government services? Less Than Significant Impact: No project - related impacts to other governmental services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Although no potentially significant impacts were identified, the following measure will be implemented in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department recommendations: Kt. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans and engineering plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Department in order to . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -41 ` �54t SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES demonstrate that adequate emergency access and water supply /pressure are • available to the project. K2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit lighting, landscape, and site plans to the City of Newport Beach Police Department in order to demonstrate that employee and guest security are enhanced by site design elements. L. UTILITIES & SERVICES SYSTEMS 1. Would the proposal result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas? Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed development will create a demand for electrical service for the provision of lighting, heating and cooling. Southern California Edison (SCE) Company is responsible for providing electrical service in the project area. Existing electrical transmission facilities are located adjacent to the project area in Quail and Dove Streets. SCE will provide the applicant with a "will serve" letter, indicating that service can be provided to the subject property, upon notification. The implementation of Title 24 energy conservation measures will ensure that energy demands are minimized. No significant impacts are anticipated. The proposed project area is served by the Southern California Gas Company. Natural gas service is well established within the City to serve the current residential, commercial, and industrial development. In addition, there are existing mains in the area of the proposed project that can be extended to provide gas service. Distribution lines can be extended from existing facilities to service the proposed development without any significant impact on the environment. The implementation of Title 24 energy conservation measures will ensure that energy demands are minimized. No significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Would the proposal result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact: The subject property is within the service area of Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell is committed to provide communication service to new developments at no cost to future subscribers other than normal installation and service charges. Pacific Bell, upon notification by the applicant, will plan for the expansion of the facilities necessary to serve the project. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -42 0 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 3. Would the proposal result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water services? Less Than Significant Impact: The Utilities Department of the City of Newport Beach provides domestic water service to the project area. The properties surrounding the project properties are served by various facilities, including the 16 -inch water lines in Quail Street and Spruce Avenue, which provide water service to 1301 Quail Street via one 6 -inch ACP lateral from each of those lines. The 1301 Quail parcel is served by two fire hydrants along the Quail Street frontage. The parcel at 1001 Quail is served by two 6 -inch ACP connections, one from the 16 -inch water line in Quail Street, and the other from an 8 -inch water line in Dove Street between Quail and North Bristol. The 1001 parcel is served by two fire hydrants on the east side of Dove Street between Quail Street and North Bristol. The hydrants are located at the northern and southern portions of the parcel, approximately 275 feet apart. A third fire hydrant is located at the parcel's Quail Street frontage, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Quail and Dove. The City is currently supplied by imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The City's intention is to provide planning for adequate water service as development occurs within the City limits. As a part of this planning, the City is currently implementing the Groundwater Development Project to ensure the City's water supply through alternative resource availability and to reduce dependence on imported sources of water. Currently, the City water supply capacity from imported and domestic resources is considered adequate for projected development within the City limits, including the proposed project. The applicant's engineer will calculate an accurate water demand figure based on the City's 1994 "Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions and Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction." Regarding adequate facility sizing, the applicant's engineer will estimate the required waterdemands expected of the proposed development and calculate facility sizing within the development. The City will review these estimates and evaluate the City system at the time the estimates are received. It is anticipated that the system will be adequate to provide water service to the proposed commercial uses. Additionally, standard water conservation measures will be implemented and the final design of any structures on the project properties will provide for the incorporation of water- saving devices for the project lavatories and other water -using facilities. Given the previous consumptive uses on the project properties and the existence of water facilities to serve the project, no significant impacts are anticipated. • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -43 :J SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides wastewater collection services in the project area. The Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) provide sewer and wastewater treatment services for the project area. District No. 5 operates and maintains the sewer trunk lines that will serve the project site. The local sewer lines that currently run or will run from the project site into the main trunk lines are maintained by the Newport Beach Utilities Department. The Orange County Sanitation District operates treatment plants in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Flows from the project area are treated at one of these plants. Wastewater facilities for the 1301 Quail parcel include 8 -inch VCP connections to 8 -inch and 10 -inch VCP lines in Spruce Avenue and Quail Street, respectively. The 8- and 10- inch lines tie in at the intersection of Spruce and Quail and flow easterly in Quail Street toward the 1001 Quail parcel. The 1001 Quail site has one 8 -inch connection to the 10 -inch sewer facility in Quail Street and one 8 -inch connection to the 10 -inch facility flowing northerly in Dove Street. Regarding adequate facility sizing, the applicant's engineer will estimate the sewage flow generation expected of the proposed development and calculate facility sizing within the • development. The City will review these estimates and evaluate the City system at the time the estimates are received. It is anticipated that the system will be adequate to provide sewer service to the proposed project. The applicant will be required to provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project. Reclaimed water will not be available for landscape irrigation at the project properties due to the lack of conveyance facilities in the project area. No significant impacts will result from the generation, conveyance, or treatment of project- generated wastewater. 5. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact: As indicated in Section D(1), storm runoff will occur as sheet flow over the site. These surface flows will be directed southerly across the site and drain onto Quail Street and Dove Street where it will continue as surface flows in the gutters of those roadways before entering the City's storm drain system at catchments adjacent to the project properties. Adjacent to the proposed office site is a curb inlet Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 • `" 3 -44 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES . structure and 18 -inch R.C.P. for storm water collection on the south side of Quail Street at Dove Street. Storm water collected at this inlet structure will flow to the 21 -inch R.C.P. that traverses Dove Street and feeds into a southeasterly flowing 84 -inch R.C.P. An inlet structure and 24 -inch R.C.P. pipe are located on the south side of Quail Street at the approximate midpoint of the lot frontage for the 1301 Quail Street parcel. Storm water collected at this structure will flow southeasterly from the project area in a 54 -inch R.C.P. storm drain. Since the area of impermeable surfaces on the project properties will be substantially similar to those that previously existed during the automotive uses of the properties, no substantial increase in flows is anticipated to result from site development. No substantial alterations to the existing storm water drainage facilities will be necessary. No significant impacts are anticipated. 6. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to added solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact: Commercial refuse in the City of Newport Beach is collected by 15 haulers franchised by the City. A business owner may select from any one of the haulers and is directly billed by the disposal company. • The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) coordinates solid waste services in the communities of south - central Orange County. The IWMD operates three Class f1ll1(residential and commercial wastes; no liquid or hazardous wastes) sanitary landfills for the disposal of municipal waste. The nearest facility to the project site is the Frank Bowerman Landfill located at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine. The Bowerman Landfill has a life expectancy of 20 to 30 years. The other landfills are Prima Deshecha in San Juan Capistrano and the Brea- Olinda Landfill in Brea. Within the County, there are also a number of privately operated transfer stations/materials recovery facilities utilized by the various refuse haulers. According to the City's General Services Department, there is ample long -term capacity for refuse disposal in Orange County. One of the requirements of each waste hauler's franchise is to provide a recycling program at each of their accounts in the City, including the proposed project. The City does not mandate the type of specific program; haulers may select the type of collection which is most effective based on cost and the type of materials generated at each location. The City's diversion rate in calendar year 1997 calculated by the California Integrated Waste Management Board was 42 percent, close to the State goal of 50 percent diversion by the year 2000. • Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3-45 SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES As a matter of practicality and cost efficiency, it is in the interests of the applicant and the construction contractor to minimize construction waste. Nevertheless, the City is requiring that the project applicant prepare a solid waste source - reduction /separation plan to be implemented during the construction and operational phases of the project. With implementation of that plan, no significant amounts of solid waste are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. 7. Would the proposal result in a need for new local or regional water supplies? Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, water demands are anticipated to be within future projections estimated when the General Plan was adopted. That document concluded that there will be adequate service capacity to accommodate the implementation of the proposed General Plan land uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated to either utilities or service systems. Although the applicant may be required to extend some of the existing infrastructure (e.g., sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, etc.) into the site to serve future uses, each of the service systems have capacity to provide an adequate level of service. However, at the City's request, the following conditions will be applied to the project to ensure that waste reduction goals are achieved. L1. The applicant shall prepare a recycling plan specifying source separation methods for both construction and operation of the project. This plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Director of General Services. M. AESTHETICS 1. Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact: Development of the proposed project within the context of surrounding office buildings and service commercial uses will not result in adverse visual contrasts, view blockage, or impacts to any scenic vistas or highways. 2. Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact: The applicant is proposing an extended stay hotel and an office building. The surrounding land uses include business offices and retail /service Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3-46 " ' SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES commercial uses. No significant visual resources exist either on or in the vicinity of the subject properties. Development of the subject property as proposed will result in conversion of the project properties from the prior car dealership to an extended stay hotel and an office building. The character of the development is compatible with the adjacent, similar uses. Exterior elevations for the proposed hotel and office uses are depicted in Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively. The nearby offices and retail structures do not currently adhere to a specific architectural theme or design. Virtually every building within view from either of the project properties differs from other adjacent buildings in terms of building materials used, coloration, texture, and landscape design. In light of the variety of architectural types in the project vicinity, the proposed uses will not conflict with surrounding uses or present a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Within the field of view (viewshed) of any given viewer from adjacent buildings or nearby roadways, the office building will be the most visible entity of the proposed project. It is likely that the office building, at approximately 75 in height, will be visible from SR -73. However, within the project area, such development is not anomalous. Among the larger office buildings and hotels in the Newport Place PC and south of SR -73, the proposed office and hotel structures will blend into the urban landscape and will not appear as visual intrusions within any viewsheds. Building materials for the structures will not compromise the character of existing development either along Quail Street, Spruce Avenue, Dove Street, or North Bristol Street. Although the intensification of the properties with hotel and office development will alter the visual character of the site as perceived from those sites, the change is not significant, particularly in view of the fact that the sites were previously occupied to automobile dealerships. Furthermore, the City does not recognize either the site or environs as a significant visual resource. The proposed development will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding development and will not result in significant visual impacts. The maximum building height proposed at the hotel site is 54 feet, consistent with the maximum building height limit established for the Highrise (375 feet) Height Limitation Zone within which the Newport Place PC District is located. Likewise, the proposed office building will be limited to 75 feet in height, also consistent with the Highrise Height Limitation Zone guidelines. No change to these height restrictions is proposed. 3. Would the proposal create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact: The project, if constructed on the subject property, will not result in the introduction or creation of significant light and /or glare. Although security Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 P' 3 -47 4 :r Q 0 0 0 m ro 6 0 r� y c 0 w m a� W w m w c 0 m w w 0 0 I of [ � x W X GJ � V EHv.� O c 0 w m a� W w N w u ! O x as v v w U Fq w O c o ■ a o o P. 3 x � r Z W q w o x W z � CID SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES lighting and lighting from the parking areas will be provided, lighting will be designed and sited consistent with surrounding office and retail uses. Although no residential or light - sensitive uses exist in the vicinity of the project properties, the City will require that a lighting plan be prepared in order to minimize the cumulative visual effects of new light sources in the City. 4. Would the proposal affect a coastal bluff? No Impact: The project properties are not located along a coastal bluff and no impacts to coastal bluffs will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures M1. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. device sha" be Onsta"ed which twirs off the paiking lot lighting at 1:2 midnight, . 'it. The design of the timing device featme shall be incorporated On to fighting pfam This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. N. Cultural Resources 1. Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact: Grading and excavation of the property occurred prior to site development for past automotive uses. As a result, it is unlikely that any paleontological resources remain. Therefore, final grading that will be required to accommodate the proposed extended stay hotel and office development will not result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 3 -48 3 ? �j ,I SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 2. Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources? No Impact: Grading and excavation of the property occurred prior to site development for past automotive uses. As a result, it is unlikely that any cultural resources remain. Therefore, final grading that will be required to accommodate the proposed extended stay hotel and office development will not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. 3. Would the proposal affect historical resources? No Impact: The subject properties are devoid of any historical structures. The structures that exist on the project properties have no historical significance. Therefore, no impacts will occur. 4. Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No Impact: The site does not currently possess unique ethnic cultural resources and is not considered culturally significant. There is no indication that either the subject properties or the adjacent properties are considered to have unique ethnic cultural value. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to ethnic cultural resources if the proposed project is implemented. 5. Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact: Past grading and development of the site and the subsequent finished grading and improvement of the property for the proposed uses will not result in the restriction of any current sacred or religious uses. There is no indication of such cultural value associated with the subject properties. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. C�� »iri��iUP►I Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact: Non - residential development such as that proposed for the site typically does not result indirect impacts to parks and recreational facilities. However, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 ^ 3-49 t f �9� SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES employees and residents generated by commercial development could create additional • demand for adult sports leagues and facility use in the City. However, the Community Services Department limits the number of teams based on the capacity of available recreation and park facilities, regardless of the demand for such facilities. Therefore, the existing supply of parks and recreation facilities sufficiently accommodates adult sports leagues and will not require expansion due to the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach imposes park dedication and /or park in -lieu fee requirements for residential development. While it is possible that hotel and office development may indirectly impact recreational facilities resulting from residential growth that may occur, there are no such requirements imposed on those types of development. Therefore, any park dedication requirements will be imposed on future residential development approved within the City and not on non - residential development. Therefore, no significant project - related impacts are anticipated and the applicant will not be required to either dedicate parkland or pay an in -lieu park fee. 2. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact: No City recreational amenities will be directly affected by project implementation and no significant impacts are anticipated to occur. Mitigation Measures • No mitigation measures are required. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 ^� 3 -50 J SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES • P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact: The subject property is located in an area of Orange County and the City of Newport Beach that is highly urbanized. The site does not possess any significant natural resources, including sensitive habitat and/or sensitive species of plants and animals. The site has been altered by past uses and grading activities and subsequent commercial development that have eliminated any natural feature(s). Project implementation will result in the continuation of the urbanization that has occurred and is anticipated to continue in the City of Newport Beach. Although the project will require a Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, no land use or policy inconsistency issues are anticipated to arise. No significant potential environmental consequences will result to any natural habitat or fish or wildlife species. Further, no significant impacts will occur to rare or endangered plant or animal species or eliminate any significant cultural or historical resources. . 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? Less Than Significant Impact: No long -term environmental goals will be compromised to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. Although the impacts associated with traffic and air quality will incrementally increase if the proposed project is approved, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed development will not represent a significant impact to long -term goals within the project area. 3. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will cumulatively contribute to regional air emissions. However, a finding of less than significant regional air quality impact is supported by the project's mitigation of potential short- and long -term air emissions. Cumulative impacts, including air quality, will remain less than significant. . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project C� November 23, 1998 (J 3 -51 j SECTION 3: SUBSTANTIATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse • effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact: Project implementation will result in several potential adverse impacts, including those associated with air quality and soils and geology. However, several mitigation measures have been identified and will be incorporated into the project to ensure that potentially significant project - related impacts are reduced to an acceptable level. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 _ 3 -52 l �-Y SECTION 4: LIST OF REFERENCES • The public may request City assistance in obtaining and /or reviewing any of the documents referenced below. The documents listed below are on file with the City of Newport Beach and may be reviewed or obtained by contacting: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner (714) 644 -3210 Centec Engineering; Groundwater Monitoring Report for Property Located at Former Jim Slemons Imports - 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, California OCHCA Case #91- UT128; September 9, 1998. 2. Centec Engineering; Limited Phase II Site Investigation Report Prepared for Property Located at 1001 and 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach California; February 10, 1998. 3. Centec Engineering; Updated Phase I, Environmental Assessment Prepared for Property Located at 1001 and 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, California 92660; March . 9, 1998 4. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Housing Element, (Amended 1992). City of Newport Beach. General Plan Noise Element, (Amended 1987). City of Newport Beach. General Plan Public Safety Element, (1975). 7. City of Newport Beach. General Plan Land Use Element. (Amended 1994). City of Newport Beach. General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. Converse Consultants; Draft Memorandum: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations - Proposed Five -Story Office Building; July 24, 1998. 10. Giroux and Associates; Air Quality Impact Analysis: Holtze Executive Village /Office Project, Newport Beach, California; September 22, 1998. 11. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.; Traffic Impact Analysis for Holtze Hotel and Office Development; August 1998. . Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project November 23, 1998 4-1 SECTION 4: LIST OF REFERENCES 12. Medall, Aragon, Higley Geotechnical, Inc.; Feasibility Study Proposed Five -story Office Building 1001 and 1301 Quail Street, Newport Beach, California; April 30, 1998. • 13. Stoney - Miller Consultants, Inc.; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Holtze Executive Village; October 9, 1998. Other sources of information have also been used in the preparation of this environmental analysis. Additional written correspondence not cited in this document is also available for review. The resources listed below may be reviewed by contacting: Mike DeVore David Evans and Associates, Inc. 23382 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 225 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 588 -5050 14. Personal Site Observation. 4 7 August and 30 September, 1998. 15. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEOA Air Quality Handbook. 16. Southern Cal iforn i a Association of Governments. 1995. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. • 17. US Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Map Series. Newport Beach and Tustin Quadrangles. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the • Proposed Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project , November 23, 1998 4-2 0 r� U CJ Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring Program 3ya MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Holtze Extended Stay Hotel /Office Project General Plan Amendment 98 -1(C), Amendment No. 880, Use Permit 3640 Effective January 1, 1989, the California Environmental Quality Act was amended to add Section 21081.6, implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 3180. As part of CEQA environmental review procedures, AB 3180 requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring or reporting program for assessing and ensuring efficiency of any required mitigation measures applied to proposed developments. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code: "... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." AB 3180 provides general guidelines for implementing monitoring and reporting programs. Specific reporting and /or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final approval of the project proposal by the responsible decision maker(s). In response to established CEQA requirements and those of AB 3180, the proposed mitigation monitoring program shall be submitted for consideration prior to completion of the environmental review process to enable the decision maker's appropriate response to proposals. The mitigation monitoring program will be provided ?s part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be reviewed by the City Council. The mitigation monitoring program is presented in this section. Each recommended mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact topic, with an accompanying discussion of: The enforceable mechanism by which to ensure implementation of the mitigation measure. The method and timing of verifying compliance with the mitigation measure. The person (or agency) responsible for monitoring compliance with the mitigation measure. 0 3 q3 0 a c� G I� V O a C7 OR F- Z O Z O I" a Ic" G 0 1A M d U = dC; o co V co ao Z U O0) d Y 0 A E a NU d r C C; X c W d d E 2 E a C a L d C d Lk c O C � N a N O c N C C C C N E N N N C 0 0 a N c O c O V � c a c N N l0 l0 r` 0 O U J N J N J N J N L Ic L11 cl L11 cl L11 cl L11 cl v v N O c j O O c O c O _ N N C c d O pim N E N E c m E.9 N E o ii5 LLS a rn� c j o c o c M O o c rn o o c N c O O6 9 d O C N O C O c c c o a`m a`Mvo a`Mvo a`M N J aNi :2 LU W J M O R' a U O O W CD N O 0 N N N a� 0 O o c OU O) p y_ O a o.- c O V TJ N m ry j U m N N N L E c O � N U Et N c o m W=- c E'- a. - EW - m H��a`ia$ =8 Em N' -Nmco J a� 0 0 N v N y N a O V V EK C L J O U C O m N N N N > N a a a� N E d E > E a> o t E c M NdaUmmom IZ V O r0 V N N ` a o t O J N N N N N N a N c =0E�a= 4 .N_. O N =y_ C pUp� N N N > O U H N O O N N N .N. - _ >v c'o Nm Z NC m=om m N o d o N o m�Nimm wrj=E L N C U N U a a N U d- caoEoEE pa S -` N U U O cv'E m12 E N c J c N M.2 c�10�g$Ea c -o N c d L o o �£ E a O N N N N d rnaaio'OemE N > o c m Q a a a N C N fV r � N o; E o a _ C C N N d U _ - l0 � C T N N U C N p? o air mtA o o 0 W c m N 0 c N c a O c O O c c0 'C J .UN. 2 E a $ H E m rnc8 H Qs,�m M N N N O N C c N m L v ° c L 0 N O N C N L m T N O O V N N C m N N,o a J H Q 0 a5 E has m a J N m"5 o N C, �'>Lmc m N N 6 J L L N O N [D O N y c N " a E E 5 ca`-.9 a�izrn go 8m U M a d o a IS U N O N N � N 2a a � N 0 3 qq T^ I V V N c C 0 0 a N c O c O V � c a c N N l0 l0 r` 0 O U V a Z L Ic c m N c N c V. O O N O c j O U O U V 3 N V N V N C c d O m a o ii5 LLS a rn� c 0 N c C O c c c o E0 o � o M o m o m N Q o o o o a c a c a c a c a = UQ UQ UQ UQ N J aNi :2 LU W J M O R' a U O O W CD N O 0 N N N a� 0 O o c OU O) p y_ O a o.- c O V TJ N m ry j U m N N N L E c O � N U Et N c o m W=- c E'- a. - EW - m H��a`ia$ =8 Em N' -Nmco J a� 0 0 N v N y N a O V V EK C L J O U C O m N N N N > N a a a� N E d E > E a> o t E c M NdaUmmom IZ V O r0 V N N ` a o t O J N N N N N N a N c =0E�a= 4 .N_. O N =y_ C pUp� N N N > O U H N O O N N N .N. - _ >v c'o Nm Z NC m=om m N o d o N o m�Nimm wrj=E L N C U N U a a N U d- caoEoEE pa S -` N U U O cv'E m12 E N c J c N M.2 c�10�g$Ea c -o N c d L o o �£ E a O N N N N d rnaaio'OemE N > o c m Q a a a N C N fV r � N o; E o a _ C C N N d U _ - l0 � C T N N U C N p? o air mtA o o 0 W c m N 0 c N c a O c O O c c0 'C J .UN. 2 E a $ H E m rnc8 H Qs,�m M N N N O N C c N m L v ° c L 0 N O N C N L m T N O O V N N C m N N,o a J H Q 0 a5 E has m a J N m"5 o N C, �'>Lmc m N N 6 J L L N O N [D O N y c N " a E E 5 ca`-.9 a�izrn go 8m U M a d o a IS U N O N N � N 2a a � N 0 3 qq T^ I 0 U jp .m O C C N O C C S C C'Y C ad E3 E rnE3: E aoao moan `o `O c c m y m 0.2 o m U N m E U N m E` a� N C C O r •U _ m ._ m 7 a m CL rnv m m o C O O m J ; V ._ O m C U C m V S N C C L V Y U Y m m O m U y C C•- a U U V U 0 2 C m m y «0 N a CL SEUrn C 0 « ` `O `O C o m Q c o> C - o m c O O E UQ 0 p� U O) C N 0 O O C O N N N OE d a O a 4 0 v ? 3•o E� O C C 5 O O •3 ' E l0 N m Q L yc .L-• m C V U C C m m 'a v vcyi '��oJ Um� iu v mm� -2 a c3•c Y� a10i :E o v oN o2 « N N O w O • O E V d i . � - V « ' a w N m 0 a 2 r m _ N O O C J O m 0) m C N J a C E 5« y CJ N T E x 8c c E 'ES� 0 mo E=m « O «mO 0- c- w 3o Em 6MTMO N « y m° 2 N o v w a E Ote 0m 0 Y0 moc E o`Ocmo Z-, -- E _ Z3 c 382 .=•' m .v 0 � _ ° • c V m > r m a L ° m 3 vo N y Q E O m c G) 0 N O Em` a «oV ym0E«y o° 10 m _a E cm 0 2J o > co�a a0 c = N O 'c 3zi -E •o 9 vm O C m> m J X mU m M 20 U) m2 T « p Q 2 Q-J m Q ` _0 ory K °m JC m 0 o « °E E E . . . U d o a - m d Q O 2a va m0l m Lu m 0 O 0 0 !J 0 r 0 # ; \) � EL 0 \{ LL c= �§.k \/ /k \\ ƒ /\Q � ,k ? �2 �# k( ) �> - - \/ jm /\ �> }\ } } c E0 :- > :- :- E /< /< /\ -- /) §i {0 § 2 / 2 {�k _ � ) {k ())\ _0 — { ® ® ` 0 ®!{ / /7§ t #a• o 7f& �o.� ;02. ; »| �0 /7kI\ kkk\ d�7$» /0 - \ \(k fm�i.�a k» ®[cu,c - - ®kkf){ MM2 & )0mm o- = \ /_)'e �`!kt)){ ) k0k { }k) {)] 0 }$}k| E {A[§ | cw \0 \) §)I §[ §` a /)) {e)\ )[f k §)) \_ «.�, ©■ °§ U r{| /_ % A7 k«E- ®# \)tea,; m _- ) ( /r$ §fo - ««Sr)f% k \ Ir \k_\k. # \�|2 « ' �a2�3 ° -t ¥ , 37.5 =)kk / /\k)i!k! \ § / W m ƒ)!§a ))!\ k ■ < w 2 w \/ /k \\ ƒ /\Q � 0 / )} «k \) \� \) g � � /§9 � $ § _ C k§ / /, - \2)f 7§ �L R}f0 - IL cl &f §{ k{ AL IL IL IL )k _ 2 §) :> E 0 0 ., 2�!! ■(k2Zt /|# )%§ |)ƒ))$ %§\`M-)k &`r © -� B[$,2 §�k{7 $§� +f`£)k» ® {f» &£f ° « / ; &{\ =7■ �Mo ;.;a ;�l;�d 22; a -#!ad /k \ \ a f{2:aM £ 7 §k0 - ,a2 M.2 #«2 f *ms«w§Mf w ® a� a M.S '2f !|$ CO `00- £!! - °�£� -§ -g» 00 _ - « «n2aƒZ! \ MC /�):)oiLc 2 =.2 - °��`e {)&)m . {4§ ; k�}D 12 .�5 ) k \ ju-0 M0 k§�2� {k��.0 $)«° ; 2 BE§E§!» w -«» §� {7mf{5AE'- ® _ k - E�=�- {f)f2#fam > 2 .� § \ 0 / )} «k \) \� \) g � � /§9 � • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HOLTZE HOTEL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT • Prepared for: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2100 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite 140 Orange, California 92868 August 1998 0 3 `% Z TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................ ..............................1 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ........ ............................... 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSES ........................... ..............................3 Existing Conditions ........................ ..............................3 1% Analysis ........................ ..............................3 ICU Analysis ....................... ..............................8 Improvements ...................... .............................10 Buildout Conditions ........................ .............................10 General Plan Analysis .............. ............................... 10 Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes, V/C Ratios, and LOS .............. 11 ICU Analysis ....................... .............................11 Improvements ...................... .............................11 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . ............................... 16 i 0 3� LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 - Summary of Trip Generation for Holtze Hotel /Office Development .......... 4 Table 2 - Summary of 1% Analysis for Holtze Hotel and Office Development .......... 7 Table 3 - Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis .................... 9 Table 4 - Summary of Level of Service on Roadway Segments with Volume -to- Capacity Ratios of 0.90 or Higher ............. ............................... 14 Table 5 - Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Buildout Conditions .. 15 0 35� LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ...................... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - Hotel Trip Distribution .............. ............................... 5 Figure 3 - Office Trip Distribution .............. ............................... 6 Figure 4 - Buildout Traffic Volumes - General Plan Baseline ....................... 12 Figure 5 - Buildout Traffic Volumes - With Proposed Project ...................... 13 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 - Summary of Trip Generation for Holtze Hotel /Office Development .......... 