Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 - 22 Corporate PlazaE �Eacogr J , C,l /CORY. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644.3200; FAX (949) 644.3250 Agenda Item No.: C'� 3 Staff Person: Marc Myers CGUMM AGERDA (949) 644 -3210 X10. 3 11-$'q 9 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCCL PROJECT: 22 Corporate Plaza The Irvine Company (applicant) PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: A request for PC Text Amendments to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring approximately 45,000 square feet of existing entitlement from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center in conjunction with the construction of a new office building. The project involves the following actions: a finding that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the General Plan based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, and an amendment to increase the permitted square footage in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and reduce the permitted square footage in the Fashion Island Planned Community. ACTION: Conduct public hearing; and: • Adopt Resolution 99- . findingthetransferofdevelopmentrights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan; and • Introduce Ordinance No. 99 an amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, approving a transfer of development rights in Newport Center, from Fashion Island and Block 600 (Amendment No. 889), and pass to second reading on November 8, 1999; and Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve the supporting documentation related to the Amendment, subject to the Findings and Mitigation Measures as modified by the Planning Commission: • The acceptance ofa NegativeDeclaration • A TraffcAnalysis • A ParkingDemand Study Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of October 7, 1999, the Planning Commission voted (all ayes) to recommend approval of the applications related to the transfer of development rights from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center to Corporate Plaza Planned Community. Additionally, in order to address further concerns of the neighbors in the Harbor View Hills community, Mitigation No. 7, which prohibits light and glare associated with the project from spilling beyond the limits of the site, was modified to include a provision which allows the Planning Director to require the dimming of lights associated with the project, should the need arise. The revised mitigation measure is included in the excerpt Planning Commission's meeting minutes attached for the Council's review. A copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission is also attached. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD MARC W. MYERS Assist t ity Manager Associate Planner Attachments: taff Report tothePlanningCommission Resolution Ordinance Excerpt of October 7, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Site Plan Page 2 � 0 �I.COP,+ �f,WOOR�. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Council Review: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: 22 Corporate Plaza The Irvine Company (applicant) September 23, 1999 3 Marc Myers (949) 644 -3210 Automatic PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: A request for PC Text Amendments to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring approximately 45,000 square feet of existing entitlement from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center in conjunction with the construction of a new office building. The project involves the following actions: • a finding that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the General Plan based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, and • an amendment to increase the permitted square footage in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and reduce the permitted square footage in the Fashion Island Planned Community. 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 99-.finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained In the General Plan; and • Adopt Resolution 99 recommending approval of Amendment No. 889. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 19, Block 93 of Irvine's Subdivision ZONE: PC (Corporate Plaza Planned Community) OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. Office uses are permitted within this designation. The Land Use Element currently allows 432,320 square feet of floor area in Corporate Plaza Planned Community. The additional area of the proposed office building 7 will increase the square footage in Block O of Newport Center above that which is allocated by the Land Use Element. The applicant is therefore proposing to transfer . development entitlement from the various sites in Newport Center to Block O. The General Plan provides for transfers of entitlement within the Newport Center Statistical Area. 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. 0 Amendment No 889 Octoba 7. 1999 Pag"- i 0 VICINITY MAP Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: Current Development: The project site is located in Corporate plaza Planned Community which is developed with a number of one and two story office buildings and related surface level parking. To the north: Are office buildings and the Edward's theater complex. 4§4 Across Avocado Avenue is the Newport Beach Central Library and Corona Del Mar Plaza. To the south: y.. �. To the west: Across Newport Center Drive is Corporate Plaza West where additional office buildings are under construction. - -- ��- � any _ �;, _,.:�, •` , � ..:..•.:..:..,.. • f}• ' `vim i ` ^ice' i l�s'':.::• ra' 1 u i t' .l it J', 1 10 w Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: Current Development: The project site is located in Corporate plaza Planned Community which is developed with a number of one and two story office buildings and related surface level parking. To the north: Are office buildings and the Edward's theater complex. To the east: Across Avocado Avenue is the Newport Beach Central Library and Corona Del Mar Plaza. To the south: Across East Coast Highway is a commercial office building and the Irvine Terrace residential community. To the west: Across Newport Center Drive is Corporate Plaza West where additional office buildings are under construction. Background The Newport Center area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The General Plan Land Use Element allocates development in Newport Center on a block -by -block basis. However, the Land Use Element further provides that transfers of development rights in Newport Center are permitted subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and that the transfer will not result in any adverse tr affic impacts. Amnd=nt No 889 October 7, 1999 Page, 1J A recent audit of the building permits issued since 1979, measured against the entitlements granted since then, shows that there may be approximately 30,000 square feet of unused entitlement throughout Newport Center. The Irvine Company initially requested that the remaining square footage associated with all of its property in Newport Center be transferred to Corporate Plaza. However, proper documentation which shows the exact locations of the unused office entitlement requires further detailed research that would delay action on the request. Therefore the applicant has decided to proceed with the application by transferring the majority of the entitlement from Fashion Island, which clearly has more than 30,000 square feet of unused entitlement. In addition, originally the application also included a request to approve a use permit to modify or waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces required for the construction of an additional 45,000 square feet of office space. Upon further analysis, it was determined that the parking provided in conjunction with the proposed project, combined with the restriping of a portion of the existing parking lot, will meet the required number of parking spaces on site. Therefore, the modification or waiver of parking spaces is no longer included in the request. A letter from the traffic consultant is attached for the Commission's review. Analysis The application involves a request to amend the Corporate Plaza and Fashion Island Planned Community Texts in association with a transfer of development rights as provided for in the Land Use Element. Currently, the Land Use Element and the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Regulations limit the amount of square footage entitlement within Block O of Newport Center to 432,320 square feet. The transfer will increase Corporate Plaza's maximum gross floor area entitlement to 477,320 square feet by utilizing 44,637 square feet of regional retail square footage from Fashion Island. This amount is necessary to offset the difference in peak hour trip generation rates between regional retail and office use square footage (38,480). The balance of 6,520 square feet will be transferred from Block 600. This is office square footage remaining from the transfer associated with the establishment of the Twin Palms restauraunt. Should the Planning Commission approve this General Plan transfer, Block 600 will be left with no development rights and Fashion Island's development rights will be reduced accordingly. This transfer will accommodate the construction of a 42,000 square foot office building in Corporate Plaza, as well as provide flexibility for future minor update remodeling of the existing buildings in Corporate Plaza. The site of the proposed 42,000 square foot office building is Building Pad 22 in Corporate Plaza, which is the last vacant parcel in the Planned Community. Other than the addition and deletion of square footage, there are no other standards or areas of the Planned Community regulations proposed for modification. The office building complies with all other Planned Community and Zoning Code requirements. Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 / Page,4- �P General Plan Consistency for Transfer of Entitlement The adopted limits for Newport Center (Statistical Area L1) Block O of the Land Use Element includes only a description of the existing development in the block, and do not provide for further growth at this time. However, transfer of development rights within Newport Center may be approved with the finding that the amendment is consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. 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 traffic analysis was conducted. This analysis showed the proposed transfer of development rights within Newport Center and the proposed additional office development would not result in significant changes to long range traffic service levels. Although the origin of the square footage has changed from the original proposal, the City Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that the analysis remains valid since there would be no greater impact resulting from the square footage transfer from Fashion Island than from other areas in Newport Center. Therefore, approval of this transfer would be consistent with this policy. 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 Corporate Plaza Planned Community is an existing, well established corporate office park seeking to expand its capabilities. Based on the traffic analysis and parking demand analysis discussed later in this report, adequate on -site parking is available in Corporate Plaza for the existing uses and proposed building. However, the applicant intends to comply with the parking requirements set forth in the PC regulations. In addition, based on the traffic analysis, the proposed project and the transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Therefore, the transfer of development rights within Newport Center to Corporate Plaza 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 location of the proposed office building is in Block O of Newport Center, known as Corporate Plaza, which contains a mixture of administrative and financial commercial developments. The existing development is a combination of single story and low -rise office buildings. The proposed building will maintain an overall height of approximately 32 feet, which is within the height limit established by the Planned Community regulations and the height limit established by the sight plane map in the PC regulations. The proposed architectural style, finish and color will be similar to the existing development, and therefore is in keeping with the general character of the area. The new building is within the existing planned community on an established, planned site, will be developed on the interior of the block, and will be integrated into the existing site development. Additionally, the location of the new structure will not adversely affect natural resources nor will it Amendment No 889 octoba 7.1999 Pages I impact environmentally sensitive habitat, because it is in an urbanized area. The proposed transfer therefore meets the intent of General Plan Policy D. 0 General Plan Policy F provides for suitable and adequate development standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and other development standards to ensure that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The City has adopted development standards in the Planned Community District Regulations which are intended to insure that new and existing projects are compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed office building project conforms to all of the development standards of the Planned Community District including landscape requirements, height, setbacks, lot coverage and parking. The proposed transfer is consistent with the requirements of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and therefore, meets the intent of General Plan Policy F. 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 additional professional and business office space. Professional and business office uses in Corporate Plaza are an integral part of an important commercial district in the City, Newport Center. It is the opinion of staff that development of an additional office building will improve'the prosperity of Corporate Plaza and the overall Newport Center area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the area. Therefore, the transfer meets the intent of General Plan Policy L. Traffic Assessment 0 A traffic impact analysis was conducted to determine whether or not the transfer of development rights associated with proposed project would result in any adverse traffic impacts. Prior to knowing that the origin of the transfer would change, the square footage proposed to be transferred to the project site was tested using the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) process to determine if the resulting trip generation, when distributed to the surrounding roadway system, would result in impacts requiring mitigation with the implementation of the transferred square footage. In addition, detemvnation of a multiplier and a comparative analysis was also prepared to identify any impacts associated with converting Fashion Island regional retail square footage into office use square footage. The multiplier was determined based on dividing the office PM peak hour generation figure by the retail generation factor for the PM peak hour. Application of the multiplier resulted in the need to transfer 44,637 square feet of Fashion Island regional retail to offset the 38,480 square feet of office entitlement needed in Corporate Plaza. The traffic study analyzes the impact of the proposed entitlement transfer on the peak hour traffic and circulation system projected to be generated by the total project in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy L -18. The City Traffic Engineer identified six intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified in Table 5 on Page 5 of the attached traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the transfer associated with the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified, and concluded that no mitigation is required to implement the transfer of square footage to Corporate Plaza because no significant differences in Amendment No 889 Ombx 7. 1999 Pago4— traffic impact were identified in the conversion of retail to office square footage and the relocation of development. However, since the origin of the transfer changed since the time of the analysis further review was necessary. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the report and has indicated that the traffic analysis conducted is still valid (memo attached), because the same traffic implications in and around Newport Center would occur from development transfers, regardless of the location origin. It should also be noted that the square footage transferred from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza was previously analyzed in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 94 -2 (B) (Fashion Island expansion). Since no significant differences in traffic impact were identified in transferring square footage from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza, the City Traffic Engineer determined that it is not necessary to reevaluate square footage which has already been subject to the TPO. Additionally, a letter from the traffic consultant (attached) finds the revised transfer origin to be less of an impact from a TPO perspective than the previous approach. Since the proposed transfer of 44,637 square feet (38,480) of entitlement will not have a significant impact, it could be found consistent with the intent of the General Plan. The Planned Community Text Amendments are intended to implement the policies and development limitations of the General Plan. Should the Planning Commission determine that 'the transfer of development rights within Newport Center is appropriate in this case, the related PC text amendments would be the implementation of the policies and intent of the General Plan. . Parkins The PC regulations require off -street parking be provided on the site of the use served, or on a common parking area in accordance with the off -street parking requirements. The parking in Corporate Plaza is provided on the basis of pool parking to accommodate the parking needs of the site. The parking requitement is based on ratios of parking spaces to increments of net floor area. However, for pools based on more than 425,000 square feet of net floor area, the Planning Commission may modify the parking formula by use permit, based on a demonstrated formula. Plans for the proposed office building consist of 42,000 gross square feet, which is projected to net at approximately 39,907 square feet for parking purposes. There are no current plans for the additional entitlement increment of 3,000 gross square feet; however, it is anticipated to be used for future minor remodeling modifications throughout the Corporate Plaza area. The proposed building will increase the overall net floor area provided in Corporate Plaza Planned Community from 408,365 to 448,272 square feet. Currently, 1,448 parking spaces are provided on the Corporate Plaza site. The project is proposing 113 additional parking spaces in conjunction with the office building. In addition, a portion of the existing parking lot will be restriped to provide 7 additional spaces. The current number of spaces together with the 120 additional spaces, results in a new total of 1,568 spaces, a surplus of 1 space. The remaining 3,000 square feet of unused entitlement requires 9 additional parking spaces. As mentioned previously, there are no plans for this square footage currently; however, additional parking must be provided on site in order to develop the remaining entitlement. Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page'l Vehicular Access and On -Site Circulation The proposed on -site circulation for the proposed office building is illustrated on the Parking Site Plan (Exhibit 1, of the attached traffic study). The proposed surface level parking lot will provide the primary parking demands of the proposed building. However, Corporate Plaza Planned Community provides parking in a pool concept which provides parking at all locations for all uses on site. The ingress /egress to said parking area is provided from Corporate Plaza Drive, which is internal to the planned community, extending between East Coast Highway and Farallon Drive, and Newport Center Drive and Avocado Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the on -site circulation and does not anticipate any problems. Building Height The height of the proposed building will comply with the requirements of the planned community district regulations. The regulations limit all buildings in Corporate Plaza to a maximum height of 32 feet, except for Building 22, which shall be permitted up to the limit established by the sight plane and the extension of the sight plane northerly to Farallon Drive and southerly to Pacific Coast Highway. The sight plane analysis is in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community text regulations. The sight plane analysis shows a permitted building height of approximately 40 feet above grade. The proposed two -story building is 32 feet high. Therefore the building is consistent with the height and sight plane requirements of the PC District regulations. Lighting ri The existing corporate office park provides exterior parking lot lighting throughout the site. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing site lighting configuration. However, additional exterior light sources are proposed in conjunction with the surface level parking lot. To minimize potential impacts the parking lot lighting may have on the surrounding neighbors, a mitigation measure is included which requires the lighting associated with the office building and associated parking lot to be directed and shielded so that light glare and spillage does not extend beyond the property lines. Recommendations The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows the transfer of development rights in Newport Center upon a finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Staff is of the opinion that the transfer of entitlement in conjunction with the proposed office building and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained could be found consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located because adverse traffic impacts are not anticipated in association with the project and adequate parking is provided. The parking requirement and demand of the site can be adequately met by the parking provided by the reciprocal pool of parking for Corporate Amendment No 889 Octobe 7. [999 Paged- Plaza. Issues related to access and site circulation have been addressed by the parking demand and traffic study and in the conditions of approval. In addition, suitable and adequate development standards are in place so the project will not affect public views or unique natural resources, and the additional office space will add to the prosperity of Newport Center. Additionally, due to the highly developed character of the surrounding land uses which include a combination of low rise support structures and several other multi -story high rise buildings, the development will not impact the character of the existing development. Because the proposed office building will be integrated into the existing office park site development and will comply with the objectives of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and the City's Zoning Code it is physically compatible with the existing surrounding development. Therefore, approval of the transfer of entitlement is consistent with the City's land use policies. Based on the traffic analysis performed for this project, the ICU values during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours were maintained from the existing plus growth plus committed project conditions and did not exceed the City's adopted criteria of a 0.90 LOS (Level of Service D). Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will have a nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified and is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the intent of the General Plan. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project, the actions, findings and mitigation measures set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial since the transfer of entitlement is consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Additionally, the proposed office building conforms to the requirements of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District regulations and Title 20 of the Municipal Code 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: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director l�Gl_ Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit N' v Memo from City Traffic Engineer Letter &oral Consultant regarding Traffic Assessment Letter from Consultant regarding Parking Analysis Responses to Comments Letter in Response to Negative Declaration Letter in Response to Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations MUSERSTLN%SHAREDII PIANCONnt 999\I O-07L?2CoryPIz3W889tpt Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page' lI EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Amendment No. 889 A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings: 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and 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: 1. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive. dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 0 Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page Vr 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. 4. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. S. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. 6. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site. 7. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light 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 use and 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 mitigation measure. B. Adopt Resolution No. (attached), finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan. C. Amendment No. 889: Adopt Resolution No. (attached), recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment No. 889. Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 PageIr I� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 889 FOR A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (SQUARE FOOTAGE) WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, The Irvine Company requests a transfer of development rights from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center to Corporate Plaza Planned Community; and WHEREAS, in the General Plan Land Use Element the ability to transfer development rights in Newport Center is permitted with the findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer of development rights is consistent with General Plan Policy B, since the transfer is within Newport Center and the proposed additional office development would not result in significant changes to the long range traffic service levels; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy C, since adequate on -site parking is available in Corporate Plaza for the existing uses and proposed building; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect public views because it is within the height limit and sight plane requirements established by the Planned Page 3 Community regulations, nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat since it is in an 0 urbanized area; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy F, because the project conforms to all development standards including landscape requirements, height, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking, and is consistent with the requirements of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the propose transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy L, since development of an additional office building will improve the prosperity of the overall Newport Center area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the Corporate Plaza; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan and will not result in any 0 adverse traffic impacts based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project; 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 not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding the transfer of development rights within Newport Center, at which time Amendment No. 889 to the Corporate Plaza and Fashion Island Planned Community Texts was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan; and Page 4 1 S NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that the transfer of development rights within Newport Center consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby direct City staff to revise and update the data for Statistical Area LI, Newport Center, of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the transfer of development rights from Fashion Island and Block 600 to Block O- Corporate Plaza. ADOPTED this 25`h day of October 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MA ATTEST: City Clerk Page )(V 0 Ll ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 889 FOR A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY AND BLOCK 600 OF NEWPORT CENTER TO CORPORATE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT. (AMENDMENT NO. 889) WHEREAS, on October 7, 1999, 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, on October 25, 1999, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment at which time amendments to the Fashion Island and Corporate Plaza Community District Regulations were discussed and determined to be in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment does not alter the professional office character of the subject property or the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District as a whole; and the proposed amendment to transfer entitlement from Newport Center to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District is consistent with the General Plan; 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 amendment to the land use limitations of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District, to increase the permitted amount of development by 45,000 square feet, will apply only to the property within the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Fashion Island Planned Community District, to decrease the permitted amount of development by 44,637 square feet, will apply only to the property within the Fashion Island Planned Community and to Page decrease the permitted amount of development by 6,520 square feet, will apply only to the property within Block 600 of Newport Center. 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Approve Amendment No. 889 to transfer 44,637 square feet of development rights from Fashion Island Planned Community to offset the difference in peak hour trip generation rates between regional retail and office use square footage (38,480 sq. ft.), and to transfer 6,520 square feet from Block 600 of Newport Center to Corporate Plaza, and establish the permitted level of development for Corporate Plaza Planned Community at 477,320 gross square feet; and that the additional development authorized by this action shall be limited to new construction within the Corporate Plaza Planned Community only. SECTION 2: 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 October 25, 1999, and adopted on the 8th day of November, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MA ATTEST: City Clerk Pagwl 19 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7,1999 SUBJECT: 22 Corporate Plaza The Irvine Company (applicant) Accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project: and Adopt Resolution 1505, finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan: and Adopt Resolution 1506, recommending approval of Amendment No. 889. A request for PC Text Amendments to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring approximately 45,000 square feet of existing entitlement from Fashion Island and Block 600 of Newport Center in conjunction with the construction of a new office building. The project involves the following actions: • a finding that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the General Plan based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, and • an amendment to increase the permitted square footage in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and reduce the permitted square footage in the Fashion Island Planned Community. Associate Planner Marc Myers noted the following: • Trip generations of a professional office are different than those of the regional retail commercial, the use of a multiplier resulted in a comparative square footage amount based on trip generation. • In order to offset the difference in the trip rates between the regional retail commercial and the professional office, it is necessary to transfer 44,637 square feet from Fashion Island in order to provide the balance of 38, 480 square feet of office entitlement which is needed in Corporate Plaza. • Based on the findings of the traffic analysis the transfer of the prepared squarefootage will not result in any adverse impacts.. Planning Director Patricia Temple noted that she was contacted by a member of the communitywho discussed certain concerns relating to the lighting of the building and the new parking area of the project. Of particular concern was the magnitude of the lighting that may be visible to surrounding residential uses. As a result, additional language was developed and is to be added as number 7 mitigation measure of the initial study and recommended action. (She then proceeded to pass out a draft) Continuing, she stated that this additional language would provide for further review of the actual level of illumination subsequent to the installation of the lighting program. The language is proposed to read, 'The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North 14 INDEX Item No. 3 A 889 Approved 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . October 7, 1999 INDEX America." She then explained the example would provide guidelines within which a set of adjustments could occur. Certain members of the community have requested, and the applicant has also agreed to, an additional provision beyond comparing these illuminating standards. That would be a second peramiter, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding residential uses. The Planning Commission needs to considerthese under the following concerns: • It has a broad and undefined standard of an unacceptable negative impact and there is no real criteria beyond the actual criteria in the exhibit upon which the staff could actually make such a determination. • A compensating factor is that the actual decision is left in the hands of the Planning Director and that even should a local community member not agree with that determination, the Director's decision would be the over- riding factor. These have been reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney who has expressed some concerns, but to the extent that the applicant is agreeable to the rather broad discretion on the part of the Planning Director, sees no legal functional problem with it. Staff would be comfortable with the addition of the paragraph noting lighting sources on both the building and the new parking areas. Commissioner KranAey asked if there was an appeal process in the case of a disagreement. He was answered that Title 20 of the Municipal Code provides that any decision of the Planning Director in terms of reading or interpreting the intent of the Code can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ashley asked about the reduction of the entitlement from Block 600 and Fashion Island. Fashion Island is intending to add 200.000 square feet more of Floor area under another proposed development. Is it one thing to give up 44,000 and then come back and ask for an additional 200,000? Ms. Temple noted that this particular consideration is done under the provisions of the Land Use Element that allows a fairly liberal framework within which development rights may be transferred. There are fairly discreet parameters relating to traffic service and the approval of the City in order to accomplish these transfers. The Planning Commission and the community are aware that there is another request on the table, however, that is not under consideration at this time and it is unknown whether it will be approved or not. It is possible, through subsequent action, that the property owner may achieve a compensating increase in entitlement for development that was transferred in this particular request, but, there is no guarantee and the property owner is aware of that. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman of The Irvine Company, on behalf of the company stated that 15 f 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 they have read and accept all of the findings and conditions of approval and appreciate the staff work done in preparation of this report. She then introduced Jeff Larson, project architect from McLaren - Vasquez Architects who designed Buildings 24 and 26 in Corporate Plaza and who is doing this design. He has presented pictures of the existing buildings to indicate what the new buildings will look like because a consistencywill be maintained in keeping with the high quality, low rising buildings that exist there. Also, Mike Erickson traffic engineer on the project who has worked on the traffic analysis and parking, has background information should you have any questions in that regard. We have met with our tenants regarding this proposal and our property manager, Kelly Nyer, has indicated that there are no concerns on the part of the tenants with regards to the addition of this last remaining building site in Corporate Plaza. We have also met with the community in order to ensure that they understand that The Irvine Company is committed to meeting all the requirements in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Zoning Regulations and to be consistent with the site plane requirement that protects the views from Harbor View Hills. In addition, we have spent a lot of time on lighting issues with the neighbors with regard to Corona del Mar Plaza and certainly in regards to this project. The condition that Ms. Temple has proposed for additional lighting was subject to last minute discussion regarding possible additional language that will be presented by Debra Allen and I would like to indicate that we will be open to, and willing to, accept that additional language. I would like to reserve any right to additional comments upon the conclusion of public testimony. We would appreciate your favorable consideration of this request so that The Irvine Company may be able to respond to the market forces that are in place that allow us to build some new office buildings to respond to keeping tenants and businesses in Newport Beach. Chairperson Selich noted one comment in Mr. Allen's letter. "Why the need for a density transfer? if Corporate Plaza was built as originally proposed they wouldn't need a density transfer:' Ms. Hoffman explained that at the time The Irvine Company was ready to proceed with the two newest buildings that are there, Buildings 24 and 26, we recognized that Corporate Plaza would allow the use of the square footage that had been in the original zoning, without utilizing this one pad. This was different than had originally been anticipated. We knew that additional square footage would require a zone change. We thought there would be a good opportunityto do that if we could meet the requirements of the General Plan and we could provide adequate parking and insure adequate circulation. We went forward to add that square footage since the demand exists. It is importantto use our land as effectivelyas possible. Barry Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way stated that The Irvine Company has met with the Harbor View Hills Community Association and explained and answered the concerns noted in his letter included in the staff report. He explained that there 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 has been an agreement reached about the lighting and noted that the Association has no objection to the project. He thanked staff for their help as well as The Irvine Company in addressingthe concerns of the Association. Debra Allen, 1021 Whitesails Way noted that the language version Ms. Hoffman referred to is the longer version of the additional condition that was read by Ms. Temple. Our reason for putting in, "....or if in the opinion of the Planning Director the illumination creates an unacceptable, negative impact on the surrounding residential uses" is for two reasons: • It happened at the last minute and was hard to understand • We have had a good working relationship both with the company and the department and we are confident that the City is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. We understand that it is up to the City to decide what is the appropriate amount of lighting and there are plentyof safeguards in the City system for that to proceed in an appropriate manner. I do not envision any kind of dispute, however, it is nice to know that we can go to the Planning Department and have issues resolved. I would appreciate it if you would pass the project with the entire condition in it. This project is conditioned well. BJ Johnson, 23 Canyon Crest Drive stated that she works at 23 Corporate Plaza and noted there is not adequate parking for her clients or the building clients. There is limited parking now and parking for this new building needs to be adjusted. Marc Myers answered that the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations apply a scaled ratio of parking requirements based upon the net square footage of the buildings therein. Upon further review, the applicant was initially planning to request a waiver of up to seven parking spaces, but they were able to accommodate re- stripping which would add the additional spaces plus the new building requirements. They are in compliance with the Planned Community District Regulation requirements for parking. With this new building there will be sufficient parking based on the parking analysis that was prepared for the project. Ms. Temple added that on handwritten page 65 there is the parking utilization percentages based upon actual parking surveys. The parking areas in closest relationship to 23 Corporate Plaza do show a regular availability of parking, both in Lot E and C which are in close proximity to that area. Lot B which may be one of the parking areas that may be problematic is more utilized than the other two. Parking problems are not necessarily related to the number of parking spaces, but how close people prefer to park to the building. Mr. Edmonston, at Commission inquiry, stated that the parking around Corporate Plaza does experience a range of utilization. It is a function of location as well as the actual occupancy of the building. The full amount of INDEX 0 17 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 parking as required by code is being provided. INDEX Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company noted that it is pool parking and the proximity and how for people want to walk is a consideration. However, we have done a couple of things with regard to pad 22 in terms of how we oriented the building and the fact that the pad area restricts the amount of parking in parking area b and that will be improved and increased. Because it functions as pool parking, the users of building 23 will actually have improved parking to the south of the building in terms of accessibility. The way we have designed the building to make the parking convenient to the greatest number of users, not just the building we are building, is important and has been taken into serious consideration. Additionally, we did a further parking evaluation for the percentage of parking usage in Corporate Plaza and Corona del Mar Plaza at peak times. What happens is as parking gets heavier in Corona del Mar Plaza, we can shift users over to Corporate Plaza at nighttime when the parking demands go down. In terms of evaluating when that happens, they are very compatible. During the daytime, building 23 has great uses, as there is a lot of clients and activity. That is the way we like to have it. The design of the proposed project will contribute to the solution. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve and accept the Negative Declaration as adequate for approval of the project; and adopt Resolution 1505, finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan; and adopt Resolution 1506, recommending approval of Amendment No. 889; with the inclusion of a supplement to mitigation measure number 7. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: None Absent: Fuller, Hoglund Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Amendment No. 889 A. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Findings An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act 18 �3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 INDEX (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and 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 thatwould 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 project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. 2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality. Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. 4. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any 19 �a City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1999 INDEX E time on Sundays and holidays. 5. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. 6. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site. 7. Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light 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 use and 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 mitigation measure. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources on the building and in the new parking areas upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated, based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, N in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative Impact on surrounding residential uses. B. Adopt Resolution No.1505 (attached), finding the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan. C. Amendment No. 889: Adopt Resolution No. 1506 (attached), recommendingto the City Council adoption of Amendment No. 889. yes 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT FOR TRANSFER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, in the General Plan Land Use Element the ability to transfer development rights in Newport Center is permitted with the findings that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer of development rights is consistent with General Plan Policy-B, since the transfer is within Newport Center and the proposed additional office development would not result in significant changes to the long range traffic service levels; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy C, since adequate on -site parking is available in Corporate Plaza for the existing uses and proposed building; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy D, since the location of the new structure will not adversely affect public ILI Amendment No 889 October 7, 1999 Page.t2' of � views because it is within the height limit and sight plane requirements established by the Planned Community regulations, nor will it impact environmentally sensitive habitat; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy F, because the project conforms to all development standards including landscape requirements, height, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking, and is consistent with the requirements of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the propose transfer is consistent with General Plan Policy L, since development of an additional office building will improve the prosperity of the overall Newport Center area by increasing the availability of quality office space in the Corporate Plaza; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the transfer of development rights is consistent with the standards for transfer contained in the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing regarding a transfer of development rights within Newport Center, at which time Amendment No. 889 to the Corporate Plaza and Fashion Island Planned Community Texts was discussed and determined to be consistent with the goals and policies 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 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 by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted; and Amendment No 889 October 7, 1999 Page.1 Al NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that the transfer of development rights within Newport i Center consistent with the intent of the General Plan; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby grant City staff the authority to revise and update the data for Statistical Area Ll, Newport Center, of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the transfer of development rights from Fashion Island and Block 600 to Block O- Corporate Plaza. ADOPTED this 7th day of October 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BY: Edward Selich, Chairman BY: Thomas J. Ashley, Secretary L J Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page a 8' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT NO. .889 TO REFLECT A TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT OF 44,637 SQUARE FEET FROM FASHION ISLAND PLANNED COMMUNITY AND 6,520 SQUARE FEET FROM BLOCK 600 TO CORPORATE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT. (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 889) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Section 20.94.020 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 transfer entitlement to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District is consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 7, 1999, at which time the amendments to the Fashion Island and Corporate Plaza Community District Regulations was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' designation of the Newport Beach General Plan, since the proposed amendment does not alter the professional office character of the subject property or the Corporate Plaza 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 t� Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page y WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District, to increase the permitted amount of development by 45,000 square feet, will apply only to the property within the Corporate Plaza Planned Community, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the land use limitations of the Fashion Island Planned Community District, to decrease the permitted amount of development by 44,637 square feet, will apply only to the property within the Fashion Island Planned Community. 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. 889 to transfer 44,637 square feet of development right from Fashion Island and 6,520 square feet from Block 600 to Corporate Plaza, and establish the permitted level of development for Corporate Plaza Planned Community at 477,320 gross square feet. IY& M ADOPTED this 7h day of October 1999, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Richard Fuller, Secretary AYES: ABSENT: 0 ICJ Amendment No 889 October 7. 1999 Page-44' 3 a • Comments from Barry Allen, Municipal Affairs Officer, Harbor View Hills Community Association, in a letter dated September 14, 1999 to Marc Myers of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Comment 1: Transfers are allowed "only so long as the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan." In this case the area was identified as garden type two -story office buildings with greenbelt/park-like areas. This will eliminate the one area of "open" atmosphere and should not be allowed. It is not necessary that every square inch of property remaining in TIC'S possession in Newport Center be filled with a building, road or parking lot. Allowing this is not consistent with the General Plan. Response: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial' uses. Office uses are permitted within this designation. The Land Use Element allows transfers of development rights in Newport Center subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Staff is of the opinion that the transfer of entitlement in conjunction with the proposed office building and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained could be found consistent with the General Plan because adverse traffic impacts are not anticipated in association with the project and adequate parking is provided. The parking requirement and demand of the site can be adequately met by the parking provided on site. In addition, suitable and adequate development standards are in place so the project will not affect public views or unique natural resources, and the additional office space will add to the prosperity of Newport Center. Additionally, since the surrounding area is highly developed with a combination of low rise support structures and several other multi -story high rise buildings, the development will not impact the character of the existing development. Because the proposed office building will be integrated into the existing office park site development, and will comply with the objectives of the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and the City's Zoning Code, it is physically compatible with the existing surrounding development. Therefore, approval of the transfer of entitlement is consistent with the City's land use policies. Comment 2: Getting rid of an open area in this "former" park /garden office setting seems to be an impact that is more than "insignificant level' as page I1 of the report concludes. Response: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. While the project site is currently vacant, it was graded in the past in conjunction with the construction of Buildings 3, 4 and 7 in Corporate Plaza. The site is not utilized as a "park" or "garden" within the planned community. The site was rough graded in anticipation of future development, as allowed by the Corporate Plaza PC District Regulations. Other than the addition and deletion of square footage, there are no other standards or areas of the Planned Community regulations proposed for modification. The office building complies with all other Planned Community and Zoning Code requirements. so Comment 3: Why the need for a density transfer? If Corporate Plaza was built as originally proposed they wouldn't need a density transfer. Response: This transfer will accommodate the construction of a 42,000 square foot office building in Corporate Plaza, as well as provide flexibility for future minor remodeling of the existing buildings in Corporate Plaza. The Land Use Element of the General