4 Table 2 - Summary of 1% Analysis for Holtze Hotel and Office Development .......... 7 Table 3 - Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis .................... 9 Table 4 - Summary of Level of Service on Roadway Segments with Volume -to- Capacity Ratios of 0.90 or Higher ............. ............................... 14 Table 5 - Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Buildout Conditions .. 15 0 35� TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HOLTZE HOTEL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. has conducted traffic analyses in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) to determine the potential traffic impacts of a proposed hotel and office development, to be located in the City of Newport Beach. The TPO analyses include a I% traffic analysis, ICU analysis, and General Plan analysis for the proposed hotel/office development. The traffic impact analysis report describes the proposed project and documents the results of the analyses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION E. J. Holtze Corporation and Lennar Partners propose a 150 -suite hotel and 109,200 square -foot office development to be located on Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 1. The hotel would be located at the southeast corner of Quail Street and Spruce Street. Access to the hotel is proposed via Quail Street. The possibility of additional driveway access on Bristol Street North will be investigated in later stages of planning. The office building would be located at the southwest corner of Quail Street and Dove Street. Access to the office building is proposed via one driveway on Quail Street and one driveway on Dove Street. Both of the parcels proposed for development were previously occupied by an auto dealership. The hotel would consist of 150 two- bedroom suites, with amenities such as a full kitchen, living room, dining room, fireplace, and two bathrooms. The suites are arranged such that each can be subdivided into two separate units: a one bedroom suite and a one -bed room. Thus, the hotel could potentially be considered a 300 -room hotel, rather than a 150 -suite hotel. If trip generation for the hotel were to be based on the number of two- bedroom suites, traffic would be underestimated because some suites would be occupied as two separate units. For those suites occupied as two units, trip generation would need to be doubled. Thus, it is important to determine the mix of occupancies as two- bedroom suites, one - bedroom suites, and single hotel rooms. To determine the actual mix of occupancies, the proponent of the hotel project in Newport Beach made available records from three similar hotels in the Denver area. These three Denver area hotels are operated similarly to the proposed hotel in Newport Beach. For two of the three hotels, annual occupancy data for both 1996 and 1997 were available. For the third hotel only 1997 data was available. Based on these records, it was estimated that as an average, two bedroom suite occupancies represented about 20 percent of all occupancies and about 80 percent were as single units (either as one - bedroom suites or a hotel room). Thus, for traffic estimating purposes, the 150 -suite hotel would be the equivalent of a 250 -room hotel. A worksheet documenting the occupancy characteristics at the three Denver area hotels is presented in Appendix A. 3 / K\94l57- 0l\H0LTZERT.WPD I July 30, 1998 I_ -< 0 0 0 I FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP M+ ms wansecnaKs Kimley -Mom and Associates. Inc. Y e 3 4 9 s JSo� �, -7 J. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Daily and peak hour trips were estimated for the proposed project, as well as for the previous land use on the project sites, an automobile dealership which has been closed and relocated elsewhere in Newport Beach. The amount of traffic previously generated by the dealership will serve as a tripmaking credit and will be applied as a reduction for the trips estimated for the proposed hotel and office. Trip rates for the dealership were provided by the City of Nev.-port Beach Public Works Department. Trip rates for the hotel and office uses were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 6th Edition. A summary of trip generation for the site is provided on Table 1. Trip generation for the auto dealership (for both parcels combined) is approximately 1,439 trips on a daily basis, with 153 trips in the morning peak hour and 123 trips in the evening peak hour. The hotel would generate approximately 1,818 trips on a daily basis, with 145 and 155 trips in the morning and evening peak hours respectively. The office would generate 1,420 trips on a daily'basis with 200 and 201 trips in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. Once the tripmaking credit from the auto dealership is applied to the trip generation for each of the proposed uses, the total net trips remaining would be 1,798 trips on a daily basis, 191 trips in the morning peak hour and 233 trips in the evening peak hour. The difference in trips between the dealership and the proposed uses were distributed to the roadway system using the trip distribution percentages shown on Figures 2 and 3. Trips were distributed individually for the hotel and office use. TRAFFIC ANALYSES The following paragraphs describe the traffic analyses performed in accordance with the City's TPO and the results of the analyses. Existing Conditions 1% Analysis The I % Traffic Volume Analysis worksheets were provided by the City's Public Works Department. Included in the worksheets is the existing peak 2 1/2 hour volume for each Ieg of each of the 12 study area intersections. The City also provided the Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for each roadway segment in the City, as well as a summary of the approved projects volumes at each intersection. Per the City's direction, approved projects volumes were reduced by 20% to reflect the City's Land Use Interaction Factor. Table 2 presents the results of the I% analysis. The analysis worksheets are presented in Appendix B. K: \94157- 01\110LTZERT.WPD 3 Ju1,v30, 1998 0 0 �J f 16 Table 1 Summary of Trip Generation for Holtze Hotel /Office Development Land Use j Trips Per: Daily j Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Previous Uses: Hotel Site 3.6998 Acres 555 Auto Dealership I Acre 20 27 1501 NA 6.70 9.30 5.50 7.30 Proposed Uses: 127 229: I Office Site 5.8966 Acres Business Hotel Room 7.271 0.34 0.24 0.37 0.25 General Office j KSF 1 13.001 1.61 0.221 0.31 1.53 ! j i Land Use Units Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Previous Uses: Auto Dealership: 250 Rooms 1,818 86 591 93 62 Hotel Site 3.6998 Acres 555 25 34 20 27 Auto Dealership: NA 3,237 261 83 127 229: I Office Site 5.8966 Acres 884 40 55 32 43, Total 9.5964 Acres 1,439 64 891 53 70 Proposed Uses: Business Hotel 250 Rooms 1,818 86 591 93 62 General Office 109.2 KSF 1,420 176 24 34 167 f Total NA 3,237 261 83 127 229: j Trip generation rates for hotel and offices uses are from Trip Generation, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). Trip generation rates for auto dealership are from the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. KSF = Thousand Square Feet i NA = Not Applicable r -I 07/28/98 4 k: \94157- 01 \HOLTZETG.WK4 ,:! j Land Use Units Difference in Trip Generation (Proposed Land Uses minus Previous Land Use) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Hotel Site NA 1,263 61 25 73 35 Office Site NA 535 136 31 1 124 Net Trips NA 1,798 197 6 ! 74 159 j Trip generation rates for hotel and offices uses are from Trip Generation, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). Trip generation rates for auto dealership are from the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. KSF = Thousand Square Feet i NA = Not Applicable r -I 07/28/98 4 k: \94157- 01 \HOLTZETG.WK4 ,:! FIGURE 2 HOTEL TRIP DISTRIBUTION cm Morn and Associates, In C. ` -r V • P . IFIGURE 3 OFFICE TRIP DISTRIBUTION MK S wrenscc MS Kimley —Hcln oAssociates, Inc. 9 s 1 1� Table 2 Summary of 1% Analysis for Holtze Hotel and Office Development Intersection Is the Project in excess of 1% of the Projected Peak 2 -1/2 Hour Traffic Volume? Hotel Only Hotel and 109.2 KSF Office AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr 1. MacArthur /Campus No No Yes Yes 2. MacArthur/Birch No No Yes No 3. MacArthur /Jamboree No No No No 4. Jamboree /Campus No No No No 5. Jamboree/Bristol North No No Yes No 6. Jamboree/Bristol No No Yes Yes 7. Jamboree/Eastbluff- University No No No No 8. Campus/Bristol North No No Yes Yes 9. Campus- IrvineBristol No No Yes No 10. Irvine/Mesa No No No No 11. Birch/Bristol North No No Yes Yes 12. Birch/Bristol No No No Yes August 3. 1998 K:%9415 7 -0 1 \REPORT.TBL KA94157- 01TEPORT.TBL 7 August 3. 1998 _J • Hotel traffic volumes would not exceed the I% criteria at any of the study area intersections. • Traffic volumes associated with 109,200 square feet of office (in addition to hotel traffic) would exceed the I% criteria in one or both peak hours at the following intersections: C� • MacArthur /Campus (AM/PM) • MacArthur/Birch (AM) • Bristol North/Jamboree (AM) • Bristol /Jamboree (AM/PM) • Campus/Bristol North (AM/PM) • Campus- IrvineBristol (AM) • Birch/Bristol North (AM/PM) • Birch/Bristol (PM) ICU Anal Pursuant to the City's TPO, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses were conducted at the eight intersections that exceeded the I% threshold. The ICU analysis worksheets containing existing morning and afternoon peak hourly traffic volumes were provided by the City's Public Works Department. The Regional Traffic Growth volume for three years and traffic for committed projects were added to the existing traffic volumes at each of the eight intersections analyzed. Per the City's direction, approved projects volumes were reduced by 20% to reflect the City's Land Use Interaction Factor. Traffic for the hotel/office project were then added to compute the "with project" ICU. Table 3 presents the results of the ICU analysis. The analysis worksheets are presented in Appendix C. As indicated in Table 3, six of the eight intersections analyzed would operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours under all conditions. Project traffic will add between 0.00 and 0.01 to the ICU at each of these intersections. Two of the intersections analyzed would operate at LOS E under existing, projected, and/or with project conditions. The intersection of Bristol North/Campus operates at LOS B in the morning peak hour and LOS D in the evening peak hour under existing conditions. Under projected conditions, Bristol North/Campus would operate at LOS B in the morning peak hour and LOS E in the evening peak hour. With the addition of the hotel and office project traffic, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS B and LOS E in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The project would increase the ICU in the evening peak hour by 0.02. Thus, the TPO guidelines would require that improvements be developed for this intersection. These are addressed in the following section. KA94 t57- 0l\H0LTZERT.WPD 8 July 30, 1998 Table 3 Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Existing Projected Conditions Conditions (a) With Project Conditions ICU/LOS ICU/LOS ICU/LOS Increase in ICU (b) Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM MacArthur /Campus 0.72/C 0.66B 0.77/C 0.67B 0.77/C 0.68B 0.00 0.01 MacArthur/Birch 0.52/A 0.58/A 0.54/A I 0.59/A 0.54/A 0.59/A 0.00 0.00 Bristol North/Jamboree 0.46/A 0.62B 0.51 /A 0.70B 0.52/A 0.70B 0.01 0.00 Bristol/Jamboree 0.60 /A 0.678 0.67B 0.74/C 0.678 0.74/C 0.00 0.00 Bristol North/Campus 0.64B 0.89/1) 0.668 0.93/E 0.68B 0.95/E 0.02 0.02 Bristol/Campus -Irvine 0.88/1) 0.69B 0.90/1) 0.71 /C 0.90/1) 0.71 /C 0.00 0.00 Bristol North/Birch (c) 0.76/C 0.91/E 0.77/C 0.93/E 0.79/C 0.94/E 0.02 0.01 Bristol/Birch 0.64B 0.63B 0.65B 0.65B 0.66B 0.65B 0.01 0.00 (a) Projected conditions represents existing traffic plus regional growth traffic plus traffic from committed projects. (b) The project's increase in ICU is a comparison between "projected conditions" and "with project conditions ". (c) Construction of a second northbound left turn lane was completed in May 1998. With this improvement, the evening peak hour ICU value would be 0.86 under existing conditions, 0.88 under projected conditions, and 0.89 under "with project" conditions. August 3, 1998 K.,\94157-0 i \REPORT.TBL KA94157- 01\REPORT.TB L 0 0 August 3, 1998 l� 1 Before the recent reconstruction of the Birch Street bridge over SR -73, the intersection of Bristol . North/Birch operated at LOS C in the morning peak hour and LOS E in the evening peak hour under existing and projected conditions. With the addition of the hotel and office project traffic, and without the bridge reconstruction, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS C and LOS E in the morning and evening peak hours. The project would increase the ICU in the evening peak hour by 0.01. Early in May 1998, the construction of a second northbound left turn lane at the intersection was completed. With this improvement, the evening peak hour ICU value would be 0.89 with the project and the requirements of the TPO would be satisfied. ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix D. An additional improvement for the intersection of Bristol North/Birch is discussed in the following section. i• Improvements The intersection of Bristol North/Campus would operate at LOS E in the evening peak hour. The proposed hotel/office project would increase the ICU value in the evening peak hours at this intersection by 0.02. The provision of a direct ramp from westbound SR 73 to southbound SR 55 will mitigate impacts at the intersection of Bristol North/Campus. When this ramp is constructed as planned and as part of the SR 73 improvements currently under design by OCTA, a substantial amount of traffic that now uses Bristol Street North will be able to stay on SR 73. Westbound SR 73 traffic destined to southbound SR 55 must now exit from SR 73, or not use SR 73 at all, and use Bristol Street North. If 15% of the existing westbound Bristol Street North traffic were to use SR 73, the evening peak hour ICU value with the project would be 0.89 at Bristol North/Campus and the requirements of the TPO would be satisfied. ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix D. The provision of the westbound SR 73 to southbound SR 55 direct ramp will also improve the ICU at the intersection of Bristol North/Birch. With the addition of the second northbound left turn lane plus the provision of the direct ramp, the ICU would be 0.83. Buildout Conditions General Plan Analvsis A General Plan analysis was conducted in conjunction with the proposed project in order to determine project impacts, if any, on long -term future (buildout) traffic conditions. Daily and peak hourly buildout traffic volumes without and with the proposed project were obtained from the City's traffic model. KA94157 -01 HOLTZERT.WPD E �1 July 30. 1998 _..I.7j y Comparison of Daily Traffic Volumes, V/C Ratios, and LOS Daily traffic volumes and volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios without and with the proposed project are shown on Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Table 4 presents a comparison of the daily traffic is volumes, V/C ratios, and LOS without and with the proposed project for those roadway segments that are projected to have a V/C ratio in excess of 0.90. As indicated in Table 4, 14 roadway segments are projected to operate with a V/C ratio in excess of 0.90 or at LOS E or F under buildout conditions without the proposed project. With the proposed project, there would be no change in LOS on any roadway segment. Furthermore, on 12 of the 14 roadway segments, the V/C ratio will remain unchanged. On two roadway segments, the V/C ratios with the proposed hotel and office development would increase by 0.04. These two roadway segments are: Bristol Street North between Campus Drive and Birch Street Bristol Street between Birch Street and Jamboree Road exit ramp ICU Analysis ICU analyses for General Plan conditions were conducted at the twelve study area intersections without and with traffic attributed to the proposed project. Table 5 presents the results of the buildout ICU analysis. The analysis worksheets are presented in Appendix E. As indicated in Table 5, six of the twelve intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours without and with the proposed project. The addition of project traffic would add between 0.00 to 0.02 to the ICU at each of these six intersections. The remaining six of the 12 intersections analyzed are projected to operate at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours under buildout conditions without and with the project. At five of these six intersections, the proposed project would not change the ICU value in the deficient peak hours. At the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive, the LOS would be F in the evening peak hour with an ICU value of 1.02. The proposed project would increase the evening peak hour ICU value by 0.01. Therefore, improvements have been suggested for this intersection and are addressed in the following section. Improvements Since the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive would operate at LOS F in the evening peak hour and since the proposed project would increase the ICU value in the evening peak hour at the intersection by 0.01, improvements have been developed for this intersection with input from City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering staff. City staff indicated that, based on buildout traffic volumes, there appears to be need for a southbound right turn lane at the intersection. With the addition of a southbound right turn lane, the ICU value at the intersection would be 0.94 (LOS E) in the evening peak hour without and with the proposed project. ICU worksheets are shown in Appendix E. The County of Orange Road Design Department has recently completed the roadway design for improvements to upgrade Irvine Avenue to a six -lane arterial between Bristol Street and University. The design for the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive indicates that the southbound approach of the intersection will include a right turn lane. KA94157.0IU101,TZERT.WPI) 11 July 30, 1998 0 r� L J 12 3� T o< ^ ZN L 6 �a7 : �CZ 0,4N <, <z mu 12 O� z� s. D ° J O 0 ma z W D i u o � � em P o= 0 e a 0 w z a w ov z a a a e a w z w 0 w a 0 U GTI GTI e a H H WO as a oa �o ww r� F 0 s 13 U !m!� R� ° > U N QkN m Oa(�ro� ° �x Ux z ..2 a :e m� a T b � a a° W QU w 3 ° 0 9 e x� o X m z F U W ti O a a A W O a °a a x F a W O a U GTI �1 a F a °a V C b 0 V 'N a` E 0 A i 0 Y� Cj Table 4 Summary of Level of Service on Roadway Segments with Volume -to- Capacity Ratios in Excess of 0.90 Roadway Segment Buildout Conditions Buildout with Project Conditions Daily Traffic Volume V/C Ratio LOS Daily Traffic Volume V/C Ratio LOS Increase in V/C iacArthur Boulevard 'O San Joaquin Hills TC 62,000 1.10 F 62,000 1.10 F 0.00 imhorrr Road niversity N. to niversity/Eastbluff 55,000 0.98 E 55,000 0.98 E 0.00 ristol Street North edhill to Campus 33,000 1.17 F 33,000 1.17 F 0.00 ampus to Birch 31,000 1.10 F 32,000 1.14 F 0.04 itch to Jamboree 29,000 1.03 F 29,000 1.03 F 0.00 ristAWgreet South ampu to Birch 27,000 0.96 E 27,000 0.96 E 0.00 /O Birch I 29,000 I 1.03 I F I 30,000 I 1.07 I F I 0.04 '!n Jamboree 32,000 1.14 F 32,000 1.14 F 0.00 ampus Drive/Irvine Avenue !n University 34,000 0.91 E 34,000 0.91 E 0.00 niversiry to Jamboree 26,000 1.04 F 26,000 1.04 F 0.00 irch Street on Karman to MacArthur 28,000 1.12 F 28,000 1.12 F 0.00 iacArthur to Bristol South 26,000 1.04 F 26,000 1.04 F 0.00 edhill Avenue /Santa Ana Avenue ristol to Mesa 23,000 0.92 E 23,000 0.92 E 0.00 ewport Boulevard 'O Mesa 52,000 0.92 E 52,000 0.92 E 0.00 Jgus 8 194 PORT.TBL 3� K: \94157- 01\REPORT.TBL 14 August 3, 1998 � G Table 5 Summary of Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Buildout Conditions Intersection Buildout Conditions With Project Conditions ICU/LOS ICU/LOS Increase in ICU (a) AM PM AM PM AM PM MacArthur /Campus 0.69B 1.11/F 0.72/C 1.09/F 0.03 -0.02 MacArthur/Birch 0.56/A 0.84/1) 0.57/A 0.86/1) 0.01 0.02 MacArthur /Jamboree 0.89/1) 1.12/F 0.89/1) 1.11/F 0.00 -0.01 Jamboree /Campus 0.83/1) 0.96/E 0.82/1) 0.96/E -0.01 0.00 Bristol North/Jamboree 1.01/F 1.02/F 1.01/F 1.02/F 0.00 0.00 Bristol /Jamboree 0.72/C 0.87/1) 0.72/C 0.87/1) 0.00 0.00 Jamboree/Eastbluff -Univ. 0.64B 0.88/1) 0.64B 0.88/1) 0.00 0.00 Bristol North/Campus 0.75/C 1.24/F 0.76/C 1.24/F 0.01 0.00 Bristol/Campus -Irvine 0.83/1) 0.83/1) 0.83/1) 0.83/1) 0.00 0.00 Irvine/Mesa 0.85/1) 1.02/F 0.87/1) 1.03/F 0.02 0.01 Bristol North/Birch 0.75/C 0.86/1) 0.75/C 0.87/1) 0.00 0.01 Bristol/Birch 0.67E 0.68/B 0.688 0.688 0.01 0.00 (a) The project's increase in ICU is a comparison between "buildout conditions" and "with project conditions ". August 3, 1998 K,.\94157 -01\REPORT.TBL K*.\94157- 01\REPORT.TBL 15 August 3, 1998 0 9 • As an alternative, review of buildout traffic volumes indicate that restriping both the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide one left turn lane and one shared left turn/through/right turn lane and operating the signal at the intersection with split phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions would result in ICU values of 0.68 and 0.86 in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively, without the project and ICU values of 0.68 and 0.87 in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively, with the project. ICU worksheets are shown in Appendix E. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • E. J. Holtze Corporation and Lennar Partners propose a 150 -suite hotel and 109,200 square -foot office development to be located on Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. Both of the parcels proposed for development were previously occupied by an auto dealership. • After the tripmaking credit from the auto dealership is applied to the trip generation for each of the proposed uses, the total net trips to be added to the street system would be 1,798 trips on a daily basis, 191 trips in the morning peak hour and 233 trips in the evening peak hour. • The traffic analyses conducted include a I% traffic analysis, ICU analysis, and General Plan analysis for the proposed project in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). • Hotel traffic volumes would not exceed the I% criteria at any of the study area intersections. Traffic volumes associated with the hotel plus the 109,200 square feet of office would exceed the 1 % criteria in one or both peak hours at eight study area intersections. • Six of the eight intersections analyzed would operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours under all conditions. Hotel and office traffic will add between 0.00 and 0.01 to the ICU at each of these intersections. Two of the intersections analyzed would operate at LOS E under existing, without the hotel and office, and with the hotel and office conditions. These two intersections are discussed as the next two items. • The intersection of Bristol North/Campus would operate at LOS B in the morning peak hour and LOS E in the evening peak hour under projected conditions without the hotel and office. The proposed hotel and office would increase the ICU in the evening peak hour by 0.02. An improvement concept that would mitigate impacts at the intersection is the provision of a direct ramp from westbound SR 73 to southbound SR 55. When this ramp is constructed as planned and as part of the SR 73 improvements currently under design by OCTA, a substantial amount of traffic that now uses Bristol Street North will be able to stay on SR 73. Westbound SR 73 traffic destined to southbound SR 55 must • now exit from SR 73, or not use SR 73 at all, and use Bristol Street North. If 15% of the existing westbound Bristol Street North traffic were to use SR 73, the evening peak hour ICU values with the project would be 0.89. KA94I57- 0IMOLTZERTME D 16 July 30, 1998 Prior to the recent reconstruction of the Birch Street bridge over SR 73, the intersection of Bristol North/Birch operated at LOS C in the morning peak hour and LOS E in the evening peak hour under projected conditions. The proposed project would increase the ICU in the evening peak hour by 0.01. Early in May 1998, the construction of a second northbound left turn lane at the intersection was completed. With this improvement, the evening peak hour ICU value would be 0.89 with the project. It should also be noted that the provision of a direct ramp from westbound SR 73 to southbound SR 55 (as mentioned in the previous paragraph relating to Bristol Street North/Campus Drive) would also improve the LOS at the intersection of Bristol Street North/Birch Street. The General Plan level analysis indicates that fourteen roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F under buildout conditions without the proposed hotel and office. The proposed hotel and office will not change the LOS on any of these 14 roadway segments. The proposed hotel and office will not change the V/C ratio on 12 of the 14 roadway segments but will increase the V/C ratio on two roadway segments by 0.04 (Bristol Street North between Campus Drive and Birch Street and Bristol Street between Birch Street and the Jamboree Road exit ramp from SR 73). Six of the twelve intersections analyzed for buildout conditions are projected to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours without and with the proposed hotel and office. The addition of hotel and office traffic would add between 0.00 to 0.02 to the ICU at each of the intersections. • The remaining six of the 12 intersections analyzed are projected to operate at LOS E or F in one or both peak hours under buildout conditions without and with the hotel and office. At five of these six intersections, the proposed hotel and office would not change the ICU values in the deficient peak hours. At one intersection (Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive), the proposed hotel and office would increase the evening peak hour ICU value by 0.01. City staff has indicated that, based on buildout traffic volumes, there appears to be a need for a southbound right turn lane at the intersection. With this improvement, the ICU value at the intersection would be 0.94 (LOS E) in the evening peak hour without and with the proposed hotel and office, representing a substantial improvement compared to an ICU value of 1.03 and LOS F, without the improvement. The recently completed County of Orange improvement design for the intersection indicates a southbound right turn lane on Irvine Avenue. An alternative improvement for the intersection of Irvine/Mesa would be to restripe both the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide one left turn lane and one shared left tum/througb/right turn lane and operate the signal at the intersection with split phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions. This would result in ICU values of 0.68 and 0.86 in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively, without the hotel and office and ICU values of 0.68 and 0.87 in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively, with the hotel and office. • 20 KA94157- 01\14OLTZERTMI'D 17 July 30, 1998 i APPENDICES J �0 r' _� Appendix A - Holtze Hotel Occupancy Characteristics 0 • 0 30 ANALYSIS OF SINGLE ROOM AND 2- BEDROOM SUITE OCCUPANCY 0 IN 1996 AND 1997 0 1 Occ 2 -BR Suite Nights for 0 ;Total /Avg for Location i. 0 which Room Fraction of Avg.; • Keys Nights Rooms Rooms; Motel and Year of Analysis Issued Occupied Occupied Occupied it .EXECUTIVE PLACE 1997 7,516 15,032 !TotatlAva for Location Occ Guest Room 26,384 26,384 (i lOcc 1 -BR Suite 25,343 25,343 JiOcc 2 -BR Suite 13,149 26,298 �! li Total /Avg for Location 64,876 78,025 0.83 249 iiTECH CENTER 1997 p �i �IOcc Guest Room 20,252 20,252 i; jlOcc 1 -BR Suite 27,240 27,240 I!Occ 2 -BR Suite I; 8,004 16,008 Total /Avg for Location 55,496 63,500 0.87 262 SOUTHEAST 1997 it IOcc Guest Room 6,119 6,119 IlOcc 1 -BR Suite 16,887 16,887 110cc 2 -BR Suite 10,842 21,684 ;;Total /Avg for All Lc_tns^1997 -_ 154,220 186,215 = _ 0.83 -_ iEXECUTIVE PLACE 1996 !Occ Guest Room 0 Occ 1 -BR Suite 0 1 Occ 2 -BR Suite 0 ;Total /Avg for Location i. 0 0 PTECH CENTER 1996 I :Occ Guest Room 22,228 22,228 iOcc 1 -BR Suite 30,099 30,099 Occ 2 -BR Suite i; 7,516 15,032 !TotatlAva for Location 59.843 67.359 THEAST 1996 Guest Room 7,558 7,558 1 -BR Suite 17,439 17,439 2 -BR Suite 10,205 20,410 • IiTotal /Avg for All Lc'tns:1996 95 045 112 766 0.84 2' 2 - - - 11 766 .. _- ..- _....__._._......_. _., 02/03/9805:12 PMHOLTZE.WK4 i� Appendix B - 1% Analysis Worksheets E ��l 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection sour �c.*>POS ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing rEw �Rr F O 6 1 Y. of Projected Project J M� Growth o- '4roar i peak 2 112 Hour 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection sour �c.*>POS ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Protects Projected 1 Y. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume. N Volume O Northbound 1975 Sq ,02 2113 Co yr a Southbound 3325 /00 ZZ(n %{p S/ 3-7 lg ,;- 60 2 _ Eastbound 3072 0 3O Eel >4 O Westbound 923 !l V O qv3 a o _ 0 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. L__J -? 7 109,200 SF Office 7/28/98 DATE: PROJECT: e Mwcta l rEw°°Rr 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis J o-= Intmedon MAC BOUL VPM/CAMPUS DRIVE ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 19 97 PM ) Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2. 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected peak 2 112 Hour 1 � % of Projected Project Volume Gro ff PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume � 8 Northbound 2883 R(p ? 3275 3'� ao Southbound 3321 100 / 3 I 55 - 3 z 3(o ZL aa- I :s Eastbound 1842 0 D 1842 )8 28 Westbound 2850 0 (p 2 g 0 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I(J 109,200 SF Office DATE: PROJECT: 7/28198 e Aw"Ya 3 J3 —0,11- F rEw°�°Rr o � G <•row� 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intmedon MCAFIFIM BLVD/BIRM ST ` -Z, ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 AM Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Groff PEAK 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Four Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume Northbound 2323 tOq i�Z Z� 2� 0 Southbound 2223 12 2(p 1 b Eastbound 1565 Q i5(0 (D Westbound 530 �5b o � - ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. J i-, G -'= ; 109,200 SF Office DATE: PROJECT: 7R8�98 dEwn°gr 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis J s S ��<•roar`� 0. RI BLVD/BIR2" sT r Z Intersection 1111 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/ Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Geroi l Approved Projects Projected Peak 2 112 Hour I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Project Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume PEAK 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume h Volume , - O Northbound 1947 lµ c Southbound sass cog ll s� Z44-1 24 0- s - Eastbound 1341 D D 134-1 r) g Westbound 1988 O �� J ia� ZD O d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilaation ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 109,200 SF Office DATE: 3�6 PROJECT: 7Y28PI8 -• �,"' i^ tZ 111wYG% � I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intemdon im3o= PD/mAc Amim »w ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 A j Approach Direction Existing 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Regional F��WPOAr O Projected 11% of Projected ' n c —�r �4[o0.Y Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intemdon im3o= PD/mAc Amim »w ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 A j Approach Direction Existing 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected 11% of Projected Project Peak 2 Volume Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume Northbound 4408 i 3Z Z 99 4-M 4-9 �8 Southbound 1024. 31 490 154-5 15 2 0 0 Eastbound 3758 4-(t Westbound 1904 5% -1-U 2 ZZZ?j Z1i 0 Q Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected • Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume- ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.V.) Analysis is required. I" 1 ILi / 109.200 SF Office PROJECT: 0 ftwwm DATE: J �(o ���1� ��,fr.`�nORr O 8 � � 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis �< "O��`" JAI' PIE RD/IW— ,"�THUR BLVD intersection ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 19 97 PM j Approach "sting Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour _ Peak 2 1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume S Northbound 2278 (p8 27S ZIoZI Z(o g 4 Southbound 3600 (Og 344- 9052 4-1 yO o Eastbound 2546 7(D ��� Z�i7�j 3d 0 Westbound 5014 572-1 5% O 0 c Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 109,200 SF Office DATE. PROJECT: 7/28/98 0 MWCOR I* 0 V --kv aE.x °eRr 4 G U �A S o-� 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection J7'Im EE BLvlcwus DR. ' ,� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 1997 A j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Groil PEAK 2 12 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume Z - Northbound 2651 80 4:8 Z O Southbound 4162 O q58 5/20 51 20 D � Eastbound 576 0 240 g/(p S 0 o t,. Westbound 2080 0 Z40 Z32o Z> /y ■ tltg Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. )%G -I/ 109,200 SFOfiice DATE: PROJECT: 7/28/98 0 v%YCx 3 ( r�AORt p' e I % Traffic Volume Analysis C<,row"'r Intersection JPJ.WMM BL/CAMPUS DR .1 q ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter l Spring 1997 PM ) . Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional APProved Projec4 Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Vclume Growth PEAK.2 V2 Hour peak 2 112 Flour peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume. h Volume 4 i Northbound 3920 118 / 015 505 S/ 28 Southbound 3915 0 408 4�i2� 43 g 0 Eastbound 1734 0 -72— 16 C) o - Westbound 1 1444 3 Z © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. 1:1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1;0 1 / 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7/28/98 'a r auicx DATE: • 319 /i� S� I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intemc6on BRIO'mL 0171EEP NO1111VJA15OPEE "I'D ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter l Spring 1997 A y Approach Existing 2Ew�Rr � O Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour J PEAK 2 112 How Peak 2 112 How o-. Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intemc6on BRIO'mL 0171EEP NO1111VJA15OPEE "I'D ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter l Spring 1997 A y Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Pro ects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Croce PEAK 2 112 How Peak 2 112 How Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7467 224 540 8281 8.3 Southbound 1981 F 9 0% 233¢ 2-3 0 a Eastbound _a 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound �_ 0 0 O 0 v ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t • 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7128/98 . e kkwrly DATE rEw'°gr °�. I % Traffic Volume Analysis �n Intersection BRIML STP= NoFMVJAMBoPEE MD ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 PM ) . Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Re9io^aI PEAK 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume 44. o Northbound 6406 �Q2¢ %gIOZ -70 $ 2�. Southbound 4461 1 J4 542-- 542-- 57/37 5/ 32 0 Eastbound -0- Q p p p 0 0 Westbound -0- 0 6 0 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be leas than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. 11 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. n G'; I 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 1/28198 e r.