Plan allows transfers of development rights from other areas within Newport Center. The proposed transfer is consistent with past practices, which has allowed transfers in a variety of ways to utilize the entitlement within Newport Center. Comment 4: With the current talk about increasing densities in certain areas of Newport Center as a "long -range plan for the future", why transfer density from a place where, evidently, there is going to be consideration to increase densities? Response: The decision of the property owners to partake in the long -range plan for Newport Center was voluntary. The General Plan does not require property owners to participate in a plan initiated by the City. While a long -range plan for future development of Newport Center is currently underway, the amount of square footage proposed for transfer to Corporate Plaza with this project is minimal compared to the long -range plan. Comment 5: The parking study is seriously flawed for the buildings in the area of the proposed project. We have seen these parking studies in this area and they are wrong! Remember that all the employees of Corona Del Mar Plaza were to be able to park on -site. Look at the signs in Corona Del Mar Plaza telling people certain areas are only for parking for certain business (Bristol Farms). Who authorized that? Response: The property management company typically coordinates any specified assignment of parking. Such a designation of stalls is not unusual and does not violate any jurisdictional regulations. The parking study for the proposed project focused primarily on conditions in the vicinity of the project and, for context, also examined the current parking patterns for the entire Corporate Plaza project. This analysis focused on the middle to late morning and early to middle afternoon hours, as these are historically the peak hours of demand for office - related land uses. Since no significant problems were identified during the site assessments, no further assessments were made either in adjacent areas or for extended hours. This industry standard approach to the Parking analysis was also reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as being representative of critical parking conditions related to the proposed project. Continent 6: I didn't note in the parking study any indication that they had even looked at Corona Del Mar Plaza. rd be willing to bet that the people that were out there making this study might have just wandered over there during one of the day when the study was taking place. If they did I wonder why they didn't comment about the signs instructing people to park over in Corporate Plaza. Might have been an interesting comment in the report if they wanted to truly advise the City of the otp ential parking problems that might exist. &Z 3A • Response: As indicated previously, off -site observations were not made since the on -site assessments did not indicate a problem that needed further observation. Given standard use patterns in office complexes, it is not anticipated that the diversion of any overflow parking during the early evening hours would result in parking or operational problems for Corporate Plaza. In fact, the concept of shared parking in overflow conditions, when compatible, is an efficient means of appropriately meeting parking demand while minimizing the amount of empty parking lot space. 0 11 Comment 7: _There should be a request for increased parking in Corporate Plaza! After all Corona Del Mar Plaza is a TIC project and so is Corporate Plaza. If they can't supply the parking at Corona Del Mar Plaza they have to park somewhere and that is Corporate Plaza. Response: Originally the proposed project included a request to approve a use pemrit to modify or waive a portion of the required off -street parking spaces required for the construction of an office building. Upon further analysis, it was determined that the parking provided in conjunction with the proposed project, and with the restriping of a portion of the existing parking lot, the required number of parking spaces is able to be provided on site. Therefore, the modification or waiver of parking spaces is no longer included in the request. It is staffs understanding that the Irvine Company allows employees of Corona Del Mar Plaza to park in a designated area of Corporate Plaza (when needed) that has been identified as being compatible with the office parking pattern. This program was instituted to minimize impacts to retail customers and to adjacent areas. This is a private parking arrangement which the City is not involved. Comment 8: I have seen guards posted in the library parking lot to prevent use by Corona Del Mar Plaza visitors. Is that being paid for by the City? When I was at the library for a community meeting and all the parking was gone, it was suggested by the "guard" that I try "across the street " -IN CORPORATE PLAZA! Response: The City does not provide parking guards in Corona Del Mar Plaza. The shopping center is required to comply with the condition by which it was approved. Most likely, the shopping center are provides the parking guards to assure there are no undue impacts on parking for patrons of the library. Shared parking arrangements typically occur after regular business hours on one of the sites. In this case, it is likely that a shared parking arrangement exists with Corona Del Mar Plaza after 6:00 p.m., when there is minimal demand for office- related parking. This is a private parking arrangement which the City is not involved. Comment 9: On page 5 of the PARKING ANALYSIS they talk about buildings 4,6 and Ts parking requirements. It's interesting that the report concludes that some additional spaces could be added in some of the adjacent lots as they have lots of extra room. I'd suggest you go to parking lot A and then tell me how much extra room there is to comfortably maneuver your car as you drive around the area. -3- 33 Response. Lot "A" was found to be up to 85 percent utilized during some periods of the survey. Such findings indicate that the lot is nearly full from a functional standpoint. No functional problems or substandard aisle- widths were observed that would affect a driver's ability to traverse the parking lot. Parking demand for the proposed building is not anticipated to impact Lot "A "; instead, the new building and its parking are. oriented to be convenient to Lot "A" and it is anticipated that the parking spaces provided by the new building could help serve any unusual demand that occurs in Lot "A" as part of the overall common parking design. Comment 10: The PARKING REPORT concludes that even though the proposed parking is less than the City requires "the need to provide more parking places is not a realistic conclusion ". NOTE: Has anybody ever seen a report by Robert Bein - William Frost and Associates that didn't find that a proposed project was absolutely grand and wonderful as proposed and didn't need any modification from what was proposed by the developer? Makes you wonder about the veracity and validity of their conclusions, when you find that traffic and parking in Orange Count isn't just grand and wonderful and this particular organization has certainly prepared a lot of plans for projects that are existing in this County. Response: The parking analysis was conducted by RBF under the direction of the City staff and reflects careful professional preparation and review. Staff is comfortable that the facts are accurate. However, since it was determined that the parking provided in conjunction with the proposed project, and with the restriping of a portion of the existing parking lot, the required number of parking spaces is able to be provided on site, the modification or waiver of parking spaces is no longer included in the request. Comment 11: One other item that nobody seems to talk about in any of these traffic studies that I've read in the couple of years. Has anyone made the observation that there seemed to be a lot of larger vehicles on the road and in our parking then used to exist a few years ago? Shouldn't some study be made to determine whether the size of parking spaces now required by the City should be increased to take into consideration the larger size of the vehicles that seem to be utilizing our streets and parking areas? How many times have you confronted the situation of parking in a parking space and parking your vehicle entirely within the lines just like you're supposed to and noted that the vehicles on both sides of you are also parked "entirely in the lines" and then try and open your door so that you can comfortably get our of the car and especially try and open the rear door of a car and let the people try and get our of the rear of the car. I think maybe it's time that someone proposed that a study be made of the recommended size of parking spaces. Response: The dimensional requirements for parking lots is not established on a project by project basis. Instead, it is established through City design standards. The proposed layout meets all established City requirements and, it should be noted, that several years ago, the city eliminated the provision of smaller spaces for compact cars. There are no compact spaces within the project. -4- 0 3 `i Comment 12: It should be noted (see page 2 of PARKING ANALYSIS dated 8/18/99) that this is building will be the second largest building in all of Corporate Plaza (45,000 square feet). Therefore, its impacts will be greater than 17 of the already existing 18 buildings. The size does cause our Association concern because obviously the larger the building the larger the problem of light and glare issues. i Response: The size of a building is not directly proportional to light and/or glare effects. There are minimal City required lighting standards that must be met for security and safety purposes and the project will have to meet those City standards. The nighttime lighting for the proposed office building at 22 Corporate Plaza will be similar to the lighting associated with existing buildings in Corporate Plaza. The nighttime security and safety lighting for 22 Corporate Plaza will be the same as the lighting experienced by the existing buildings in Corporate Plaza. While the project will increase nighttime lighting in the area, the project lighting is not anticipated to be brighter than the existing lights between the project site and Harbor View Hills residences. In addition, to minimize potential impacts the parking lot lighting may have on the surrounding neighbors, a mitigation measure is included which requires the lighting associated with the office building and associated parking lot to be directed and shielded so that light glare and spillage does not extend beyond the property lines. Therefore, the lighting associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact residents of Harbor View Hills. Comment 13: TIC has been very cooperative in the past on lighting issues. The report, on page 12, discusses the effect of lighting on adjacent properties. Harbor View Hills homes is not adjacent but can be very adversely affected by night lighting that is not adequately directly and controlled. Our Association requests that if the project is even permitted that lighting requirements that do not adversely affect Harbor View Hills homes be a condition on the project. Response: A lighting plan for the project must be approved by the City. The lighting plan will be reviewed by the City to minimize lighting impacts to surrounding land uses and still meet minimum City required lighting requirements. While the approved lighting plan must meet City security and safety lighting requirements, the lighting effects of the project will not significantly impact area residents. Comment 14: The buildings are numbered. Does the absence of any buildings numbered 10, 11 and 21 indicate that TIC intends or plans to build three more buildings on the site? Response: The numbers associated with the buildings in Corporate Plaza are actual street addresses. Buildings. 10, 11 and 21 have been removed from the overall Corporate Plaza development plan. Building 22 is the last new building that would be implemented in Corporate Plaza according to all established plans. 5--9 1�5 NLANNIN6 Utt-AM I ivic IN CITY C);; KIPINIP ^F" 1-ZA%—>1 AM SEP 16 1999 PM 4t8� � 011111 &t1i2131�i818 HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BARRY L. ALLEN, MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS OFFICERS September 14, 1999 MARC MYERS Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Negative Declaration on Corporate Plaza Dear Mr. Myers: Our Homeowners Association received your Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration on September 13, 1999. That same Notice was published in the Daily Pilot on September 13, 1999. 1 am the municipal affairs officer of the Association. How short are our memories? When Corporate Plaza was conceived and pitched to the City as part of TIC's plan for Newport Center, it was represented to be a low density office area with meandering roads consisting of low density office buildings and expansive area of greenbelts (park like atmosphere). Well they have now paved and built over every open area and now want to build on the last one? OTransfers are allowed "only so long as the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan ". In this case the area was identified as garden type two -story office buildings with greenbelt/park -like areas. This will eliminate the one area of "open" atmosphere and should not be allowed. It is not necessary that every square inch of property remaining in TIC's possession in Newport Center be filled with a building, road or parking lot. Allowing this is pQ1 consistent with the General Plan. O1 Getting rid of an open area in this "former" park/garden office setting seems to bean impact that is more than "insignificant level" as page 11 of the report concludes. 0 Page 2 September 14, 1999 Re: Negative Declaration on Corporate Plaza O3 Why the need for a density transfer? If Corporate Plaza was built as originally proposed they wouldn't need a density transfer. O4 With the current talk about increasing densities in certain areas of Newport Center as a "long -range plan for the future", why transfer density from a place where, evidently, there is going to be consideration to increase densities? OThe parking study is seriously flawed for the buildings in the area of the proposed project. We have seen these parking studies in this area and they are wrongl Remember that all the employees of Corona Del Mar Plaza were to be able to park on site. Go to any business in the Plaza. AU the managers have instructed employees not to park in the Plaza because of the gross parking shortage. Sure walking is great exercise but look how they are stacking cars in Corona Del Mar Plaza on certain nights in the restaurant areas and note the valets are taking cars and people are being directed with to park "across the street" IN CORPORA'I� PLAZA. Therefore Corporate Plaza is already getting the large traffic and parking requirements from Corona Del Mar Plaza. Did the study consider that? Look at the signs in Corona Del Mar Plaza telling people certain areas are only for parking for certain businesses (Bristol Farms). Who authorized that? © I didn't note in the parking study any indication that they had even looked at Corona Del Mar Plaza. I'd be willing to bet that the people that were out there making this study might have just wandered over there during one of the days when the study was taking place. If they did I wonder why they didn't comment about the signs instructing people to park over in Corporate Plaza. Might have been an interesting comment in the report if they wanted to truly advise the City of the tential parking problems that might exist. Oj There should be .a request for increased parking in Corporate Plazal After all Corona Del Mar Plaza is a TIC project and so is Corporate Plaza. If they can't supply the parking at Corona Del Mar Plaza they have to park somewhere and that is Corporate Plaza. © 1 have seen guards posted in the library parking lot to prevent use by Corona Del Mar Plaza visitors. Is that being paid for by the City? When I was at the library for a community meeting and all the parking was gone, it was suggested by the "guard" that I try "across the street" - IN CORPORATE PLAZA! C� 37 Page 3 September 14, 1999 Re: Negative Declaration on Corporate Plaza O9 On page 5 of the PARKING ANALYSIS they talk about buildings 4, 6 and 7's parking requirements. It's interesting that the report concludes that some additional spaces could be added in some of the adjacent lots as they have lots of extra room. I'd suggest you go to parking lot A and then tell me how much extra room there is to comfortably maneuver your car as you drive around the area. 111 The PARKING REPORT concludes that even though the proposed parking is less than the City requires "the need to provide more parking places Is not a realistic conclusion ". NOTE: Has anybody ever seen a report by Robert Bein - William Frost and Associates that didn't find that a proposed project was absolutely grand and wonderful as proposed and didn't need any modification from what was proposed by the developer? Makes you wonder about the veracity and validity of their conclusions, when you find that traffic and parking in Orange County isn't just grand and wonderful and this particular organization has certainly prepared a lot of plans for projects that are existing in this County. 11 One other item that nobody seems to talk about in any of these traffic studies that I've read in the last couple of years. Has anyone made the observation that there seemed to be a lot of larger vehicles on the road and in our parking lots then used to exist a few years ago? Shouldn't some study be made to determine whether the size of parking spaces now required by the City should be increased to take into consideration the larger size of the vehicles that seem to be utilizing our . streets and parking areas? How many times have you confronted the situation of parking in a parking space and parkingyour vehicle entirely within the lines just like you're supposed to and noted that the vehicles on both sides of you are also parked "entirely in the lines" and then try and open your door so that you can comfortably get out of the car and especially try and open the rear door of a car and let the people try and get out of the rear of the car. I think maybe it's time that someone proposed that a study be made of the recommended size of parking spaces. ly It should be noted (see page 2 of PARKING ANALYSIS dated 8/18/99) that this building will be the second largest building in all of Corporate Plaza (45,000 square feet). Therefore, its impacts will be greater than 17 of the already existing 18 buildings. The size does cause our Association concern because obviously the larger the building the larger the problem of light and glare issues. 