&WIcx OATS 0 F rcW Rogr 0 0 r � n c� I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRIO'mL ST /JAm'ORFE I % U ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Crowlh PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 How Peak 2 112 How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume n Volume - Northbound 4625 139 542 6'30[0 6'3 Za Southbound 1098 33 24{0 371 i4 o -= 0 39 Eastbound 5551 0 n 577 Co ! 2$ (P I (0 8 0 Westbound O 0 0 O 0 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 r, M r / 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: M8M 0 nmtrtx DATE: �a v � 2Ew�Rr O � I % Traffic Volume Analysis c`Op "'r BRISIbL ST /J111WREE RD y V Inte�sectioa ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 PM ) Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Re ion of Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Peak 2 112 Hour Volume 8 Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume �. Northbound 4243 17-7 430 480D 46 g o Southbound 2075 &1- 370 x507 25 Zi-k �� 24 Eastbound 6056 D 370 !04 %2 0 Westbound D D fj O F1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersebtion Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I : Ok / / 109,200 SF Office DATE: PROJECT: 7/28198 e nwacx �J 0 3�3 nn f; l��RT O Gp J s ,r I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EA9PELik'F DR N— UNIVERSITY DRy� ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 ) AM Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected 11% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional G,owth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume to 1 Northbound 4029 /Z/ Zq0 4-440 44. a0 Southbound 3516 3-5 382- 39 33 39 Z 0 0 Eastbound 1138 Q (0 11 Qq I Z o - Westbound 1351 "73 1474 14 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. F] Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 0 [10.01 109,200 SF Oftce PROJECT: 7/28/98 e "k,'m DATE Ct rEw�Hr I % Traffic Volume Analysis Inip(SpClllln JAMBOREE RD1EASMWFF DR— UNIVERSITY DRS I ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 19 97 PM 0 Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Project/ Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1M How Pea'- 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume - Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume n Northbound 9919 /35 A--171 AA -74- 50 g Southbound 5671 170 6Z7 (031'08 (p¢ lCp O Eastbound 765 Q (p �%� Q d 0 Westbound 1328 31 1.359 14 0 FA L I l Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. h 0 iP. I / 109,200 SF Office DATE PROJECT: 723/98 e S:rVtttbl P� �.+Ew"DRr o m J s I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL SiRE1T� NOIVCIUS DRIVE %'i ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM j Approach Existing Peak 2 12 Hour Approved Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 1 .2 Hour Peak 2 1M Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 2 12 dour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume 30 :: v Northbound 5566 Q 32 5598 560 12_ ^ southbound 1218 0 24- I Z- 4-Z r z- O 0 Eastbound —0— D 0 O a O 6 Westbound 3385 ) 31 35/(,o 3 S ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1-104r.- I / 109,200 SF Office PROJECT7 712$198 to nauTcx 7 DATE: � a6.vP°Rr ° e 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis r ' S BRIML STREET NOiMVCANIP(lS DRIVE 'r Irtte�secGon ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter i Spring 19 97 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected 11% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume - 30 -_ Northbound 3681 0 0 3-7 38 Southbound 3941 0 112— 44553 4,1 9� ' Eastbound —0— 0 Q d u Westbound 6586 7 75 G R, $ t f ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2172 Hour Traffic Volume. © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1.0 iP / 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7/28/98 'a mu cx P • GATE: 5F � l� RoRr o � U « S G4r0 aN�r E I I % Traffic Volume Analysis Inip.wnfion BRISML ST /CAMPUS DR —IWIME AV 1' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winterl'Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved PProjects Pro j acted I% of Projected Project Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Gro wth PEAK -2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume Northbound 3501 I05 4-9 3 &54- �7 2 � y 21y Southbound 1145 0 13 1158 12 2 y iR !DO Eastbound 7210 0 too -7410 —714 J j g. O Westbound —0— p 0 O 0 b ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 / 109,200 SF Otiice PROJECT: W28/99 e nkwya DATE: i.! v 2Ew�Rr I % Traffic Volume Analysis +1 „ Inlersedon BRISTOL ST /CA11PUS DR— IRVII� AV )' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 pM j Approach Direction Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume, h Volume G Northbound 2624 71 30 2 -73 3 az7 Iq Southbound 3286 0 19 33or 33 ao Eastbound 5216 0 8(0 5 i0 Z 6j o , Westbound © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. 11 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I7 r,;? f 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 1/28198 0 1wXyC% DATE: �z5 F rEw �R r O r t,vo w�• 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Inlersedon IRVINE AV/MESA DR ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter] Spring 1997 AM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regiona l Gro wth PEAK 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume , Sf Northbound 3545 l0(p 5 / 3702 37 22. Southbound 1385 47— g 1435 14 2 y Eastbound 538 0 J(p 591+ (o 4- 0 Westhound 217 D 0 Z f 1 2 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. • ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2111 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity VGlizatlon ( I.C.V.) Analysis is required. L h 0 k' / 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7/28/98 0 Mimmv DATE: I a lEW �Rr I % Traffic Volume Analysis Coro wY`r Intmedon TM= AV/bESA DR 4 '0 ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter I Spring 1997 PM ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour RegionsI Approved Projects Projected I% of ProJected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth PEAK 2 112 Your Peak 2 112 Hour Peek 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume to Northbound 2023 (p/ 4-!�- 212.9 ZI /D b Southbound 4226 IZ7 2¢ 4377 44 _ 18 y Eastbound 450 p 0 450 5 o Westbound 494 (7 Q 4R4 5 D ny Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7/28/98 e niw:x 0 0 DATE: J l I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTmT sTg= Nolte /Bilc, sell ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/ Spring 1997 A ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour ��,EwPoRr O Projected 1 % of projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 12 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour - r Peak 2 12 Hour l I % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRTmT sTg= Nolte /Bilc, sell ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/ Spring 1997 A ) Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour APP S Pro ecta Projected 1 % of projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 12 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour peak 212 Hour Peak 2 12 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ,. b _ Northbound 2851 0 0 *5 z q 30 Southbound 751 0 0 75/ 8 a 0 . Eastbound —0_ 0 0 0 p 28 / Westbound 4063 /3/ 4i q4 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 111 Fl 109,200 SF t' PROJECT: 7/28/98 e MkWIM9 �9a DATE: 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Iotmbon BRISTIL Sir NOR01/11IRC1 ST= 4 ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter 1 Spring 19 97 PM j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Project Projected I% of Projected Project Direction peak 2 112 Hour Regional Grow'.h PEAK 2 112 How Peak 2 112 Hour peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume Northbound 1222 0 0 1O Southbound 3649 0 D 3to4g 3 34- U Eastbound -o- 0 0 i7 D D 3�{ Westbound 4973 p !90 9(p3 52— $c% El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 21f2 Hour Traffic Volume. © Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than i % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ; 0 '1 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 728/98 Q ntwrgr DATE: 0 � rEW PoRr O r � J s = r�4 r0wBr 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis InteMCGOn BRISIC)L STMIRM ST ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpring 1997 AM j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 12 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 112 How Peak 2 112 How Peak 2112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume (� Volume 0 Northbound 495 0 !� Southbound 847 D O 94-7 9 y 0 Eastbound 4587 O 72— 47 30 o _. Westbound —0— 0 D D O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t h o k I 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: 7/2$/98 ..... e rwkyeN DATE: `' t F �'�RORr r 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis J � _ 4rr`pe�,r BRISTOL ST/BIFKH ST �I Intersection ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter l Spring 19 97 j Approach Existing Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Regional Growth PEAK 2 M Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume - Volume Volume Volume Volume h Volume C 0 c Northbound 590 0 0 C {0 0 Southbound 1546 0 0 /54-6 i5 15 i Z 22 O - Eastbound 3763 0 &9 3832 38 0 Westbound —0— 0 0 O I ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. (� Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected Peak 2112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 109,200 SF Office PROJECT: Tlz8198 0 IkwJf34 DATE: iE �C) `J � v • 1] Appendix C - ICU Worksheets 0 MA4300AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I.1 rte` i INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 6 CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I W/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL 1 16001 1 461 0.03 1 1 1 1 NT 1 6400 1 1 732 1 0.11 • -.22— I I NR 1 16001 1 671 0.04 I l-- - - -SL' 1 —1600 l I 2S4 1 0.16 1 S 1 -- l , 1 Co l I - ST 1 — 64001 - - - -- 1 -- 1082 1 -- 0.17 • 3 y 113 I I SR 1 1600 1 1 199 1 0.12 I I — I •13 I (-� I. 1�{ I 1 EL 1 32001 1 3891 0.12 I ._ I — I .(Z I — 1 •(Z 1 I ET 1 I 1147 I — I 8 I 3q I-- -- - - - - -- J 3200 -- - _______.._...- -- _ ---------- ( 0.38 I ER I I 77 I WL 1 1600 1 1 6S 1 0.04 1 _ I I WT 1 4800 1 1 27S 1 0.06 I I , p(p y. I — 1- Ole I SY WR I N.S. 1 1 831 1 - -- -- - --- - - -------- - -- - ----- ------ - - ----- ---- - ------ ------ -- - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - --- ---- - -- - --- - - -- l EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.72 1 I I-------- - - - - -- -- - -- ---- - - - - -- -- --------------_ .... .._......_.....---------------- -- -- ...._.— I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I OUSTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. i 0.77 I _`/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1]L Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1` -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA4300AM E K 1] I • MA4300PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �••SB right includes overlapping Ell left 171,projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0 -90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — _ _ _ _ _ PROJECT MA4300PM FORM It 39y Il. INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 6 CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY .. ....... _ ..... _ _ . _ — ..._... —_ ....._.....___ ..._...._____.. TRAFFIC _ ......_ —.._ WINTER/SPRING .. 1997 PM I i EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL 1 .. COMMITTED 1 __.........._.._._ ..._ PROJECTED I ... —__ PROJECT _ ..... _ ....... .. 1 PROJECT 1 I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROSVrH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I 1 I I - -_- I I I I I Volume — - -- - I NL 1 1600 1 — — — - -- - 1 129 1 - - - -- 0.08 - -- - - — - - — - --- ---- -- — -- - - - -- I I NT 1 64001 1 10431 0.16 1 31 1 IGJ 7) I r lCi I ------ - --- - IO -- -- -- 1 r Iq I - - -- - - --- I NR I 1600 1 1 S9 1 0.04 1 Z .... ! L� 04- I SL 1 1600 1 1 16S 1 0.10 1 5 I 1 I ST I 64001 1 893 1 0.14 1 2- I 58 1 r 15 1 -7 1 r IT I I SR I 1600 1 I s43 1 0.34 14- I EL 1 32001 _ 1 2671 0.08 1 I — i 108 1 14 1 ,09 I I ET 1 1 433 1 — I — I ! % 1 — ____._.— 1 3200 -- --- _--------- -- _- --------- 1 0.17 _ _.. - - -. _ _____..._..._... __ —._� ..__. _ - -. _ . _ ......_...— 1 I ER I I 98 I WL 1 1600 1 1 131 1 0 -08 I _ i — I p8 1 — 1, O g i I Wr 1 48001 1 -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - 1 1128 1 -- - - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- - 0.24 --- - - - - -- -- --- _ I ..... -.... -- _ I , ;14 11 WR I N.S. I I 1891 1 --- --- -- - - - -- -- --------- - -- - -- - - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.66 1 1 1 ---------- - - - - -- -- _— ._.._._ -- I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + ---- .._.._ — .. ---------------- .. ---- _ --- --- - ...---------------- - COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ---------- _ ---- _ - — ................... - I I EXISTING +COM MFTTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. _ — — — — I O,�^ �••SB right includes overlapping Ell left 171,projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0 -90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — _ _ _ _ _ PROJECT MA4300PM FORM It 39y PIA429SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Nrdf INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOUt1VARD 6 BIRCH 1295 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT f WC Ratio I Volume I WC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I { NIL 1 1600 1 1 75 1 O.OS 1 /j 1 I_ _ _ _ _ NT 1 4800 1 1 904 f 0.19 _ f NR I N.S. 1 I 102 I SL 1 1600 1 I 167 1 0.10 { 5T I I 627 I I X 13 I 15 1 -7 1 -15 1 { 1 6400 - - I 0.13 - - - - - { SR - i 1 205 - I I — I I (0 1 — 1 EL 1 I 244 1 Er 4800 I I 486 0.17 1174-1 I 1 -- - 1 - -- - - - - -- 1 I ER I I 89 I WL 1 1600 I 1 34 1 0.02 1 - - - - - - 1 WT 1 3200 1 1 191 1 0.06 I — I O I Wit I N.S. 1 1 39 1 1 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. I O.S2 I I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. { 0 S� f 1 �y.ProJected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C-U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT MA4295AM FORM 11 I • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 — Projected r project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected r project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected r project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected r project traffic LC.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT MA429SPM FORM II 4uu iNT-�+2 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD& BIRCH 4295 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 1600 I 1 126 1 0.08 4 1 _ I pQj 1 NT I 4800 I I 710 1 OAS 1 ZI I 153 1 (0 I NR 1 N.S. 1 I 32 SL I 1600 I I 64 1 0.04 1 Z 1 1. O¢ 1 ST 1 1 824 i �� I p I 5� . �7 I 1 • 1 i7 ll 1 6400 i — — 1 0.16 • _ _ _ — I SR I I 174 EL I I 303 ET I 4800 1 1 — 240 I 0.12 ---- —• ! Z 1 0 1 • , 9 . ER I 1 42 WI. 1 1600 1 _ _ 1 114 1 0.07 1 _ _ _ 1 - -_ I r 07 1 _ 1, 07 1 _ 1 Wr I 3200 1 1 713 1 0.22 I I ZZ* . I 1 j7X I _ WR I N.S. 1 I 190 I EXISTING I.C.U. I O.SB I I EXISTING r REG GROWTH r COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Ski I 1 EXISTING r COMMITTED r REGIONAL GROWTH r PROJECT I.C.U. I Q SCI I 1 — Projected r project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected r project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected r project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected r project traffic LC.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT MA429SPM FORM II 4uu BR4190AM iProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to o.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT - - - BR4190AM I FORM 11 • 1151 1-z-� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIL17ATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH &JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 {rJl$t EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 1 I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1! 3200 1 1 1047 1 0.33 ? I 44- 1 I NT I N.S. I I 1S981 I �-g I Zd-I 1 ( NR 1 N.S. ( l 7901 I �(� I 10 1 I SL I I I ST I I — 1 6400 — I S03 I — 1 0.13 I 1p') 1 — -- — • /b — — I I SR 1 I 338 1 10 I Qp 1 -- 1�% I EL I 1 l I 1 I 1 I I 1 I ET I I I I I I I I 1 I I ER I I I I I I I I I I 1 WL I I I I I I I I I I I WT I I I I I f { I I 1 I WR I I I I I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.46 1 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,52- 1 iProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to o.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT - - - BR4190AM I FORM 11 • 1151 1-z-� BR419OPM 0 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH &JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC j(\IT�S WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING ^I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C I GROWTH 1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 1 I I I I Volume I I I NL I 32001 I 82S 1 0.26 �J I ?,O I NT I N.S. I I 9S91 1 1 131 1 I — 1 _ I NR I N.S. I I 883 1 1 1 5 I I I I SL ST 1 1 1412 1 42- 6400 - - - -- 1 0.36 • — -- SR I I 911 EL I I I I I I I I I I ET I I I I - - -- - I I - — — — I — -- -- I ..... - ............ . - ----- --- --- I I - - - — - — - - - - - - -- Ell I I -- - -- I 1 I I I I - -- I I I WL I I I I I I I I I I Wr I I I I I I I I I I WR EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.62 1 1 EXISTING+ REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 -70 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1-70 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I -I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4190PM FORM 11 BR4170AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS oject+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT FORM 11 ER4170AM 7 r�J 4 '� IIJT-1%�� INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET &JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 volume 1 1 1 NL I I I I I I I I I I Hr 2119 ' lY ! p71 ! • I ! I ! • 3 — — } 8000' --- .-- - -' } 0.27 _ — - NR I I 16 SL ST 1 4800 1 1 S13 1 0.11 1 5 1 l a.� 1 SR EL I I 1199 I - ' 192 ' • �.3 ' 33 ' 4 ' - -- } 4800 _ __— _ --- } 0.29 ET I I 199 ER I 3200 1 I 1063 1 0.33 1 111 1 • 3(p ( ( i(��( 1 WL I I I I I I I I I I Wr I I I I I I I I I I WR EXISTING I.C.U. I 1 I 0.60 1 I EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. (� (,7 1 oject+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT FORM 11 ER4170AM 7 r�J 4 '� 11 L .,I I� BR4170PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET &JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 t Nrr 1 :,- EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I WC 1 I I Capacity I Capacity. I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I 1 volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I 1 NT — I IBIS— 1 r,Cl 2�S I �� 1 I .a 1 8000 — — -- f 0.24 I NR I I 81 I Z I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I 1 I I ST I 48001 I 10841 0.23 I 3� I'8� I �� I IZ 1 ,o� 1 I SR I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I L I EL I I 1025 I �/$ 1 �'p I /5 I q �I 1 --" -- I 4800 — — _ — r l ET I I 729 I ER I 32001 I 13851 0.43 / I ��� 1 g7 jh 1 1 .474- I� I WL I I I I I I I I I I I WT I I I I I I I 1 I I WR I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 I I 0.67 1 I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. — — — — — — I b� 1 Project + project tragc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project tragic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT FORM 11 BR4170PM I BR4172AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I OT-3� Z INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH h CAMPUS DRIVE IWNE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINO 1997 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I i Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I CROWTH 1 PROJECT t V/C Ratio I Volume 1 WC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I W/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL 1 32001 1 6231 0.19 1 Iq I I - L0 - -A 1 _ 1 NT 1 2052 1 (0 1- 1 I 1- 1 5-7 1 • 410 4- I 4800 0.43 I NR I I I I I I I ( SL I 1 I I 1 I 1 I l l - 6400 t -- - _ 248 1 + 0'04 I ^ - 1 •04 — SR — 1 3200 1 - -- 1 - - - -- 2661 - - - -- 008 1 — - 1 - -1 Z 1 1 1 ,r+a I EL I I I I I I I I 1 I I ET I I I I I I I I I I 1 ......----- - ---- ----- - - - - -- __........ ..... I ER I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 -- - -- - -- ---- -- - -- ---------- -- °- ---- -- - -- - ---- - I WL 1 16001 1 2371 0.15 ( _ I --- --- --- - --------- (y I --- •'G) - --------- I �. I - -- -- °— I ,IS 1 1 — - - - --- -- ---- .. --- _ ----------- -- -------- - --- _ _ ------- _ _.._ - 1 Wr I I 1216 1 _..._._.._...._..._..._.__.._ 5� 1 22aE- - ....._. - -- I 1 _ --- - -...- 22 1 6400 - ._------------ -- -- .._---- 1 0.21 I WR 1 1 113 I----------- - - ------ - ---- - ---------- ----- -- ----- - ------ -- ---------- - ------ -- I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.64 1 ----------- -- --- -- ------------------ -- -- --- -- -- - - --- - -- 1 I EXISTING +REO GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LCU. - - - - -I O ou 1 -- �- - - ^1 I EXISTING+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL CROWN +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0,46 1 frrojected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 (_l Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT -- - BR4172AM V FORM B r r BR4172PM L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: -- - -- - - - — .. - -.- - -- - . -- - PROJECT - - - - - - - - - FORM It BR4172PM i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS r iTd3 • INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I — ...._____ _ PROJECTED I ..__— ...._....__— PROJECT _ I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I WC I I 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project 1 I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 32001 I 71S 1 0.22 ,Y I I 804 --- --- _.._ 1 4800 1 ------ _ ....__ —._ 1 0.17 1 NR I I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I I ST I 6400 1 1 1121 1 0.18 I SR I 3200 1 1 Bill I 025 ;{ I 5co I • a1 ' �J5 ' • Z�5 1 I EL I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I ------ -- -- -- --- --- ----- -- - ---- ------ -- -------------- - ------- -- --- - ------ - --- ET 1 I I I I I - - - - --- - I ---- -- ------------ -- 1 - -- -- -- I - --- ---- I I 1 I ---------- ---- -- ----------- --- -- - ------ - ----- -- ----- --- ------ -- ------------ - -- --- --- - --- -- ER I I I I I I --- -`- -- ---- - I ---- -- ------------- -- I --- --- -- I - .......... 1 I 1 I -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- -- ---- ------ - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- WL 1 16001 1 4461 0.28 1 — I — - 10 1 --- --- ---------- - •Zq 1 --- - --- _ - -- - --- I I wr 1 I 2S B6 — 1...55 1 .43-*-] - 1 i - � ..._....._._ 1 6400 _ __..___......._.__.._. 1 0.42 - -.— . - - .. -L}%— - -'!— I WR I I 90 I _ I — 1 _ I , I I--------------- I - ----- -------- -- ----- --------- -- --------------- -- -------------- - --- ---------- -- EXISTING I.C.U. 10,89 /3s2 1 --- - - ----- -- --- ---------- -.. °`-- --.. -..-......--- I I I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O q 3 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: -- - -- - - - — .. - -.- - -- - . -- - PROJECT - - - - - - - - - FORM It BR4172PM i BR415SAJE INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET 6 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 41 SS EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 1997 AM I ` I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I V(C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V(C Ratio I Volume I V(C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NL I I I I f I I I I I I_ _ _ _ _ NT 1 6400 1— 1 1368 1 0.21 1 41 1 _ Rp I -• 22 — I 1 3 1 ZZ NR I 16001 1 4091 0.26 IZ I p I •Z-1 ,3(� I _ I �7 — _ — —(-_? 1,7C.. - SL 1 16001 1 1131 0.07 -.z 1 1 , p-� r I _ I .07 1- ST 1 48001 I 431 I 0.09 I 1 SR I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 — — — — — — l 32004 1 12911 0 -40 I — 1 — --jZ I 1 �¢J— I �A 1 r It —EL 1 ET 1 32001 1 17601 0.55 I 2& 1 5(D -),1-I -`7`"F 15 1 , su I-r I ER 1 32001 I 4SS 1 0.14 I I WL I I I I I I I I I I I WR 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.88 1 I I EXISTING + REGGROWTH+ COMMITTED W(PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.90 I ICEXISTING +COMMTED+ REGIONALGROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U- - project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 /- i1 -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U- will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w( systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1-I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U- with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- Description of system Improvement: - -- - - - -- - - - - ! - - - PROJECT FORM 11 BR41 SSAM • ti(, 7 i BR415SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS TAT }} 1 INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET 6 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 41 SS EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I WC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL NT 1 64001 1 Y 841 1 0.13 1 2Cj. - - 1 — Q— 1 -- .14 — 1 -7 1 .14 1 NR 1 1600 1 1 280 1 0.18. I SL 1 16001 1 1811 0.11 CJ I I ,1Z I I X12 I ST 1 48001 1 IS841 — 0.33 M I r� I I jo I •7�. I- SR I I t I I I I I I I EL 1 32001 1 4801 0.15 1 I ET 1 - 32001 1 -- - -- - -- -- -- 1141 1 -- -- ---- - 0.36 - --- -- -•- -- - I -- - --- -- - Z-1 1 - --- -- - - -- - -37 .- I --- -- ------ - ----- - - - -- 1 , 3-I Ljr-- - ----I ER 1 3200 1 1 6S7 1 0.21 1 . _ — 1 .............. _ tg ... —._— ....._...— 1 ....... .... ....— _ ._._._ I WL I I 1 I I I I I 1 I Wr I I I I I I I I I I WR EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.69 I I _— _..._... .._.._._ ..._._.__ .............. ...... ......... _.... _ ....... _. .... _ .. EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .......... ...... _ ...... _ .......... _. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. _ - I I 0.-7/ 1 Y. Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project tragic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement — — PROJECT BR41SSPM FORM 11 t j;" 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS wTcKocnuw BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET w7S cx/rr|wC TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED uwxvEu^CE DAILY TRAFFIC vnwTEu/Snx|wC ,yy/xm~~ | |000uwC| PROPOSED |moSnwC |moSnwC |nEC|uwxL| . ............ COMMITTED | pnu/EcrEo | PROJECT �^...... — | PROJECT - | |movemeot| Lanes | Lanes | m/xn | v/c | CxuWTx| PROJECT WC Ratio |vo|"me | v/c | | |capauty |capauty | Volume Ratio | Volume Volume | w/o Project | | Ratio ! Volume | | | |---------------�---------'-----�--------�------------------'�---�-------------'--'---'----| � wL | 1600 |---'�'--��-^--'--�--`---^-------~----�---------�----�-^--`�----�'----^-^'-~----'-'--�---^-| ( 1061 ou/t | NT | 3200 �^--~---�-�--------^---�--------'----�--------------^-^-----�--�--------�-�`-`---^^�-^-\ | `o/| 0.42 ^ ~~ | ~~ | ,42- 4-1 15 | wn | | | | | | | | | | |�------�-�------------�---�----'-----�--------�---'�-�------'--'-------'-'-------~--'---| | SL | | | | | | | | | | !----------------'-----'----------�----�-----------'------'-�------------'-------'-------| | ST | 1600 |--------------'-----------------------�----------------------------------------'-------| | 9S 0.061 / SR | 3200 ` �-'-`-_----'-�-�_�---__-----�-�-`�_---�-�-�__-'-,~�_---.--�-_._`�-~--�-_'-,`_------'-----_'_`� | 20S 0.061 ~~ | ~~' | �x?iP | / | /Dip | / | EL � ---------------^----------------------------------------`----`| /--------------- l cr ) | | | ------------ '-- ----- ---------- | - | l | |-- - - ~ -- - - --------- - -- | En | | ----- -- | | | | --- -`- -------- - | ------------- ^�---�-------------| | | | |--�-~----�---��-�----`----��--------�-�--�-^---'�------�--~-�-----�----'-^`----~---^--`^--| < xu | 1600 | 330 o.2|| ~- | ~. | `��/ | |.2-| | |-- ------ ---- ----- - ------- ------- | WT | - ------ ----- ----�----�---------�-�---'------------`-�-��^-'-------' | 1e3 " .-3,5 li-| -- �--- - ------ -} 4800 ` } u34 -------- -------`-�------�^-�--^-----~^'-�-~-----|`�� \ ym 1 | 309 � - -------------- ----------- --------------- ---------�---�-�-~-�----�--��-�-�~`----| i|----------'--------- ! | uwnlwC I-cu. | | 0.76 | | �----'--'-�~--'---------'-'--`'----^----'--�-^-�-�-'-----^------�-^-'-'---- |BVn1wC+nEC CnuxmH+ COMMITTED */nuPOSq) IMPROVEMENTS bcu . I-------'-------------------------------------------------------------------------~-'---! | D��~� U | ( |8nSnwC+ COMMITTED +nECmmxL Cnuxm*+ PROJECT |zu. | 7 | � Projected + project traffic u�o. Will be less than o, equal 000yo 1J Projected + project traffic /zu. will be greater than oyo YJ Projected + project traffic I.cu.*yvxvtemv Improvement will be less than o, equal *o.90 YJ Projected + project traffic |.cu. With project improvements will be less than I.c.o.Wi,ho"tproject Description or system improvement: --------- PROJECT un4),Sxm FORM 11 ^ � �� / /v BR4175PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ��\1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I -C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4175PM FORM It L1/6 I �� 1 • INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 BIRCH STREET 417S EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINC 1997 PM .. ! .... _ .......... .. ... — __— .... ....— .._...— I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT ! PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT ! V/C Ratio I Volume ! V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio ! I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL - - -- -- - - - - -- 1 -- 1600 1 - I ..__._142 I _ 0.09"1 oq ! 1 NT 1 3200 1 I 309 ! 0.10 I — I --- _ ----- _---- _ --- . _ ..— ..__.. -- _ ...__..__. -_ _ _ -------- — -- I .10 I _ ! 110 —_- ! ! NR I I I I I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I I_ ST I 1 I — SS7 1 0.3S 1 35 I I 1 —1600 -- SR I 3200 1 1 1328 1 0.42 ._.. : .......... ...__- .._... _ __.......... _ ........ __.. _ ...- ______ _ ___.._.__......._... -.__ ......... t{-2 *-4 —.— _ 1-7 ._ —_._. 1 142 _ - -.- I 1 EL I I I I I 1 - ----------- - --- -------- -- -- -- -- --------- -- I -- --- ------ - I ----- -- --- - - --- -- I I 1 i -- -------- --- -- - -- -- ---- -- --- ---- ------ --- ET I 1 I ! 1 I -- -------- - - °------ - --- -- -- I ---- ------ -- -- I ------------- ----- - - - - - -- -- - - - -- I 1 I I----- I ------ -- -- - - -- ---------- --- -- --- ------- ------ ER I I I I I I I I ---- - - - - -- — I I I I WL I 1600 1 1 363 1 0.23 I 1 1 ._.......__. _.._.- .._.._ -- -- --- ------ _ -- -------- - - - - -- -- ---- --_......_ _ -------------- -I WT 1 1 1856 1 _- 1 -- --- -- - - -- 15 1 .4-L4-1 IL) 1 • 43 14-- 1. 1 4800 .. ___________ - .- ... —._ 1 0 -40 . ----------- _ -- ---- .._... --- . I WR I 1 71 I 1 1 — 1 I -7 1— I I-- I ----------- - - -- -- --- - -- - - ----- - -------- -------- -- - -I----- - ----- - ------- ----- -- -- EXISTING I.C.U. '0:81F I ------------ - - - - - - -- -- .. ......... 1 I 1 EXISTING + REC GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I p 93 I I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I Q.qq I ��\1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I -C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4175PM FORM It L1/6 BR416OAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS IN,1 li '�✓ INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET& BIRCH STREET 4160 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINC 1997 AM* { I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I 1 I I { Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I 1 _ _ _ _ _ I NT 1 1 203 _ I - -- 1 1600 – - - -- – 1 0.17 I NR I I 61 SL 1 16001 1 1991 0.12 _ 1 —_ I ST 1 32001 1 2161 0.07 1 — 1 1 0-7 1 =1 r0-7 1 I SR I 1 I I I I I I I I I EL I I 1207 I — I 1 - - - -1 - - - -- – –1 - - -- — I – I - - - ,5 - -- I — 1 I 1 ET 64001 1 887 0.35 -------- ----- -- _---- - I ER 1 I 171 I WL I I I I I I I I I I I WT I I I I I I I I I I I WR { 1 1 f I I 1 1 { I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.64 1 I EXISTING +REC GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0 –_,I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ RE61ONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. )(Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT BR416OAM I�- FORM 11 0 !/ j I • 0 BR4160PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 NT{} 17i INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET 6 BIRCH STREET 4160 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTERISPRING 1997 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I ! I 1 1 I I I Volume 1 1 I I NL I I I I I I I I I I 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ I HT 1 1 16s 1 —__ -- 1 1600 _ _ -- _ 1 0.17 • .__ -._ —_ .. _ - -- _ _ __— _ �— 1 I NR I I 112 SL 1 16001 1 -- 3371 0.21 —' i — I - -'Z, _4-1 . -1 I 1 • ZZ i - 1 ST 1 3200 1 ( 558 ( 0.17 1 _ 1 — 1 1-7 1 — I SR I I I I I I I I I I I EL 1 I 380 I— -- 1 -- — - -- — - --- 1 -- ............. . -- - - - - — — — - -- — - -- — I I ET 6400 1 1 1071 0.25 I 1 --- - - - -- 1 - -- - - - - -- -- ------ - - - - -- -- ------ - -- - -- 1 -- -• - -- - --- -T - - -- - ------- - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- 1 I ER 1 I I S9 I WL I I I I I 1 I I I I I WT I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 -- ---- --- -- - - -- --- - - ----- -- ------- -- - -- ----- - ---- -- - ---- --- ----- -- --- --- ------- - WR - ---- --------- - - - -- - ----------- I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.63 1 I EXISTING r REG GROWTH r COMMITTED-W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 (,p Lr 1 + I EXISTING r COMMITTED ♦ REGIONAL GROWTH r PROJECT I.C.U. Project t project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected ♦ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected t project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected ♦ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: r: PROJECT BR4160PM FORM II 1.l' L Appendix D - Mitigated ICU Worksheets • 0 y,3 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 `l N projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4172PM FORM II Improvement: plmulde wa sl;-71� -+v BR4172PH S$ Se-s_ Dlrec.+ kcLPCF (IS7)o o�- we, rhrour +ra4 -hc_ d , ve rk 6 -I-o cZ -1-6 41 O S 25 s ci , re c4 ANALYSIS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 10-1 artie) INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1997 PM _ ! ._...... -_._ .. .. ............ ... .. I EXISTING I ......... �._. PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL. I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project 1 I Ratio I 1 I I I I I I I Volume I I--- NL 1 32001 - - - - - -- - - ---'- -- -- - 1 71S 1 0.22 -- - --- -- -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - -' -- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- j(- - -- - I A I NT 1 804 I I --- ------- 1 4800 1 -_ -- _ - --._ 1 0.17 _ I I NR 1 I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I - ST - I - 6400 1 I 1 121 1— 0'18 I I I gj I j p I. I B I SR 1 32001 I 811 1 o.2S_* - I 5� ( •a1 I 35 I •2�-5 I 1 EL I I I I I - -- I 1 I - I I I------ I ---'-- -- - ------- -- ET I I ------- ---'-- - - --- --- - --'------- I I I -- -----'- ---- ------------- - -------- -------- -- 1 I I ------- --- - ---- I I I 1 ' I ---- ----- -- --------------- -- ER I I - -- - - ---- - - ------ ---------- -- I I I --------- -- - ---------------- -- -------- ---- -- -- I I I ----`---- -- -- ------ 1 I I I WL 1 16001 1 4461 0.28 1 - 1 10 I .29 1 t ...- ._.... ----- -- ----- - -.- ._..... WT t - -... _. - --_ - .._...� .. L ` 1 asae- r_ __._...- ....- _.__ -.. _ .- .._�_.- - 1 85 I I -._.— ----- - 4Z 1 --------- - - -- -- 1 6400 -- ------ - --- - _- ..___- f -"Z- I WR I I 90 I I I I I I --- --- ------ - --- ------ --- -- -- ------------- -- --------- -- ---------- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 -------- ___.— _ - - - - -- . – EXISTING REG GROWTH _....._.._._ .. —_ —, _ - -- _ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS _ - -_ _ ___..— _ . _ I.C.U. 1 I + + I I I 1 EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONALGROWTH +PROIECTI.C.U. I d Ar I 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 `l N projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4172PM FORM II jprojected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 )(Projected project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - - - PROJECT BR41 7S PM FORM II 0 �i 1 r ._ .. ._ . I a � by - _ — - 1L se sass Dlrec+ RoLol/p BR4175PH (IS-Y. O'F WB 'f}'�rauc�YJ- I- raf -�,� IS ClIvClie C� �-; -e-i') �I-o SK-Sj C1.Y� =Ci' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Yarnp) I r , 1 INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 BIRCH STREET 4175 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING .. ... - .._ 1997 PM .. ...... _ ........ -... I 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I 1 Ratio I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1 I 142 1 0.09"I — - I. -- - -- I - -� C)q - -• - -- O� i�( I NT I 3200 1 I 309 1 0.10 1 — I _- I .10 I _ I .10 I I NR I I I I I I I I I I I St. 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1600 1 i I S57 1 0.35 I - -ST t -- I SR I 3200 1 I 1328 1 0.42 17 I 4Z I I I EL I I I I I I - -- I I I I I----- ---- - -•-- -- - - - --- -- I ET I 1 --- --- --- °-- - ------ ----- °- --- -- -- ---- --- --- --- -- -- --- ° ---- I I 1 I - -- -------- - -- - I I -- -• - --- - -- I I I I---------- — - - -- I ER I I - -- - - -° - - - -- --------- - --- -- - -- — — — I I I I - — - - --- -- I I --- — - - -- -- I I I I WL 1 1600 1 1 363 1 0.23 1 I — 123 1 —r_ -- -------- _— .. !� i WT I 1 -4e56 an 1 ILA 1 ----- _ - --- 1 4800 - . -.... - - ...... -.. 1 .O_40.. ..... I WR I I 71 I I — I _ I -7 I— I - - - -- - - - - -- - - — - - -- -------- - - --- -- ------ ----- I I EXISTING I.C.U. I I I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTEDW /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.CU. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. jprojected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 )(Projected project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - - - PROJECT BR41 7S PM FORM II 0 �i 1 BR417SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS W10)Znd N$CC�i'flZfrnCr/k� Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR417SPM FORM II INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 BIRCH STREET 4175 I�1i 11 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING .._ ...... — _ ...... 1997 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I Volume I I 1 NIL 137.9O46001 1 142 I - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - -- — — - I NT 1 32001 1 309 1 0.10 I '-'- ! — I • 1 O I — 1 '10 I I NR I I I I I I I I I I I SL I I I 1 I I I I I I- - - - - - i ST 1 15001 1 SS7I 0.35 I - -- - I I SR I 3200 1 I 1328 1 0.42 I EL I I I I I I I I I I I ET 1 I I I I I I I I I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I WE 1 16001 1 353 1 0.23 I 1 - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - _-- I WT I I 1856 I I -- - — 9 c - -- - — - 1 !F2'L I Z - I I •43 I - 1 4800 _ —.____ _ - -._— 1 0.40 I WR I 1 71 ;, I r 1 �• I — I 1 -] I I a EXISTING I.C.U. if- EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ------ ------ I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I�I projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 JProjected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 XProiected+ project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR417SPM FORM II se Si?!; DIrPC+ (Zane BR417SPH ( IS-1. CJ W B -fhrou p +IO. -(f C is cllvclt(d tJ se--73 -+o SV_S -! dirct4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS YM1'�/ ® 'Z (\d fJB L6-} yl (fin I✓ INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 6 BIRCH STREET 4175 1 J 1 • EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC V.INTER/SPRING 1997 PM --_______ .— ....— ........_..._------ - -_ ..... ----- _ .- ..- ._.__..— i I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 Volume I I I I NIL 1 '' -T1i00'I I 142 1 -0:09'y I NT 1 3200 1 1 309 1 0.10 1 --- I .— I .10 1 _ I '10 I 1 NR I I I I I I I I I I 1 SL I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 ST 1 16001 1 SS71 0.35 I I SR 1 3200 1 1 1 328 1 0.42 --- I — I-- -- - - - -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - - --- ----- --- - - -- --- - -- -- ---- -- --- -- I , 42 - - -- -- - 17 - - -- - -- I EL I I I I I I I I I I 1 ET 1 I I I I I I I I I I ER I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I WL 1 1600 1 1 363 1 0.23 I I WT i I 4BS6- 1 -- -- 1 4800 I WR I I 71 I .� I -- I- ---- - - - -- --- -- -- --- --- --- - -- -- ----- ---- - --:.^`; ='.�= - --- - -- -- --------- ------ I I - ---- -- ---- -- 7 I— I - -- -- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 1-o9j_.t;= I -- -- I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT I.C.U. j projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 )(Projected project traffic I -C -U - w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- _ - - - PROJECT BR417SPM FORM II 0 0 Appendix E - Buildout ICU Worksheets ul tR 3 v H 9. Macdrtha i cngm lonq-Range GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACPYY UTILIZATI06 _69 1.11 10. Nachrthor i Bifa Lay -Range GP Baseline AN PK BOOR PM PK SOUR LARDS CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NU 1 1600 140 .09* 460 .29* NBT 4 6400 980 .15 1340 .21 NBR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06 SBL 1 1600 110 .07 210 .13 SBT 4 6400 1870 .293 930 .153 SBR 1 1600 400 .25 730 .46 EBL 2 3200 510 .16* 60 .02* SBT 3 4800 770 .16 680 .16 HBR 0 0 10 MR 70 0 WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04 NBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1640 .343 m f 1640 110 WSR 150 Right Turn Ad*tw.nt 150 Right Turn Adjiectar_nt _ FM .31* TOTAL CAPACPYY UTILIZATI06 _69 1.11 10. Nachrthor i Bifa Lay -Range GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84 IM-Range v/Sotel /OfC Ptoj (ZMe 2) AN PK V WR PW PK EOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC RBL 1 1600 120 .08 720 .14 NBT 3 4800 740 .15* 1560 .33* NU f 1360 220 BR 80 1600 SBL 1 1600 300 .19* 130 .083 SBT 4 6400 940 .20 730 .15 SBR 0 0 420 .26 220 1600 EBL 1 1600 130 .08 240 .15* EDT 2 3200 540 .20* 500 .17 EBR 0 0 110 MR 50 0 WBL 1 1600 30 .02* 150 .09 NET 2 3200 320 .10 910 .28* WBR -f 1640 50 WSR 210 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .84 IM-Range v/Sotel /OfC Ptoj (ZMe 2) AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR UM CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 160 .10* 470 .253 HBT 4 6400 1010 .16 1360 .21 BR 1 1600 80 .05 90 .06 SBL 1 1600 110 .07 200 .13 SBT 4 6400 1930 .30* 980 .153 SBR 1 1600 390 .24 710 .44 BBL 2 3200 530 .173 60 .02* EDT 3 4800 780 .17 700 .16 MR 0 0 20 80 WBL 2 3200 60 .02 120 .04 WBT 3 4800 720 .15* 1640 .34* WSR f 110 150 Right Turn Adjiectar_nt 5RR _79* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION .72 1.09 Long-Raege W/EOW /OfC Proj (So»e 2) AM PL HOUR PN PK BOOR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 130 .08 220 .14 MBT 3 4800 770 .16* 1590 .33* NBR f 230 so SBL 1 1600 300 .19* 140 .09* SBT 4 6400 1000 .21 780 .16 OR 0 0 430 .27 220 EBL 1 1600 140 _09 240 .15* EBT 2 3200 530 .204 SOD .17 Em D 0 100 50 wu 1 1600 30 _023 160 .10 NET 2 3200 320 .10 920 .29* WBR f 60 210 Tom CAPACITY UTILISATION .57 .86 E �l i f 0 13. JaYboree 6 CaWs Long -Range GP Baseline AN PK BOOR FK PK BOOR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NB 1 1600 180 .11 160 .10 NST 4 6400 1500 .23* 1880 .29* Nu d 1600 370 .23 720 .45 SBL 2 3200 810 .25* 540 .17* SBT 4 6400 1200 .19 1410 Z2 SBR d 1600 320 .20 460 .29 EBL 2 3200 160 .05* 120 .04 EBT 2 3200 290 .09 890 .28* ERR f .30 40 2 480 0 WBL 2 3200 300 .09 180 .06* WET 2 - 3200 960 .30* 440 .14 %W 1 1600 470 .29 440 .28 Right Turn Adjustsrbt .33* 3720 .59* ASR .16* IT21 CAPACITY OTILISATIOH .83 .% 15. C"[P s b Bristol R Long -Range GP Baseline Long - Range v/Eotel /ofc Proj (Zone 2) AN PI MR PM PI BOOR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 600 .19 930 .29* NBT 3 4800 2000 .42* 840 .18 NBR 0 0 0 .29* 0 d SBL 0 0 0 .45 0 2 SBT 4 6400 610 .10 1980 .31* 5BR 2 32M 650 .20 1150 .36 EBL 0 0 0 .30 0 2 EST 0 0 0 .04 0 2 EBR 0 0 0 .28* 0 f WBL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29 WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3720 .59* WBR 0 0 120 .14 50 1 Right Turn Adjustment 440 .28 SBR .05* TOTAL CAPACITY VMIZATI08 .75 120 1.24 Long - Range v/Eotel /ofc Proj (Zone 2) AN PK BOOR PI PK EWR LANES CAPACM VOL V/C ML V/C N►L 1 1600 170 .11 160 .10 m 4 6400 1480 .23* 1890 .29* m d 1600 370 .23 720 .45 SBL 2 3200 800 .25* 550 .17* SBT 4 6400 1210 .19 1400 .22 SBR d 1600 310 .19 480 .30 EBL 2 3200 160 .05* 120 .04 EBT 2 3200 300 .09 S90 .28* EBR f 0 40 0 4% EBR WBL 2 3200 300 .09 190 .06* BY 2 3200 940 .29* 440 .14 WBR 1 1600 440 .28 450 .28 Right -TM Adjustment 120 _ NER .16* f TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIMCM .82 .96 TOTAL CEPACISR V LIZATIOB .76 1.24 / r iang-Range W/Betel/Ofe Ptoj (Sane 2) AN PK NOON PN PI ROOK WES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ND 2 3200 590 .18 940 .29* NET 3 4800 2040 .43* 860 .18 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 600 .09 1970 .31* SBR 2 3200 620 .19 1140 .36 EBL 0 0 0 0 EER 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WEL 1 1600 410 .26 460 .29 WBT 4 6400 1990 .33* 3750 .59* WER 0 0 120 50 Right Turn Adjustment SER 05* TOTAL CEPACISR V LIZATIOB .76 1.24 / r r 16. Birch 5 Bristol R Long - Range GP Baseline AN PK BOOR PR PK BOOR LANES CAPACITY AN PK BOOR PK FK BOOR V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEIL 2 3200 200 .06 580 .18* NBT 2 3200 1200 .38* 630 .20 MIR 0 0 0 170 0 220 SBL 0 0 0 830 0 2210 SET 1.5 6400 550 .17 710 .32* SBR 2.5 1.5 250 .08 1330 360 EBL 0 0 0 2230 0 3530 EBT 0 0 0 520 0 590 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 0 760 0 530 0 WBT 3.5 8000 1970 .37* 2320 .36* WBR 0 1970 250 NBR 50 WBR TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOR .75 .86 17. Caxpus i Bristol S Long -Rara3a GP Baseline Long -Range V/Rotel/Ofc Proj (Zone 2) AN PK BOOR PR PK BOOR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 HDO1 0 LANES NET 5 8000 1620 .24* 1370 .21 NBR 0 0 330 .18* 590 .37 SBL 1 1600 170 .11* 220 .14 SBT 3 4800 830 .17 2210 .46* SBR 0 0 0 sm 0 1.5 ML 1.5 .18 850 (.48)* 360 .23 P,BT 2.5 6400 2230 .48 3530 .32* Em 2 3200 520 .16 590 .18 WBL 0 0 0 WRL 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 1.5 WBR 0 0 0 .33 0 3.5 Rigbt Tun Adjustment 1970 .37* NBR 05* Long -Range V/Rotel/Ofc Proj (Zone 2) AN PR BODR PH PK BM LABPS CAPACITY VOL AN PK BOOR FN FK HDO1 0 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ABL 2 3200 210 .07 580 .18* NBT 2 3200 1230 .38* 650 .20 m 0 0 0 210 0 sBT SBL 0 0 0 2200 0 sm S8T 1.5 6400 560 .18 710 .32* SBR 2.5 840 250 .08 1350 SBT ML 0 0 0 1530 0 w EST 0 0 0 590 0 WRL EBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBT M 1.5 0 760 0 530 .33 m 3.5 8000 1970 .37* 2340 .37* WBR 0 250 .05* 50 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILffiMON .75 .87 Lang -Range VjRotPl(Ofc Vtoj (tame 1) AN PR BODR PH PK BM LABPS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL VIC NU 0 0 0 0 NRT 5 8000 1660 .25* 1380 .22 DR 0 0 350 610 .38 SBL 1 1600 160 _10* 210 .13 sBT 3 4800 830 .17 2200 .46* sm 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 840 [.48)* 380 .24 SBT 2.5 6400 2250 .48 1530 .32* w 2 3200 510 .16 590 .18 WRL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjudscnt NBR .05* TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIM .83 .83 TOTAL calaRY OTILITATICK .83 .83 1] I/Q j 0 18. Bircb 4 Bristol S Long -Range EP Baseline AN 19; HOUR PH PK HOUR LAABS CAPACITY AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VIC LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC MBL 0 0 0 1980 0 1540 MST 2.5 6400 270 .089 970 .20* NR 1.5 1 270 .08 280 .18 SBL 2 3200 740 .23* 410 .13* SBT 2 3200 480 .15 790 .25 SBR 0 0 0 270 0 120 EBL 1.5 1 1090 (.36)* 90 .06 EBT 3.5 8000 1360 .36 2010 .35* EBR 0 1 420 110 220 440 Wu 0 0 0 30 0 10 WBT 0 - 0 0 20 0 20 WBR 0 0 0 0 CAPACITY UTILIZAPIOH TOTAL CAPACITY UTILiUMN .67 .68 19. Irvine E Ksa Long -Range CP B$9?lim+ TOTAL CAPACITY UYILIEAYIOF .85 1.02 Long -Ramie Y/Hntel /otc Prof (Zone 2) AN 19; HOUR PH PK HOUR LAABS CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC BBL 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02* KBT 3 4800 1980 .44* 1540 .35 HBR 0 0 110 HBR 130 0 SK 1 1600 10 .01* 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 840 .23 2440 .59* SBE 0 0 290 SBR 410 0 EM 0 0 270 EBL 120 0 EBT 1 1600 260 .33* 80 .13* OR 1 1600 30 .02 130 .08 WBL 1 1600 110 .07* 440 .28* RBT 1 1600 30 .03 10 .02 WBR 0 0 20 WBR 20 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UYILIEAYIOF .85 1.02 Long -Ramie Y/Hntel /otc Prof (Zone 2) AM PK HOOR PR PK EM LAMPS CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC HBL 0 0 0 .02 0 .02* HBT 2.5 6400 290 .09* 960 _20* HBR 1.5 0 260 280 .18 SBL 2 3200 740 .23* 410 .L'* SBT 2 3200 490 .15 790 _25 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 0 1100 (.36)* 100 .06 EBT 3.5 8000 1380 .36 2000 .35* MR 0 1600 430 _02 220 .08 WBL 0 0 0 08* 0 .29* WBT 0 0 0 .03 0 .02 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOH 168 .68 long -Range v/Hotpl /afc Proj (Zone 2) AM PK M PH PK HOUR LARKS CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC RBL 1 1600 30 .02 3D .02* RBT 3 4800 2050 .45* 1550 .35 RBR 0 0 no 130 SHL 1 1600 10 O1* 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 820 .23 2410 .59* SSR 0 0 300 400 EBL 0 0 270 130 EBT 1 1600 250 .33* 80 .13* EBR 1 1600 30 _02 130 .08 WBL 1 1600 IN 08* 460 .29* WOT 1 1600 30 .03 20 .02 WBR 0 0 20 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZAPIOH .97 1.03 yaa I i 29. 93c3rthm 6 Jamboree Long -Range GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY iPPILIZAT'IOA .89 1.12 30. Jafboree E Bristol H Long -Range GP Baseline AN PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LAHYS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 230 .14 200 .13* NBT 3 4800 1690 .46* 750 .23 NBR 0 0 510 .23 630 .39 SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20 SBT 3 4800 520 .11 1630 .34* SBR f 0 80 .19 570 f ML 2 3200 890 .28* 600 .19* EBT 3 4800 1480 .31 640 .13 EHR f 0 520 .13 240 f WBL 2 3200 100 .03 610 .19 im 3 4800 420 _09* 1620 .34* WBR f 1600 460 .44 40 .13 Right Turn Adjustnent .24* 40 NU .12* TOTAL CAPACITY iPPILIZAT'IOA .89 1.12 30. Jafboree E Bristol H Long -Range GP Baseline Lang -Range c/Hotel/ofc Pzoj (Zone 2) AN Pf BiJOR PN Pf HOUR LAM CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NHL 2 3200 1230 .38 1470 .46* HBT 3 4800 2080 .49* 1240 .26 ER 0 0 260 .23 10 0 SBL 0 0 0 .39 0 1 SBT 4 6400 450 .09 1970 .38* SBR 0 0 310 .19 570 f EBL 0 0 0 0 2 EM 0 0 0 .19* 0 3 EBR 0 0 0 .13 0 f WBL 0 0 0 0 2 WET 2 3200 910 .28* 570 .18* W8R 1 1600 700 .44 210 .13 Right Tian Adjustment Mdti .24* 40 .13 Lang -Range c/Hotel/ofc Pzoj (Zone 2) AN FR HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NHL 1 1600 240 .15 190 .12* NBT 3 4800 1740 .47* 750 .23 NM 0 0 500 630 .39 SBL 1 1600 100 .06* 320 .20 SBT 3 4800 540 .11 1660 .35* SHR f 0 80 .19 600 EBL 2 3200 850 .27* 600 .19* EBT 3 4800 I430 .30 640 .13 EBR f 0 530 240 WBL 2 3200 100 .03 630 .20 FBT 3 4800 430 .09* 1590 .33* WN f 1600 480 .43 40 .13 Right Turn Adjustsent 1ba1ti .23* NBR .12* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .89 I.11 Lang - Range v/Hotei /Ofc Pboj (ZOne 2) AN Pf BOOR RI PR HOUR LAHPS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1240 .39* 1480 .46* NBT 3 4800 2020 .48 1230 .26 NBR 0 0 260 10 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 470 .10* 1870 .38* SBR 0 0 310 .19 550 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 940 .29* 570 .18* WBR 1 1600 690 .43 210 .13 Right Turn AdjOatvmt 1ba1ti .23* TOTAL CAPACITY UTMUTION 1.01 1.02 TOTAL CUIC M OTILISATICK 1.01 1.02 y� 3 N 32. Janboree b Bristol S Louq -Range GP Baseline 34. Jawboree i Eastbluff B/UDIY Loug-Range GP Baseline AH PK HOUR PN PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 .01 0 .01 WBT 5 8000 2330 .29* 1900 .24 HBR 0 0 20 .21 10 .39 SBL 0 0 0 .04* 0 .22* SBT 3 4800 480 .10 1870 .39* SR 0 0 0 .11 0 .33 EBL 1.5 .12 1370 .43* 740 (.42)* OT 1.5 4800 350 .22 1260 .42 BR 2 3200 840 .26 1540 .48 WEL 0 0 0 .09* 0 .15* WBT 0 0 0 .03 0 .06 WER 0 0 0 .06 0 0 Right Turn Adjnetwmt im Km .06* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATIOK .72 .88 .87 34. Jawboree i Eastbluff B/UDIY Loug-Range GP Baseline Long -Range v/Hotel /Oft Prof (YOae 2) AN PK fl00R PR PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .01 10 .01 NBT 4 6400 2300 .36* 1990 .31* )a 1 1600 340 .21 620 .39 SBL 2 3200 120 .04* 690 .22* SBT 4 6400 1270 .20 2480 .39 SUR 1 1600 180 .11 520 .33 EBL 1.5 .12 400 .33 310 1.5 MT 0.5 3200 90 .15* 70 .12* EBR f .21 30 .41 20 2 WBL 1.5 .26 280 .09* 470 .15* WBT 1.5 4800 40 .03 90 .06 WBR f , .03 650 .06 530 0 Right Turn Adjustlpent 0 im .08* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION .64 .88 Long -Range v/Hotel /Oft Prof (YOae 2) AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 .01 0 .01 NBT 5 8000 2290 .29* 1910 .24 NBR 0 0 10 .21 10 .39 SBL 0 0 0 .04* 0 .72* SBT 3 4800 500 .10 1870 .39* SBR 0 0 0 .12 0 .33 EBL 1.5 1360 .43* 740 (.41)* EBT 1.5 4800 340 .21 1250 .41 EBR 2 3200 840 .26 1530 .48 WBL 0 0 0 .09* 0 .15* WBT 0 0 0 , .03 0 .06 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjuatnent NBR ERR 07* TOTAL CAPACITY UfILIlATIOH .72 .87 Long - Range v /Hotel /Oft Proj (lone 2) AN PK fiWR PH PR HOOK LAW CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NHL 1 1600 10 .01 10 .01 NBT 4 6400 2300 .36* 1980 .31* NU 1 1600 340 .21 620 .39 SBL 2 3200 120 .04* 700 .72* SBT 4 6400 1270 .20 2440 .38 MR 1 1600 190 .12 520 .33 EBL 1.5 410 320 LOT 0.5 3200 80 .15* 70 .12* EBR f 10 10 WOL 1.5 280 .09* 490 .15* WET 1.5 4800 40 , .03 90 .06 WER f 630 X30 Right Turn Adjustsent NBR .08* TOTAL CAPACITY VYILISATION 64 .88 ti � Slav 19. Ininc 6 Hrsa ; ,! Long -Range CP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .85 1.02 0 !— H � bong-Fanr r•/6ota1 /[tic Proj (Zone 2) AH FA HOUR PH PR EOOR WEYS CIPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C HBL 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02* BBT 3 - 4800 1920 .44t 1540 .35 m 0 0 110 0 130 I10 SeL 1 1600 10 .01* 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 840 n .t= 2440 :54* -` SBR 9\ 'Y ^,`0 280 •i5 410 v ESL 0 0 270 BL 120 0 EBT 1 1600 260 .33* 80 .13* BUR 1 1600 30 .02 130 .08 wu 1 1600 110 .07* 440 .28* RDT 1 1600 30 .03 10 .02 k'BR 0 0 20 W R 20 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .85 1.02 0 !— H � bong-Fanr r•/6ota1 /[tic Proj (Zone 2) AM PK EOUR PH P9 HOUR um CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ABL 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02* M 3 4200 2050 .45* 1550 .35 ABP. 0 0 I10 130 SRL 1 1600 10 .01* 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 820 - i i-.a 2410. So.W. SBR 1 .0 i. ':'.0 300 i 400 BL 0 0 270 130 BT 1 1600 250 -33* 80 .13* EBR - 1 I600 30 .02 130 .08 WBL 1 1600 120 .08* 460 .29* NDT 1 1600 30 .03 20 .02 W R 0 0 20 10 TORL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 1413 r r1'i 1 I • 19. Trri3e S K z �t�'i rs - I Long - retry.' CP fisnlirre TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION BSS i 02 is 1 I [n>, -Mgff t:/botrl /Ofc Proj (Zone 2) AM PR SOUR PH PK HOUR AM PK EMR L 5-rs CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i3L 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02* RBT 3 4800 1920 -44r 1540 .35 NBR 0 0 110 130 1600 S3L 1 1600 10 .Olt 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 840 .23 2440 .59* SBR 0 0 280 270 410 130 PBL I S A' --0 `270 '.33ti 1,; 120 :29 *, EBT a i600-':: 260 -33* 80 - 71P *,� EDR .! -1- 1600 30 :02- 130 ,08- 1000 - %: i n �30 1600- \110 .W* 440 R* kBT 1 .1' 1400 30 .031 10 :02 kBR 0 -0— ; 20 f\ ~ 20 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION BSS i 02 is 1 I [n>, -Mgff t:/botrl /Ofc Proj (Zone 2) AM PK EMR PH PR HOUR LA.'(s CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C RBL 1 1600 30 .02 30 .02* k3T 3 4500 2050 .45* 1550 .35 FBR 0 0 110 130 SAL 1 1600 10 .O1* 10 .01 SBT 3 4800 820 .23 2410 .59* SBR 0 0 300 400 HBL I ', 0 —43- 270 130 E3T I- 16W; ;:-x'5 250 '.33ti 1,; 80 :29 *, EBR - ' •1' I60v �, 30 :02- 130 .08' kBL 1- 1600 1120 :08* 460 „28* HDT it 1000 - %: i n �30 O_ -0 r kBR 0 0 (20 10 Tam CAPA M UTILIMICY -87" Y.03- -b'( 057 u- C A'- ,/.) t TO: Newport Beach Planning Commission FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant to the City Manager DATE. December 4, 1998 SUBJECT. Holtze /Lennar Project — Fiscal Impact Analysis Holtze /Lennar Project Summary of Fiscal Impacts ✓ THE PROJECT. The proposed project is oriented towards creating a residence -like atmosphere for business executives. It consists of a 109,200 square foot office building plus 155,000 square feet of short- and medium -term overnight accommodations. The hotel amenities and parking facilities, including: • 16 "guest rooms" • 120 2 BD /2 BA suites (with "lockoff' capabilities converting the suites into 1 BD suites with 1 guest room). • 16 3 BD /3 BA suites (with "lockoff' capabilities converting the suites into 1 BD suites with 2 guest rooms). • A Clubhouse of 9,500 square feet, including meeting rooms that total 2,500 square feet and a fitness room. • 249 semi - subterranean parking spaces and 60 surface parking spaces. • A swimming pool, spa, and outdoor BBQ and eating facilities. ✓ REVENUES. Revenues generated from the proposed project will come from three primary sources — property taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and sales taxes. This analysis estimates that the project will generate approximately $750,438 in revenue annually to the City. ✓ EXPENSES. Given the arrival of new "residents," the City anticipates some additional expenses due to the project which include public safety protection and some limited use of the City's community services (library and recreation). With an expected net change of about 240 new "residents," this Analysis estimates these expenses at $86,400 per year. ✓ PROJECT'S FISCAL IMPACT. This Analysis estimates that the proposed project — when fully developed — will provide the City with $664,038 more in revenue than it will cost in services. ✓ BEFORE and AFTER COST /REVENUE ANALYSIS. Before If the two subject parcels were to be used today for (1) an 80,500 sf office building (at the site of the proposed hotel) and (2) an auto sales and service facility that is about 61.4% the size of the former Fletcher Jones Motorcars facility (at the site of the proposed office complex), the two uses would generate approximately $1.47 million in sales taxes and $30,330 in property taxes for the City for a total of $1.5 MN per year. After The proposed project is anticipated to generate about $750,438 In taxes while costing approximately $86,400 in expenses. The total impact to the City as a result of the project is $664,038 per year. G 0 E I ya Holtze /Lennar Project Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2 Holtze Executive Village Lennar Office Building Fiscal Impact Analysis This Fiscal Impact Analysis of the proposed Holtze Executive Village and the Lennar office building (the "Project ") is required by the Newport Beach City Council's Policy F- 17 (Economic Development) which reads, in part: ... "All majorplanning, development, zoning, regulatory, and permitting decisions made by the City shall include a review of the economic implications of such action. Toward that end, the following shall be accomplished: • All major zoning, subdivision and development permits considered by the City Council of Planning Commission shall be accompanied by an economic analysis describing the cost and revenues to the City associated with the actions. Land use conversions shall be accompanied by a before and after cost /revenue analysis.... Newport Beach's 22 square miles are home to about 70,000 permanent residents with a population of 100,000 in the summer. Newport Beach's current hotel statistics include: Total Hotel Rooms /Meeting Space 2,600 hotel rooms • 130,000+ square feet of meeting rooms Existing Major Hotels/ Conference Facilities Hotel Name No. Rooms Meeting Space Balboa Bay Club 121 rooms 13,500 square feet Four Seasons 285 rooms 21,000 square feet Hyatt Newporter 410 rooms 33,700 square feet Marriott Hotel /Tennis Club 570 rooms 22,400 square feet Marriott Suites 250 rooms 2,300 square feet Sheraton 335 rooms 22,100 square feet Sutton Place 435 rooms 17,700 square feet Property Information and Current Zoning The proposed project consists of two parcels at 1301 Quail Street (site of proposed extended -stay hotel) and 1001 Quail Street (site of proposed office building) near John Wayne Airport. The current zoning in the project area is Newport Place Planned Community (PC). Current Uses The property was home to Fletcher Jones Motorcars, an auto sales and service dealership that has since moved to 3300 Jamboree Road near where State Route 73 crosses Jamboree. Since the departure of Fletcher Jones, the facilities on the property do not have long -term tenants. • �a� Holtze /Lennar Project Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3 A. Accommodations. The Holtze Project would place a 304 "key" overnight lodging facility at the comer of Spruce and Quail streets in Newport Beach. Holtze's "concept" for the accommodation development would target business executives on short- and medium -term stays in the Newport Beach, Irvine, John Wayne Airport, and South Coast Metro areas. Depending upon the market, Holtze plans to split its 2- and 3- Bedroom suites into smaller component rooms as needed. Similarly, Holtze plans separate room rental rates for each accommodation — so a 400 square foot "guest room" may rent for $100 per night, while a 2 -131) suite may rent for $150 per night. ACCOMMODATIONS' • 16 GUEST ROOMS (400 square feet per room) • 120 2 BD /2 BA SUITES (1,020 square feet per suite). • lj¢ 3 BD /3 BA SUITES (1,500 square feet per suite). • Please note that Holtze plans an operating configuration (using lockoff rooms) different from the accommodation listing described here (see TOT section for detail). AMENITIES • Guest Laundry • Kitchens in each suite • Fitness Room • Swimming Pool • Spa LOBBY /CONFERENCE FACILITIES • 3 Meeting Rooms (2,500 square feet total) • 24 -hour Front Desk, Lobby area, Executive Lounge, and Administrative Offices. B. Office Building. The Lennar office project would place a 109,200 sf office building at 1001 Quail Street. For the purposes of calculating the approximate value of the improvements to this property, this analysis assumes Type I construction with shell costs of approximately $103 per square foot and tenant improvement costs of $25 per square foot for a total valuation of $128 per sf or $13.9 million in taxable value. 4. The Project's Fiscal Impacts A. REVENUE. City revenue expected from the Project will include property taxes, sales taxes, and hotel bed taxes. Projected revenue (expected to be $750,438 annually) is likely to include: The City of Newport Beach receives about 17.4% of the 1 %'basic levy' charged on the assessed value (AV) of any parcel within this tax rate area (IRA 07 -061). The remainder of the basic levy goes towards schools, the County, and other agencies. Tax Basis • Hotel Assessed Valuation - This analysis assumes an estimated Assessed Value (AV) for the 155,000 sf hotel at $100 /sf or $15.5 MN. • Office Building Assessed Valuation. This analysis assumes an estimated AV for the 109,200 sf office building at $128 /sf or $13.9 MN. Calculation - ($15.5 MN + 13.9 MN) x. 01 x .174 Annual Property Tax Revenue Total Property Tax - $51,156 • • Lla 9 IMMAM Holtze /Lennar Project Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 4 II - Sales Tax When a taxable product (tike food and drink sales at restaurants) is sold within the City limits, the City receives one cent of the 7.75 cents levied upon every dollar of taxable sales. For example, a taxableproduct sold for $100 would generate $7.75 in sales tax. Of the $7.75, the State Franchise Tax Board (FTB) allocates $1 to the City. The City expects to collect $16.4 million Citywide in sales and use taxes in FY 1998 -99. Tax Basis Annual Sales Tax Revenue • Taxable Sales at Restaurants, Bars, and Retail Shops. This analysis assumes slightly less than the industry standard -- Total Sales Tax = $ 192412 that taxable purchases (meals, gifts, sundries) by Holtze guests will equal 20% of the daily room rate. This reduction (from a standard 25% assumption) is a result of the in -suite latchens. Calculation - I guestper room x 277 rooms at 80% occupancy x 365 days x $120 average daily room rate x.20 sales tax factorx.01 City sales tax share. I III -- Hotel Bed Tax or "TOT" I The City levies a Transient Occupancy Tax ( "TOT ") equal to 10% of the nightly rental rate per night on any room rented for 30 days or less within the City limits. Of the 10%, one- tenth of the revenue goes to the Newport Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau (NBCVB) to be used for the purposes ofpromoting tourism and conventioneering in Newport Beach. The City expects to receive $7.2 million in "TOT" in FY 1998 -99, with $800,000 going to the NBCVB. Tax Basis • Rented Accommodations - This analysis assumes that Holtze rents its rooms per its suggested operating configuration of 141 Guest Rooms, 109 1 BD suites, and 27 2 BD suites: Guest Rooms: $100 /night with 669/6 average occupancy 1 BD Suite: $120 /night with 800% average occupancy 2 BD Suite $150 /night with 80% average occupancy Calculation = ($100 x.66 x.09 x 365 x 141) + ($120 x.80 x.09 x 365x 109) +($150 x.80 x.09 x 365 x 27) Annual TOT Revenue Guest Room TOT: $305,700 1 BD Suite TOT: 343,740 2 BD Suite TOT: 106.430 Subtotal TOT = $ 755,870 Less Extended Stay Factor (takes 10% off forpersons staying more than 30 days and avoiding TOT) t76, 0001 Total TOT $ 679,870 B -- EXPENSES. Project - related expenses will include police and fire protection and some anticipated use of the City's community servicesl by the proposed hotel's guests. These expenses (which total $86,400 annually) are summarized below: • Police Protection. Using industry- standard vacancy rates, on any one night, the Project will add about 240 "residents" to the City. For the purposes of the expense calculations, this amount is considered to be an addition to the permanent population of the City (estimated to be 70,000). Given that the City's police costs per capita are approximately $150, the addition of 240 residents translates into $36,000 in additional police protection expenses per year. • Fire Protection. The City estimates its fire protection costs to be about $165 per capita. Adding 240 residents to the population base translates into $39,600 in additional fire protection expenses per year. I Please note that the City does not expect to `add" services - whether they be additional staffing at the • Fire /Marine Department or the Police Department or books at the Library - to account for anticipated services usage by the Project's patrons. The costs identified above are for the sole purpose of noting that any land use change will lead to incremental service costs to the City - to assure a 'conservative' end product, this analysis uses the most 'extreme' example of how these costs may be calculated. Y36 Newport Dunes Hotel and timeshare Resort Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 5 • Community Services. This Analysis assumes that hotel and timeshare residents will • access the City's library and recreational programs. The City estimates these costs at about $45 per capita. Adding 240 residents to the population base translates into $10,800 in additional community services expenses per year. C -- NET FISCAL IMPACT TO THE CITY Assuming the above revenues and expenses, this Analysis estimates that the Project will generate $664,038 more in revenue than it will generate in expenses. This figure may be compared with at least two alternative scenarios: 1 -- If the City were to find a tenant similar (but slightly smaller in scope) to Fletcher Jones Motorcars that would occupy the proposed office building site and a builder willing to place an 80,500 sf office building on the proposed hotel site (Alternative Scenario 1), it could generate about $1.5 million in revenue. -- If the site were to remain unchanged from the use that exists today (Alternative Scenario 2), the City would continue to receive about $12,400 in revenue from the site. Please note that these revenue and expenditure estimates are somewhat imperfect (with various assumptions made as to assessed values, occupancy, and taxable expenditures), so the actual impact may vary. E • �3/ C a ➢10 � s ypa.... 3 hillP+� 4 D Z i r � ZO R. C a ➢10 � s ypa.... 3 hillP+� 4 D Z i mans a.u! !T0 siJ]IJ JVJ 21V tJlJll v. SYLZ79 u , Po E ® " 3 e'i s Ea r3'� ?€ � 35 fg i eF ?g rA .ERA Pq ^�v ° fggL: ?Rv { EBa S *� fe4� nXl n9sb Iona, 5 Ri 3 y 4p; as P €ypfp a. .x X Aa 8 f p5 §o!'4c�ggQM T a� v f aa�. e p f� {� P 'f 'out t Fg?", gP { ° fAS a of h §? s -Ares ' a 1� is py ION y f {, HRPH 59y. i 'y[{{ y ii t e3 P K a [ [�f i 3 ! Y NI MP i QdF. jljd Yqi Ca 9 {. .i "� g1 R tg N `3 �t i� C 4 I p& f r , my ii 2 it to a4 a € ' -oar xR g a 'y$ •• .. LJ , � • .� Ia R; aq cas vuv �T m e tt p a g gr a p g�p�g�gl �R'�pg €��fg €ge e6E °e�ppagH ? °�a� ��Na�pwa -n gag R# RRaF31F6�@ F@ 5a4�,° P�Q ^ @p.p3@�pk,��"�;.zg�3 @iyk�apt�n i dp @pi�'seAti9e @g�s$3E }W s� A S# 3 ;a "yt "p•Eg3 A „R €E. § �yy,DAdP� ?6 g�wa e ¢Pqe � xeea3 a 'p: -p'e "pn�aeCaebyn� �eese�ean ;:::��� ; gpnn��p��sE :B�S��p3BsaB$sBnS�E�3Rsa @a.�R� a I.I-•• •••••�•R:::::•.••.R:F:I:. ^.1:ff AU.::1:.�A'af:::ifl:f tf §yi yRO Y' Mot: AM ��,7 � llll 111 11 Id I all fil OIJ s z 0 Id I 3 S S S S S d S S \ \ \ \ \ \ .. ) \; $2 , »• CY) §§ . |y] CL © |] §([ \HHHIIIIH | j \] 3 S S S S S d S S \ \ \ \ \ \ .. ) .2 Y O 0- 0 LL z i Cl C�) gg Ow wm z 0 OT �i- I T i v- Cl Wm C� ow 0- zo Q ---------- ------------------- ------------ ------------------- --------- ------- LL II I I III 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - tj It (�1 C1 od 0 -1 I (7 rn. 4 t y} i h ' ms's U) y cM yx yS i H } r o Z .2 Q Q zY ;/-r- o O ' . � \i e m W W �W e .1 pp9 Z Q 1 1 (�1 C1 od 0 -1 I (7 rn. 4 t y} i h ' ms's U) y cM yx yS i H } r o Z &: II as :p u �o :p m J e a 44J U i =_A z o 991 z F a i 6 F b O ze Cry q a: W 9 N Q ia. / m „ ,•,!!! /_}; / )qq2 � t ■ \ | k � iji || || |il \ || % §4!\ § , ) \ / L | I! I\ le � I I I ! I � J w z o tlINM V a3n 'NJV38 imno ¢ 6 a N '3�tl 3�f1tld5 H '15 lltl(10 �� � 39VllIA 3AanD3X3 3Z1lOH ; ; Q oprEN �Q H a I i I Q S" �y � =s . m 30N3AV30f J Sg E €7 e 1 i � G✓ N J tld5 TITITTT� -Tf -Tf 1 I I �- �TTTTI�I I I _ I I WT w X° U N O III ORM71 ml I I i I i i I C7 3 i KI O O Co Ul IT, T �✓ _ m � w x„ x ry�R R+ # W W K K < Q S Q =Q m 7 1 W W K K Q Q Q Q • e rn n '-I 7 w 0 O J LL LL 0 O J LL 2 H O Z O Z O U W W / /j %/ /\ ; /�\ UP oc 0 0 L L 0 0 w uil 0 z Z 0 W W 0 O CO Z ti W w i 'x'. _ Z U 4 O C O00' _ -lu _ a 8 ri 1— 1 =i �g tom_ 0 a w _ fA X71 �_r9if K 3 J x tea' z 3� U Z 5� a3 I', 5 A 3 CD < HA O O LL LL LL O O I� Z O F w J W W !/J Z 0 W J W H Z O W LL 5 o 04 �Q J Q U W Z O F w J W W 0 F Z 0 > W J W Q W K J 7 r In lir z 0 w w 0 a ui -7 z