0 E 0 w Page 4 September 141 Re: 1999 Negative Declaration on Corporate Plaza 13 TIC has been very cooperative in the past on lighting issues. The report, on page 12, discusses the effect of lighting on adjacent properties. Harbor View Hills homes is not adjacent but can be very adversely affected by night lighting that is not adequately directly and controlled. Our Association requests that if the project is even permitted that lighting requirements that do not adversely affect Harbor View Hills homes be a condition on the project. lq Question - The buildings are numbered. Does the absence of any buildings numbered 10, 11 and 21 indicate that TIC intends or plans to build three more buildings on the site? Ve truly yours, BARRY L. ALLEN BLA:deu cc: Councilman John Noyes Edward Selich Chair of the Planning Commission ,te" 39 Comments from Debra Allen in a letter dated September 9,1999 to Marc Myers of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Comment 1: Page 6, Traffic Impacts: I believe this needs additional study due to the increase in traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of the enormous growth the area has. recently experienced. As the traffic on Avocado increases, this increases pressure on traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, which in tum increases the cut - through traffic on Harbor View Drive, through our adjacent Harbor View Hills residential community. Response: A traffic analysis was prepared for the project by RBF & Associates. The traffic analysis was reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The traffic study indicates that the transfer associated with the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified and, concluded that no mitigation is required to implement the transfer of square footage to Corporate Plaza, because no significant differences in traffic impact were identified in the conversion of retail to office square footage. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the report and has indicated that the traffic analysis conducted is still valid, because the same traffic implications in and around Newport Center would occur from development transfers, regardless of the location origin. The project is not anticipated to generate "cut- through traffic " -on Harbor View Drive, either directly or indirectly, through its incremental impact on MacArthur. Comment 2: Page 7, Parking -I believe the parking modification/waiver requested by The Irvine Company is unrealistic and short- sighted. Just look at the most recent waiver granted to The Irvine Company for parking requirements across the street at CDM Plaza (parking security guards required). I have and assume you have also heard many complaints from the tenants in the Wells Fargo Bank complex on Avocado that their parking lot is used by CDM Plaza customers and that center is far from fully occupied. Response: The application originally included a request to approve a use permit to modify or waive a portion of the required off -street parking spaces required for the construction of an additional 45,000 square feet of office space. Upon further analysis, it was determined that with the parking provided in conjunction with the proposed project, and restriping a portion of the existing parking lot, the required number of parking spaces are able to be provided on site. Therefore, the modification or waiver of parking spaces is no longer included in the request. Both the Corona del Mar Plaza and Corporate Plaza provide the required number of parking spaces. To staffs knowledge, there have been no complaints regarding parking in Corporate Plaza after regular business hours. Comment 3: Page 11, 12, Aesthetics- This should include a specific "condition" that the project will comply with the long - established Newport Center Sight Plain Ordinance. -1- to Response: The applicant has indicted, and the conceptual plans submitted show that they intend to comply with the height and sight plane requirements in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations. Comment 4: Page 12, Mitigation Measure No. 7 -This deals with the lighting conditions. It should be more specific and allow for public review of the lighting plan to protect the night light views of Harbor View Hills and other existing residential properties uphill of the proposed project. Response: The existing corporate office park provides exterior parking lot lighting throughout the site. The lighting plan for the project would be approved administratively by the Planning Department. The lighting plan for 22 Corporate Plaza is anticipated to be similar to the existing lighting plans for other buildings in Corporate Plaza. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing site lighting configuration. However, additional exterior light sources are proposed in conjunction with the surface level parking lot. To minimize potential impacts the parking lot lighting may have on the surrounding neighbors, a mitigation measure is included which requires the lighting associated with the office building and associated parking lot to be directed and shielded so that light glare and spillage does not extend beyond the property lines. This will mitigate any significant lighting effects by the project on surrounding land uses to insignificant levels. The lighting for 22 Corporate Plaza is not anticipated to significantly impact adjacent and surrounding commercial or residential uses. . In addition, there are existing buildings between the proposed project site and residences of Harbor View, including buildings 8 and 9 in Corporate Plaza and the Newport Beach Public Library. In addition Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard also exist between the proposed project and the Harbor View residents. It is not anticipated that interior or exterior lights associated with 22 Corporate Plaza would significantly impact residents of Harbor View. 0 Additionally, the Irvine Company has indicated they are willing to review the lighting plans with Harbor View Hills Community Association. 5A y1 DEBRA ALLEN 1021 White Sails Way Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 (Home) (714) 644 -9264 (Office) (714),558-091 September 9. 1999 MARC MYERS Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Corporate Plaza Transfer of Entitlement Dear Mr. Myers: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTh1ENT CITY Ot: N= Vfv!r^P7 CrA.;H AM SEP 10 1999 PM 71 a 19110111112111213141516 I received this Negative Declaration regarding the above - captioned project within days of receiving the City's Notice of Preparation of E1R for the Newport Center Long -Range Plan. The Corporate Plaza Transfer of Entitlement project, proposes to transfer various commercial and office entitlements throughout Newport Center into an area that recently has experienced heavy growth and increased congestion from the opening of Irvine Company projects including over 300,000 square feet of office and commercial uses in CDM Plaza and the office complex on Avocado. This density transfer proposal should be considered as part of the long range -plan shouldn't it? Why the rush to piecemeal planning? If. the City wants public consideration of a Newport Center long -range plan, I believe it should restrain itself from this piecemeal approach. If the project goes forward I have the following specific comments on the Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations: O1 page 6. Traffic Impacts: I believe this needs additional study due to the increase in traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of the enormous growth the area has recently experienced. As the traffic on Avocado increases, this increases pressure on traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, which in turn increases the cut - through traffic on Harbor View Drive, through our adjacent Harbor View Hills residential community. is 0 Page 2 September 9, 1999 Re: Corporate Plaza Transfer of Entitlement O2 Page 7. parking: I believe the parking modification /waiver requested by The Irvine Company is unrealistic and short - sighted. Just look at the most recent waiver granted to The Irvine Company for parking requirements across the street at CDM Plaza (parking security guards required!) I have and assume you have also heard many complaints from the tenants in the Wells Fargo Bank complex on Avocado that their parking lot is used by CDM Plaza customers and that center is far from fully occupied. O3 Page 11, 12, Aesthetics: This should include a specific "condition" that the project will comply with the long- established Newport Center Sight Plain Ordinance. O4 Rage 12, Mitigation Measure No. 7: This deals with the lighting conditions. It should be more specific and allow for public review of the lighting plan to protect the night light views of Harbor View Hills and other existing residential properties uphill of the proposed project. 0 Thank you for offering me the opportunity to comment on this project. DEA:deu cc: Mayor Dennis O'Neil Councilman John Noyes Ed Selich Chair of the Planning Commission Very truly yours, { p<---- .--- - .._. i" DEBRA E. ALLEN 1413 MEMORANDUM October 1, 1999 TO: Marc Myers Associate Planner FROM: Rich Edmonston Transportation & Development Services Manager SUBJECT: Corporate Plaza Transfer Traffic Analysis Mike Erickson's letter dated September 30, 1999 on the above topic has been reviewed. I am in concurrence that the revised approach of transferring a greater percentage to Corporate Plaza from Fashion Island will result in less traffic impact than identified in his report dated August 18, 1999. That report demonstrated that the proposed project did not result in unsatisfactory traffic conditions at any of our key intersections. The project as proposed clearly satisfies the Traffic Phasing Ordinance without any traffic mitigation requirement. 0 0 `{ q E LJ ROBERT REIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS September 30, 1999 Ms. Patty Temple Planning Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVEi) BY PLANNING DEPARTh7ENT CITY C);: N17VVvr:G ; CE„ H AM SEP 3 0 1999 JN 10- 034970.001 PM 71819i101ZZIZaZI�13141u18 RE: Corporate Plaza Transfer Traffic Assessment - Review of Revised Entitlement Source Dear Patty: As you are aware, after a series of discussions with City Staff, late last week The Irvine Company agreed to revise the sources of existing entitlement being transferred into the Corporate Plaza site. The following table presents the original and revised locations from which the existing entitlement is being transferred. Entitlement Source Initial Submittal Revised Request TPO Status Libray Exchange Agreement 30,972 SF -0-SF Untested Twin Palms 6,520 SF 6,520 SF Previously cleared (but unbuilt) Fashion Island Retail 7,508 SF 38,480 SF Previously cleared (on committed project list) TOTAL: 45, 000 SF 45 000 SF The figures shown in the Table represent square feet of office in Corporate Plaza and as you know, the Fashion Island entitlement source requires conversion to appropriately match traffic generation characteristics. As stated in the site's Traffic Assessment (dated August 18L"), the approved factor to convert office to regional retail is 1.16 and, therefore, the amount of Fashion Island retail transferred to achieve the 38,480 SF of office in Corporate Plaza would be 44,637 SF. Professional Service Since 1944 14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CA 92618 -2069 • P.O. BOX 57057, IRVINE, CA 92619.7057 • 949.472.3505 • FAX 949.472.6373 OFRCES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA AND NEVADA • WEB SITE: w .rbf.com q5 Ms. Patty Temple, City of Newport Beach September 30, 1999 Page 2 It is important to recognize that the proposed change in entitlement sources results in a very different Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) assessment for the site as the majority of the development shifts from being subject to a TPO test to being previously cleared square footage that is already on the City's Committed Project List. More specifically stated, the TPO testing requirement for the 30,972 SF whose source is being shifted changes from the full TPO test of that increment to an assessment as to whether the change of location for that increment of traffic that is already in the committed project list results in any significant differences to nearby intersections. Simply put, since the increment of development in questions met the TPO requirements (as previously reported for the smaller Fashion Island transfer increment in the Traffic Assessment) the potential TPO implications of the currently proposed transfer is clearly less than the previously tested case which passed the TPO requirements without the need for mitigation. In conclusion, it is clear that the revised transfer program for Corporate Plaza is less impactive from a TPO perspective than the previous approach and clearly passes the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance without the requirement of mitigation. Should you have any questions or require further information, please call. Very truly yours, i' Mik4Ericl&6i , Associate cc: Rich Edmonston, City of Newport Beach Ron Keith, The Irvine Company Audi Culbertson, Culbertson, Adams Associates Jean Pitts, McLarand, Vasquez & Partners H!GRPIWMTAIOMCM PWIN WWRNNP.0011M11 9700e YlvvPG 0 7 ROBERT REIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS September 23, 1999 Patty Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject Corporate Plaza Transfer Parking Analysis - Refined Parking Count Dear Patty: This letter is submitted to assess the impact that recent refinements to the project's parking layout would have to conclusions reached in the project's parking study (Newport Center Corporate Plaza Transfer Parking Analysis -dated August 18, 1999). Recent refinements in the site layout for proposed Building 22 in Corporate Plaza have resulted in revised parking space counts in the two parking areas contiguous to the building site: 1) the number of additional spaces being provided easterly of the site in an expansion of Lot B decreased by one (from 114 additional spaces to 113); and 2) restriping of Lot C along the northerly side of the building will increase the number of spaces by seven. The net impact of these changes is to increase the number of parking spaces being added as part of the proposed project by six. The revised proposal results in the following revised conclusion regarding the addition of Building 22 relative to the total Corporate Plaza Project: Total parking spaces provided: 1,568 Total parking spaces required per City Code: 1,567 The conclusion, therefore relative to the addition of Building 22, is that the City Parking Code requirements are fully satisfied. Should there be any questions regarding the results of this assessment of the refined site plan and parking plan for Building 22, please call. Very truly yours, ,4-y/ Zyal- Nfi(e Eri on, Associate RBF cc: Rich Edmonston, City of Newport Beach Ron Keith, The Irvine Company Andi Culbertson, Culbertson, Adams Associates Jean Pitts, McLarand, Vasquez & Partners Professional Service Since 1944 14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CA 92618 -2069 • P.O. BOX 57057, IRVINE, CA 92619.7057 • 949.472.3505 • FAX 949.472.8373 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA AND NEVADA • WEB SRE: www.rbfcom wFSae, maw A' r i• F" L POSTED AUG 2 199v GARY 1lQNVIL , Clerk-Recorder CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 CA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period. FILED AUG 31999 RY L. G LLE, Clerk- R000rdet DEPUTY From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: August 23, 1999 to September 12, 1999 Name of Project: Corporate Plaza Transfer of Entitlement ro'ect Location: 22 Cor orate Plaza, Newport Beach California Project Description: The project involves the approval of a PC Amendment to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring 45,000 square feet of entitlement for use as professional office from various areas of Newport Center. The approval will allow for the construction of a 45,000 square foot professional office building. The square footage to be reallocated has already been entitled but unbuilt elsewhere in Newport Center through previous land use entitlement approvals. The application also includes a request to approve a use permit for a modification or waiver of off- street parking requirements for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is El attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200. August 23. 1999 Mare Myers, As Planner Date F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED \IPL�m\PemdingL2CorpPlza\NEGDEC -fo m q9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for PC Amendment No. 889 and Use Permit No. 3664 on property located at 22 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, California. The application is a request for a PC Amendment to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring approximately 45,000 square feet of existing entitlement from Fashion Island, Block 600, and various areas of Newport Center. The entitlement to be transferred has previously been approved but has not been developed in Newport Center. The application also includes a request to approve a use permit for a modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements in coniunction with the construction of a new 45,000 square foot office building. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development as proposed, and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 -day public review period was August 23, 1999 to September 12, 1999. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3200. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 7th day of October 1999, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Richard Fuller, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 56 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a t 64lic hearing on the application of The Irvine Company for PC Amendment No. 889 and Use Permit No. on property located at 22 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach. California. The application is a request for a PC Amendment to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring 45,000 square feet of entitlement for use as professional office from various areas of Newport Center. The square footage to be reallocated has already been entitled but unbuilt elsewhere in Newport Center. The application also includes a request to approve a use permit for a modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development as proposed, and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 -day public review period is, August 23, 1999 to September 12, 1999. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 -1768 (949) 644 -3200. We is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 23nd day of September 1999, at the, hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Richard Fuller, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 51 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Corporate Plaza -PC Entitlement Amendment 0 City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marc Myers, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach (714) 644 -3200 4. Project Location: 22 Corporate Plaza 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: APF(Administrative,Professional & Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: PC (Planned Community) 8. Description of Project The application is a request for a PC Amendment to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring 45,000 square feet of entitlement for professional office use from various areas of Newport Center. The square footage to be reallocated has already been entitled but unbuilt elsewhere in Newport Center. Also included is a request to approve a use permit for a modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements for the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. 0 PC Am dm t No. 889 Neg. Dec Checklist Page 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project site is located in an existing office development complex that consists of one and two story office buildings and related surface parking. The area is commonly referred to as Corporate Plaza which is part of Newport Center. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems 1l Hydrology and Water 0 Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards Ef Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems 0 Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation PC Amendm t No. 889 Neg. Dec Checklist Paw< 53 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet and/or revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I 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 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. ❑ 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 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. ❑ �i Signature Marc Myers, Associate Planner Printed Name e- r_9 • : Date 0 0 FAUSERST MSHAREM I Plancom\Pending122CotpPlazaNegDecChecklst 0 PC Amendment No. 999 Neg. Dec Checklist Page' 54 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAP NOT TO SCALE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map EXHIBIT 1 5� aormseae Site Location Map EXHIBIT 3 51 0 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 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? III. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef . 0 PC Amendment No. 689 Ne& Dec Checklist Paga<s 0 0 PC Amendmem No. 899 Neg. Dec Checklist Pag&d'5' 9 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ ❑ ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral S preading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ �( defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? 0 PC Amendmem No. 899 Neg. Dec Checklist Pag&d'5' 9 b) Substantially deplete groundwater Less than supplies or interfere substantially Significant with groundwater recharge such Significant that there would be a net deficit in Impact aquifer volume or a lowering of the Impact local groundwater table level (e.g., ❑ the production rate of pre- existing ❑ nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ❑ permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Q Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact 0 ❑ Mitigation ❑ El Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 PC Amendment No. 889 Neg. bec Checklist Page.. b 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? PC Anmdmmt No. 889 Nc& Dx Checklist Page,,r( I Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ mudflow? V. AIR OUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ Ea implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ® ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? PC Anmdmmt No. 889 Nc& Dx Checklist Page,,r( I b) Exceed either individually or Less than cumulatively, a level of service Significant standard established by the county Impact congestion management agency for Impact designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change ❑ in location that results in substantial ❑ safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VU. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El C 0 n 1 El El El FE No Impact R 0 1Z El 0 0 , 0 PC Atmedment No. 889 Neg. Dec Checklist Pag�a PC Aaxndnnt No. 889 Ncg. Dcc Checklist PageRr Potentially Potentially Leas than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact UnIBSS Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ � federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ B( movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? IX. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? PC Aaxndnnt No. 889 Ncg. Dcc Checklist PageRr PC Amend=m No. 889 Neg. Dec Clmklist Page Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ � public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely. hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or propose school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 9) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? PC Amend=m No. 889 Neg. Dec Clmklist Page Potentially Potentially X. NOISE. Significant Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or Impact generation of noise levels in excess Mitigation of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other 21 agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PC Amendment No. 889 Neg. Dec Checklist Page,.i'1' c�5 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1z 0 E 0 PC Amendment No. 889 Neg. Dec ChecMist Page-Y2" (0(P e) Result in a determination by the was tewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project" projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing Visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact fa Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1z FE] IF] Less than Significant Impact No Impact A ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ . ❑ ❑ 21 PC Mrendmmt No. 889 Neg. Dec Checklist Page 4T fo 1 C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? XV. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Potentially Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X 0 0 IN 0 EN 9 No Impact 0 0 R1 N • 0 0 PC Anmdment No. 999 Ncg. Dec Checklist Page ;ice b� I 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation A) Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) The project has the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ B( achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. C) 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)? d) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PC Amendment No. 999 Neg. Dec Checklist PageAT W� XL. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 0 PC Mcendment No. 88* Neg. Dec CheCklist Page,W -�a 0 I* Source List The following documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 1. City of Newport Beach General Plan including all elements. 2. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Building Permits and General Plan Amendments since 1979. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coasi Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 7. Traffic Assessment prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. 8. Parking Analysis prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. F: \USERS\PLM. SHARED \I FORMS\NEC,- DECWOCKLIST.DOC PC Amendment No. 889 Neg. Dec Ck=klist Page 47 II ,- ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS 22 Corporate Plaza Amendment No. 852 (Corporate Plaza Planned Community), Use Permit No. 3664 Proiect Description The project involves the approval of a PC Amendment to increase the permitted square footage entitlement in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community by transferring 45,000 square feet of entitlement for use as professional office from various areas of Newport Center. The approval will allow for the construction of a 45,000 square foot professional office building. The square footage to be reallocated has already been entitled but unbuilt elsewhere in Newport Center through previous land use entitlement approvals. The application also includes a request to approve a use permit for a modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements in conjunction with the construction of the 45,000 square foot office building located in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. I. Land Use and Planning The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site for Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial Facilities. The Zoning designation is PC (Planned Community) and the project site is located in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community District which is within Newport Center. The Corporate Plaza Planned Community District regulations will be amended to increase the square footage entitlement to include an additional 45,000 square feet of professional office space. The additional entitlement will increase the maximum square footage permitted in Corporate Plaza from 432,320 square feet to a total of 477,320 square feet. The General Plan allows .transfers of development rights within Newport Center as long as the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The 45,000 square feet of office space being transferred to Corporate Plaza is a result of 30,972 square feet being transferred from a previous agreement with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company for the Library Exchange Agreement, 6,520 square feet of undeveloped floor area in conjunction with the Twin Palms Restaurant (located in Block 600 of Newport Center), and 8,710 square feet of retail floor area from Fashion Island Planned Community. The 8,710 square feet of office use equals 7,508 square feet of retail in terms of traffic generation based on a conversion factor utilized in the traffic analysis. Therefore, E 0 Pageh 7,? the total of 45,000 square feet of office space is a result of the transfer of the 30,972 square feet from the Library Exchange Agreement, 6,520 square feet from the Twin Palms Restaurant (Block 600 - Newport Center) and 7,508 square feet from Fashion Island. The proposed professional office building is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements with the exception of parking. Therefore, approval of the amendment to increase the amount of office space allowed in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community and decrease the amount of retaillrestaurant use in the Fashion Island PC text, will not have any significant land use impacts. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary, therefore, a Coastal Permit is not required. Also, the proximity of residential uses will not be significantly impacted by the traffic generated by the proposed use, since the proposed use does not share street frontage with the residential development. Since no significant land use impacts have been identified, no mitigation measures are required. II. Population and Housing The project site is vacant and there are no existing residential units on the property. The project consists of the construction of a professional. office building and does not propose development of any new housing units. With the development of 45,000 square feet of office space within Corporate Plaza, most project employees will commute to the site from their current place of residence. The office uses are projected to increase employment. However, no direct population increase would result from the project or the increase in employees. For those few employees that may relocate to Newport Beach, the City has a variety of housing types and price ranges available to serve their housing needs. Since it is not anticipated that a large number of employees will relocate to Newport Beach once employed in Corporate Plaza, the proposed amendment for a transfer of entitlement is not anticipated to have a significant impact on existing housing stock or require the need for new housing. The few number of people that may relocate to Newport Beach will not significantly impact or increase the city's population beyond the numbers planned for by the city. Since the project is not anticipated to have any significant population or housing impacts, no mitigation measures are required. M. Geology and Soils The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features and there are no evident faults on the site. Since the proposed project will be built on a level developed site, minimal grading is required to provide a finished building pad and parking lot. The proposed building pad was rough graded in conjunction with construction of several of the Pagex Z existing surrounding office buildings. As a result, the amount of grading required for the proposed project will be minimal and consist of removing the existing ground cover and grading for the building foundation. While a precise grading plan has not been prepared at this time, grading operations for the project will be in compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) which will reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level. Additionally, no cumulative impacts associated with geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Since no significant earth resource impacts are identified, no mitigation measures are required. IV. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed and no appreciable change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and flow of surface runoff is anticipated. However, construction of the office building and surface level parking lot will reduce the amount of pervious surface available to absorb rainfall. Upon completion of the project, some of the rainfall that presently percolates into the soil will be generated as runoff. There are existing storm drain facilities that have capacity to handle the runoff generated from the site. Runoff from the site will be collected and discharged into the existing storm drain facilities adjacent to the site. Additionally, the City will require the project applicant to install soil erosion protection measures during and after project construction. Standard erosion control and protection measures are required to be incorporated into the project before the grading plan is approved. The transfer of 45,000 square feet of entitlement to Corporate Plaza from other sites within Newport Center will not result in the generation of any greater quantities of runoff than if developed in other areas of Newport Center. However, to ensure that the project's storm water runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, a mitigation measure is presented. The discharge of storm water runoff during the construction phase will be adequately addressed by erosion control measures specified by the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.150 or applicable sections). Subject to the incorporation of City standard requirements, including the provisions for drainage requirements contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code, and the suggested Mitigation Measure, no drainage or significant hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of the office building and associated surface parking lot. Mitigation Measure No. I The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. Paged % 4 V. Air Quality • The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The SCAB comprises all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAB has been designated a non - attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) mandates the implementation of the program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the California Clean Air Act mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides screening tables which identify projects (based on size) of potential significance for air quality. Short-term air emissions include those associated with the operation of motorized construction equipment during final site grading and the actual construction of the building. The short-term air emission impacts associated with the project were evaluated per Table 6 -3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The screening tables indicate that the proposed project (as a result of the size of project) does not have the potential to exceed the emission thresholds of significance for air quality for project construction and project (office building) operations. The District's current air emission thresholds for determining significance are 75 pounds per day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), 100 pounds per day for NOX, 550 pounds per day for CO and 150 pounds per day of particulates. Due to the minimal amount of grading required for construction, the project will not exceed any construction air emission thresholds and will not have any significant air emission impacts. Additionally, the small amount of project - related emissions will have no impact on regional particulate levels. While the project will not exceed any construction thresholds, there will be dust generated during both project grading and construction. During the course of grading and construction there is a likelihood that some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust from the motorized equipment used to excavate and grade the land and asphalt the parking lot could temporarily emit objectionable odors which could temporarily deteriorate the ambient air quality near the project site. Potential air quality impacts to surrounding properties from project construction activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including short-term impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction equipment and dust generated during grading. Since the size of the development is limited, the extent of air emissions will be relatively small. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. No additional stationary equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as part of the project. Where grading is near existing development, the dust generated by such activities is a local nuisance Page,. 15 as opposed to an actual health hazard. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by City and SCAQMD regulations. • Additionally, the incorporation of dust reduction measures into the grading and construction phases of the project will minimize potential dust emissions with no resulting significant air emission impact. Potential air quality impacts to surrounding business properties from potential long -term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include those associated with the operation of motor vehicles by employees and visitors traveling to and from the site. The SCAQMD uses the CEQA Air Quality Handbook to screen whether or not a project could have significant air emission impacts. Based on a review of Table 6 -2 the daily thresholds of potential significance is determined if an office project is greater than 96,221 square feet. Since the proposed project is 45,000 square feet in size the project will not exceed daily air emission thresholds for an office building. Additionally, air emission issues have been previously considered in prior environmental documentation and no significant changes are anticipated. The project will not exceed any short-term or long -term air emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the project will not result in a significant impact to air quality. Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. Mitigation Measure No. 3 During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. VI. Transportation /Circdlation/Parking A traffic assessment of the potential traffic and parking impacts associated with transferring 45,000 square feet of office space to Corporate Plaza has been prepared for the proposed project by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates and is attached. The assessment evaluated whether or not the traffic generated by the project would impact intersections in the immediate vicinity of the site using methodology consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). It also assessed the adequacy of proposed parking. Page Ff -j (e Traffic Impact Analvses The trip generation forecasts for the project are set forth in Table 2, located on Page 2 of the attached traffic study. A detailed explanation of the criteria used for the trip generation forecasts is set forth on Page 2 of the traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified six intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed office development. Intersection analyses were completed for the following six (6) study intersections. These intersections are also shown on Table 5, located on Page 5 of the attached traffic study. 1. Jamboree Road @ West Coast Highway 2. MacArthur Boulevard @ San Miguel Drive 3. Newport Center Drive @ West Coast Highway 4. Avocado Avenue @ West Coast Highway 5. MacArthur Boulevard @ West Coast Highway 6. Avocado Avenue @ San Miguel Drive 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 generated traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2r/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon to any of the selected intersections, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. If one percent of the peak 2'/2 hour volumes of each approach are larger than the peak 2r /2 hour project volumes, no further analysis was required. If project peak 2'/2 hour volumes were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2'h hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed 0.90 or the ICU value does not change when the project is added. As established by the TPO, the basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth and approved/committed project traffic. Based on an analysis of each of the six intersections, the increase in traffic at four of the six intersection legs exceeded 1 % of the projected peak 2'/2 hour period as indicated on Table 6, located on Page 6 of the attached traffic study and, therefore was subject to further analysis. An Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted four intersections. As indicated in Table 6, located on Page 6 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the peak traffic periods for these four intersections do not exceed 0.90. The traffic analysis indicates that the intersections will operate at acceptable Levels of Service, with the existing geometrics, during both the AM and PM peak hours under the TPO guidelines with the project. Paged I I For this project the intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project were evaluated. Based on the results of the traffic study there are no intersections that • will be significantly impacted due to the transfer of entitlement from various locations within Newport Center to Corporate Plaza. While it is understood that traffic will be generated to area streets and intersections, the amount of traffic generated will not significantly deteriorate the levels of service of any intersections to unacceptable levels. Therefore, there will be no significant traffic impacts associated with the project and the project meets the General Plan criteria for the transfer of development in Newport Center. Parkin The project includes the construction of a surface parking lot to be built adjacent to the proposed office building. The new parking lot will provide an additional 114 parking spaces for the existing and proposed uses. With the addition of 114 parking spaces, the parking supply in the planned community will have a deficit of 14 spaces. The Corporate Plaza Planned Community District Regulations allow the Planning Commission to modify the parking formula for parking pools more than 425,000 square feet of net floor area by use permit based on a demonstrated formula. A parking study was completed to determine the number of parking spaces required by the project, and is attached for reference. Although Corporate Plaza overall is under - parked based on Corporate Plaza Planned Community parking requirements, there is a surplus of available parking spaces based on current demand as indicated by the parking study. Table 1 below shows that although there are 1,410 surface level parking spaces available, and 38 parking spaces under Building 7, a maximum of 879 spaces are used at any time. Therefore, the development of 114 new parking spaces in conjunction with the construction of 45,000 square feet office space will be adequate to serve the parking demand of the office building. The proposed project includes a request for a modification or waiver of parking requirements to reduce the parking requirement from 1 space per 300 square feet to I space per each 289 square feet of net floor area. Following project completion, a total of 1,562 parking spaces (including 38 parking spaces under Building 7) will be provided for the office buildings. Following project completion, based on 1 space per each 289 square feet of net floor area, there will be a surplus of I parking space. Therefore, there will be no significant parking impacts associated with the project. Page<?— I g . Table 1 Existing Corporate Plaza Surface Parking Utilization Counts PARKING AREA SPACES AVAILABLE PARKED VEHICLES 11:30am to 12:00 pm 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm 1130prn to 2:00 m A 136 101 100 115 B 103 89 84 84 C 173 97 87 93 D 165 110 82 109 E 146 99 93 92 F 154 115 112 135 G 143 127 83 105 H 194 99 99 102 I 196 35 28 44 TOTAL 1,410 872 768 879 Note: The parking spaces available shown in Table 3 do not include the subsurface parking spaces under Building 7 (38 spaces). VII. Biological Resources (Plant and Animal Life) The site is developed and located in an urbanized area of the City. No rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal species have been previously reported, or are expected to inhabit the project site. The project will not affect any natural vegetation. Surrounding properties are also fully developed. On -site flora consists of ornamental landscaping, with no natural or native communities of vegetation remaining. Due to the highly developed nature of the subject property and surrounding properties, on -site fauna is limited to small rodents and/or mammals adaptive to an urbanized area. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact to plant and/or animal life. VIII. Mineral Resources The site is fully developed with the exception of the proposed project. The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. There are no valuable mineral resources that have been or are known to exist on the site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resources on the site. The project will not have any impact on regional or locally important mineral resources. Page-8— i 01 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials There are no known hazardous or toxic materials present on site. There are no • uses anticipated with the proposed project that would introduce and expose employees to hazardous or toxic materials. The proposed project is a professional office building located in a commercially zoned area of the City. The proposed project will not utilize hazardous materials on the site and the proposal does not include removal of any underground storage tanks. The proposal does not include any unusual soil conditions and general construction practices will provide adequate protection to the employees and the neighboring properties adjacent to the project. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area that is subject to wildland fires. The project is not located within any adopted emergency evacuation plan or interferes with the implementation of any emergency response plan. Since the project does not store or utilize hazardous materials on -site, no foreseeable hazard to public health and safety is anticipated and no adverse effect on human health or risk of upset is anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. X. Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities, and construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators could reach high noise levels. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project. Additionally, intervening structures and/or topography will act as noise barriers and reduce levels further. Noise levels will be mitigated by limiting the hours of construction through provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Operational Impact Future on -site noise impacts will not significantly differ from those, which now exist. The increase in traffic noise is not of a magnitude that would be discernible to the average person. Traffic from the new office building, together with other planned projects in the area will cumulatively cause an incremental increase in ambient noise levels. However, with the incorporation of City standard requirements and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with office operations to noise are anticipated as a result of the project. Although no significant adverse short-term or long =term noise impacts will result from project implementation, the following mitigation measure is required by the City of Newport Beach in order to ensure compliance with adopted noise standards during construction. 0 Page -9' 86 Mitigation Measure No. 4 The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7.00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Xl. Public Services The development of 45,000 gross square feet of office in Corporate Plaza will require public services, including fire and police protection. While the project will incrementally increase. the need for police and fire services, the demand for these services is anticipated to be insignificant and not require additional personnel or equipment. There will be a need for police and fire protection services associated with occasional calls for traffic accidents or fire inspections. However, the number of these types of calls is anticipated to be minimal and not significantly impact the ability of the police and fire departments to adequately respond to service calls. Additionally, office projects do not directly generate school students. The relocation of 45,000 square feet of office space will not significantly impact area schools, however, upon development of 45,000 square feet of office space, the project applicant will be required to pay the Newport-Mesa School District an impact fee prior to obtaining building permits. The developer fee will be used by the District to provide additional school facilities to account for any new students that may be generated indirectly by the project. Office projects also do not directly increase the need for parks. The transfer of 45,000 square feet of entitlement to Corporate Plaza will not have any significant impact on city parks. . Since the project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on public services,-no mitigation measures are recommended. X11. Utilities and Service Systems A 45,000 square foot office building will require public utilities, such as water and wastewater service, natural gas, electricity and solid waste. There are existing utilities and service systems already servicing the existing office buildings in Corporate Plaza that can be extended to the site to serve the project. The existing utilities adjacent to the site have adequate capacity to serve the needs of 45,000 square feet of office space without significantly impacting those utilities. Page AG- i� Although no significant impacts on utilities or service systems are anticipated, the following mitigation measures have been suggested to ensure the availability of • utilities and service system facilities for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. Mitigation Measure No. 6 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department confirming availability of water and wastewater services to and from the site. XIII. Aesthetics The project site and surrounding properties are near fully developed and have been developed for several years. The project site is located in the Corporate Plaza Planned Community. The Corporate Plaza Planned Community is developed with one and two story office buildings and associated surface level parking lots used as "pool" parking. The area is landscaped to buffer the development from other uses in Newport Center as well as enhance the existing buildings aesthetically. The proposed building will be similar in height and architecture to other existing buildings in the immediate area and will conform to the sight plane height "envelope" requirements expressed in the PC Development Regulations. The new structure will be compatible with the existing office building in architectural style, finish and color. The height and bulk of the new building are sufficient that it will be visible from locations in and around the Newport Center area. Due to the highly developed nature of the subject property and, surrounding business properties, including existing low -high rise office buildings, the aesthetic impacts associated with the new office building are not considered a significant impact. In addition, with the incorporation of the project's design, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site, as well as the application of the Corporate Plaza Development Regulations, standard City requirements, and mitigation measures, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. The site is vacant and there is no light or glare generated from the site at this time. Construction of the proposed office building will slightly increase light and glare generated from the site. The lighting will be associated with the operation of the building including the interior office lights and exterior aesthetic and safety lights Pagelll� �9 around the exterior of the building and the surface level parking lot. However, there are no light sensitive uses in the vicinity. The exterior lighting will be visible, however, due to the high- urbanized developed nature of the immediate vicinity, potential impacts of light and glare are not considered significant. Parking lot lighting similar to existing site lighting will be utilized for the proposed project. To ensure that exterior lighting is designed such that light sources are shielded from view and glare from the fixtures is confined to the site, a mitigation measure is recommended to limit affects on the neighboring uses. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Light sources within the parking area shall be designed or altered to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties or uses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the exterior lighting system has been designed and directed in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, light 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 use and occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to 0 confirm control of light and glare specified by this mitigation measure. XIV. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area where initial earthwork was performed in conjunction with the construction of various existing buildings within Corporate Plaza Planned Community. The project site has been disturbed in the past during grading and construction of the surrounding office buildings and associated parking lots and grading of the pad for Building 22. There is no record of any archaeological and paleontological resources that have been discovered in the past and may potentially exist on this site. Previous surveys indicate that there are no observable cultural resources surrounding the property. The site has been previously graded and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. Since the site has been rough graded, the building pad is existing, and there will be very little soil excavation associated with the project, since the project involves primarily foundation excavation and precise grading for the new building, and the PC regulations require the site to be examined by a qualified professional, no impacts on the cultural resources or historic structures are anticipated. Additionally, Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Regulations and standard City requirements include guidelines for grading with regard to the existence and extent of archaeological and paleontological resources. Therefore, compliance with City Council Policies regarding archaeological and Page 1-ff' M paleontological surveys and recovery of resources will minimize potential impacts to an insignificant level. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would have any significant cultural resource impacts. XV. Recreation The project will not eliminate or displace any existing active or passive recreational facilities. The proposed project will not significantly increase the demand for new or existing recreational facilities in the city. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED \1 PLANCOM\ PENDING \22CorpPlaza\EnviroExplanations 0 Page J-3' V 0 a �a eO z rl Ci Y a Y go a W� W a o gz U E 9 E U Z 0. Cal 4 0 �W ILI a.... 4yq 4m0 c W 4w'q` 40m0 a W a o `o ° o `O a •� sm All ° Y �� UU 4 24U a 24U C 24U c O. b in 3 o yE EZ mL�T E -S3m •�' uu.WUO'••E Y � y � W w O w O L a C a_ � N Y t w 00 W �gjj SYW w6 Y ,'T' y Z U Y '•' w T ,.,:o = ��L�••�.w°e°;� E'er Cw e r� �•E e =° .' G L 3 a E u 3� ri E Yw m �' C c 3 `° �'. ,°, •' O w wc .a � y o m •.�-. N Z c O C o w ii ° O C pY $ �o r C^.. ° u y G g w YS a C c a E E^ O — vi '$ E E E ° o. E 'Q ii z o. f% $'u �.I q a° w 11gqi 6 �= r t2� u y T C Y u MR •� y Y Y •O Hf E $ o s g o Z o u o'Ta v � o o w •- e m Ee c'� `2 °u E u L u W °' : a Z E Y�•�'_ <°+�� l � p3U dN pGp . u 6 u °Lm. � •°r Y 'u ,W � `••• c$ N C�� H' p q�3Ejo.O'Ov�o%Nc�ua''8 °YmiG °ug3r'n ........,�Lyw°o Fs ° o 5. 440 a40 S.54 Q e a =moa aroma e 0 u d o 0 0 E4 c e c ri 'O m smu" m g`o W 0 v 3 0 •u •S c m -._ e `o Q W W e � a ° e. c `{ :�' L �' ° E e _c •°-n m� We �a 0 :.- '2 6,� 0 C� v@ IS W..L FC� Y W 6�S G L O O L G K= U N C= y O O�OL o U y °' r 5 � ,. _. `o .� °u � § u � W ° ° o. E � m m r •`o a Qi `" s_ O. CC U W W Ci c E„rcA O O G y.v °�auy``- °ac_scc_uvsm =� €SEE ` C c 6 L q -r L U c g o si r m W u c W c u t c v 3 a W c u E o= rip y� S2 •r3 W o� m� y =_ a y a° m r h� •� y 0 '.. U S. •$ r C 'U m L '� Oi ° O Cc 60 O c C U 6 N C o p O Ni O W py Cy Y .. p Ctd CG O uL OGO a�0 w U $�$jj V w 9 C C y a�0 W a O MA L G C 0 0 W of 0 NEWPORT CENTER CORPORATE PLAZA TRANSFER TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT City of Newport Beach Prepared for The Irvine Company Prepared by 9 W-14M Tobert Beht,`Mdliam `Frost !&C` ssociates ALTON PARKWAY 1 IRVINE, CAlHORMA 9 618 CONTACT: E ) 855 5744 With =bust from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Revised August 18, 1999 JN 10- 034970.001 0 INTRODUCTIONIPRODUCT DESCRIPTION The subject of this traffic assessment is the proposed addition of a 45,000 gross square foot office building on Lot 22 in the Corporate Plaza area of Newport Center (see Exhibit 1). The site is the last vacant parcel within this planned office complex and currently exists as a vacant graded pad in the midst of the existing low -rise office complex. The full existing allotment of office square footage for Corporate Plaza (per its Planned Community documents) has already been constructed, therefore the developer has proposed to transfer entitled but unbuilt square footage to this site from other areas of Newport Center as permitted by the City's enabling regulations. The following table (Table 1) presents the sources fromwhich the developer is requesting square footage transfers and also indicates their status relative to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). TABLE 1 Sources of Square Footage Transfers Based on the TPO status of the three sources of square footage referenced in Table 1, this traffic analysis will address the following: A. A TPO assessment of the unassigned 30,972 SF of office and the 6,520 SF of office from Block 600 to determine the extent of traffic impacts associated with implementation of the combined total of 37,492 SF of office use in Corporate Plaza. B. Determination of a "multiplier" and a comparative analysis to identify any traffic impacts associated with; 1.) converting Fashion Island regional retail square footage into 7,508 SF of office uses; and 2.) shifting those uses from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza. 0 E M Basis of Square Footage Source Entitlement TPO Status 30,972 SF Unassigned Library Exchange Untested Agreement 6,520 SF Block 600 Twin Palms Previously cleared but "excess development" unbuilt at time of current TPO baseline counts. 7,508 SF Fashion Island Fashion Island Previously cleared - (Retail) Expansion On Committed Project List Based on the TPO status of the three sources of square footage referenced in Table 1, this traffic analysis will address the following: A. A TPO assessment of the unassigned 30,972 SF of office and the 6,520 SF of office from Block 600 to determine the extent of traffic impacts associated with implementation of the combined total of 37,492 SF of office use in Corporate Plaza. B. Determination of a "multiplier" and a comparative analysis to identify any traffic impacts associated with; 1.) converting Fashion Island regional retail square footage into 7,508 SF of office uses; and 2.) shifting those uses from Fashion Island to Corporate Plaza. 0 E M 16 � 1 E 1 2 Bill 19 3 Proposed 22 N PACIFIC COAST N W Y. 0 §&wdlld Eel SO ° I.R , 0111, j TIE7fTO SCALE Corporate Plaza RomxrBIIN, WILLIAM FROST & Assoa%TEs Exhibit 1 Y0.t1(FAA�On�tf ..,.E ERA. it: nnE RS n YU QVE I.., WX99 JNi(9,9 Trip Generation To determine the projected trip generation associated with implementing the portion of the project not previously cleared through TPO testing (37,492 SF), the trip generation rates utilized in the City's traffic model (NBTAM) were utilized. Table 2 portrays the trip generation rates for morning and evening peak hours as well as the 2.5 hour peak periods and the Average Daily Traffic. These rates were then applied to identify projected traffic volumes (Table 3) anticipated during the morning and evening peak hours, peak periods and the average daily traffic for the portion of the project being cleared through the TPO process (approximately 83 percent of the total project). As a point of reference, this study will analyze impacts associated with562 of the 632 total daily trips and 70 of the 84 total PM peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the total project. Trip Distribution The project trip distribution was based on patterns established through the City's traffic model in conjunction with consideration of distribution patterns previously accepted by the City for other projects in the vicinity. Exhibit 2 portrays the trip distribution pattern utilized. Table 2 Trip Generation Rates Analysis Period Basis AM PM A.D.T IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Peak Hour SF 1.69 0.21 1.90 0.32 1.55 1.87 14.03 2.5 Hour Peak SF 3.38 0.42 3.80 0.64 3.10 3.74 N/A Note: Basis of rates is those supplied by city staff Table 3 Trip Generation Projections Analysis Period Basis AM PM A.D.T IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Peak Hour 37,492 SF 63 8 71 12 58 70 526 2.5 Hour Peak 37,492 SF 126 16 142 24 116 140 N/A u i I' 10% 40% 5% 5% 20% SAN MIGUEL r iir Z w U 0 025% 0_ U w O Z 40% 45% J a L L J r 35% 150/0 200/6 J 1.':: — J %-. JL —j COAST HWY —� 00m to scale RcswBmmWuu mFR=&AuomTu a" JNIO-004970 20% J 20% 91 NEWPORT CENTER EXPANSION Corporate Plaza Exhibit 2 TPO ASSESSMENT OF REMAINING ENTITLED OFFICE USES As previously mentioned, 37,492 SF of office uses proposed to be transferred to the project site need to be tested through the City's TPO process to determine if the resulting trip generation, when distributed to the surrounding roadway system, would result in impacts requiring mitigation. This section of the study assesses impacts associated with implementation of this square footage as identified through the standard City TPO assessment. Background Assumptions The committed project list that tabulates development projects that are approved, but not completed at the time of the base -line traffic count was obtained from City Staff. Traffic projected to be generated by the unbuilt portion of these projects (see Table 4) is reflected in the "approved" portion of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) projections obtained from City Staff for this analysis. The other key component of background growth reflected in the ICU projections obtained from the City is the regional growth. This category of background growth reflected the projected impacts of additional growth outside the city boundaries and is based on an assumed growth rate of one percent per year on the significant arterials within town. These assumptions are then reflected in the projected ICUs for the "Existing and Regional Growth and Approved" conditions as the six intersections identified for study are analyzed (See Appendix "A ") as the six intersections identified for study are analyzed. The study intersections were selected to surround the site and are listed in Table 5. 0 9a 0 0 Table 4 Committed Projects List (Projects Less than 100% Complete) Project Number Project Name Percent Occupied 121 Newport Village 0% 124 Civic Plaza 0% 125 Corporate Plaza & West 13% 129 Hoag Hospital Expansion 2% 134 Interpretive Center 0% 142 Hoag Hospital Expansion 0% 147 Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0% 148 Fashion Island Expansion 2% 154 Temple Bay Yahm Expansion 0% 156 Corona Del Mar Plaza 0% 157 Ford Redevelopment 00/0 158 Four Seasons Expansion 0% 160 Bistango Restaurant 0% 161 Burger King 0% 163 1401 Dove Street 0% 555 CIOSA - Irvine Project 0% 910 Newport Dunes 0% 930 City of Irvine Dev. 0% 4 q3 Table 5 Study Intersections INTERSECTION NUMBER' INTERSECTION LOCATION 42 Jamboree @ Coast Highway 46 Mac Arthur @ San Miguel 47 Newport Center Drive @ Coast Highway 48 Avocado @ Coast Highway 49 Mac Arthur @ Coast Highway 61 Avocado @ San Miguel ' Intersection numbering is consistent with numbering used in NBTAM. One Percent Test The standard City One Percent Test was applied to determine the extent of the study area for the 37,492 SF. As indicated in Table 6 (under the 1% column), four intersections (Jamboree @ Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive @ Coast Highway, Avocado @ Coast Highway, and Avocado @ San Miguel) were identified as having more than a one percent impact on any leg of traffic during the peak 2' /z hour period and, therefore be subject to further analysis. Since the remainder of the intersections experience less than a one percent impact from the project, no further testing was required. Intersection Capacity Utilization Test The TPO analysis was performed for the four intersections that exceeded a one percent impact during the peak period (Appendix "A" contains ICU worksheets). For three of the intersections, the maximum peak hour impact was identified as being 0.02 and the projected increase did not result in the ICU's exceeding the City's adopted criteria of an 0.90 LOS (Level of Service "D "). For the remaining intersection (Jamboree @ Coast Highway), there was no change calculated in the ICU. Therefore, it can be concluded that no mitigation is required to implement the proposed 37,492 SF of office uses in Corporate Plaza. 5 G1 1 TABLE 6 TPO Analysis of Unassigned Office Use Source: Austin -Foust Corporate Plaza TPO Analysis May 6, 1999 • Note: "Yes" indicates that the project Impact was less than 1 %, therefore no further analysis is necessary. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSFERRED FASHION ISLAND USE Because the trip generation characteristics of the Regional Retail and Office land uses are different, it was necessary to develop a "multiplier" to convert the retail square footage to an office use. Interface with City staff resulted in the conclusion to use a multiplier of 1.16 to convert the Fashion Island square footage to a traffic impacts equivalent square footage of office uses. Since the most typically impactive trip generation factor is the afternoon peak hour, the multiplier was determined based on dividing the office PM peak hour generation figure by the retail generation factor for the PM peak hour. Application of that factor resulted in the need to transfer 8,710 SF of Fashion Island retail to offset the additional 7,508 SF of office transferred into Corporate Plaza. Since the square footage coming from Fashion Island had alreadybeen subject to the TPO, the remaining transportation determination necessary to allow the transfer was to assess if the shifting of the uses resulted in a significant differential in traffic impacts. As indicated in Table 7 (under the 1% column) only two intersections (Newport Center @ Coast Highway and Avocado @ San Miguel were identified as having more than a one percent impact on any leg of traffic during the 21/2 hour peak period, and therefore subject to further analysis. While Avocado/San Miguel experienced no statistically significant change in ICU based on the addition of the use, the other intersection experienced only a 0.01 change in the AM and PM q5 EXISTING+ EXISTING+ APPROVED+ EXISTING+ APPROVED+ CORP. PLAZA EXISTING APPROVED CORP. PLAZA PROJECT - NEED PASSED• MITI- INTERSECTION I %TEST AM PM AM PM AM PM AM I PM GATION 42 Jamboree & Coast Hwy NO .70 .76 .76 .86 .76 .86 .76 .86 NO 46. MacArthur & San - NO Miguel Yes 47. Newport Center& .41 S4 .43 .60 .44 .61 .45 .61 NO Coast Hwy. NO 48. Avocado & Coast Hwy. NO SS S9 .61 .68 .62 .68 .63 .68 NO 49. MacArthur & Coast Hwy. YES NO 61. Avocado & San Miguel NO 56 .79 S7 .81 .58 .82 S8 .82 NO Level of service ranges: .00 -.60 A .61 -.70 B .71-.80 C .81-.90 D .91.1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Austin -Foust Corporate Plaza TPO Analysis May 6, 1999 • Note: "Yes" indicates that the project Impact was less than 1 %, therefore no further analysis is necessary. ASSESSMENT OF TRANSFERRED FASHION ISLAND USE Because the trip generation characteristics of the Regional Retail and Office land uses are different, it was necessary to develop a "multiplier" to convert the retail square footage to an office use. Interface with City staff resulted in the conclusion to use a multiplier of 1.16 to convert the Fashion Island square footage to a traffic impacts equivalent square footage of office uses. Since the most typically impactive trip generation factor is the afternoon peak hour, the multiplier was determined based on dividing the office PM peak hour generation figure by the retail generation factor for the PM peak hour. Application of that factor resulted in the need to transfer 8,710 SF of Fashion Island retail to offset the additional 7,508 SF of office transferred into Corporate Plaza. Since the square footage coming from Fashion Island had alreadybeen subject to the TPO, the remaining transportation determination necessary to allow the transfer was to assess if the shifting of the uses resulted in a significant differential in traffic impacts. As indicated in Table 7 (under the 1% column) only two intersections (Newport Center @ Coast Highway and Avocado @ San Miguel were identified as having more than a one percent impact on any leg of traffic during the 21/2 hour peak period, and therefore subject to further analysis. While Avocado/San Miguel experienced no statistically significant change in ICU based on the addition of the use, the other intersection experienced only a 0.01 change in the AM and PM q5 ICUs and was still projected to operate at a Level of Service "A" upon the land use transfer (see Appendix "B" for the ICU worksheets). TABLE 7 Retail Transfer Analysis Source: Austin -Foust Newport village TPO Analysis March 18, 1999 Utilizing the procedures of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the proposed transfer of the 37,492 SF of floating office entitlement from Newport Center (30,972 SF) and Block 600 (6,520 SF) to Corporate Plaza will not have a significant impact or require any mitigation. Similarly, no significant differences in traffic impact were identified in relationship to converting 8,710 SF of retail uses into 7,508 SF of office and transferring them from Fashion Island into Corporate Plaza. These uses, when considered together result in the conclusion that the proposed additional 45,000 SF of office uses can be implemented in Corporate Plazawithout requiring additional mitigation to the surrounding circulation system WLYPICiDwTw' OF} I[ FUTVINVOePLV0.NNENVwRUtW .F]a'UrJawsnvpd 0 0 7 9� EXISTING+ EXISTING+ APPROVED+ APPROVED+ TRANS - TRANS- FERRED FERRED FASHION EXISTING+ FASHION ISLAND EXISTING APPROVED ISLAND PROJECT NEED PASSED MITI. 'INTERSECTION 1% TEST AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM GATION 42. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Yes NO 46. MacArthur & San NO Miguel Yes 47. Newport Center & .41 54 .43 .60 .44 .61 .45 .61 NO Coast Hwy. NO 48. Avocado & Coast Hwy. YES NO 49. MacArthur & Coast Hwy. YES NO 61. Avocado & San Miguel NO .56 .79 57 .81 .53 .82 .58 .82 NO Level of service ranges: .00 -.60 A .61 -.70 B .71,80C .81-.90 D .91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Austin -Foust Newport village TPO Analysis March 18, 1999 Utilizing the procedures of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the proposed transfer of the 37,492 SF of floating office entitlement from Newport Center (30,972 SF) and Block 600 (6,520 SF) to Corporate Plaza will not have a significant impact or require any mitigation. Similarly, no significant differences in traffic impact were identified in relationship to converting 8,710 SF of retail uses into 7,508 SF of office and transferring them from Fashion Island into Corporate Plaza. These uses, when considered together result in the conclusion that the proposed additional 45,000 SF of office uses can be implemented in Corporate Plazawithout requiring additional mitigation to the surrounding circulation system WLYPICiDwTw' OF} I[ FUTVINVOePLV0.NNENVwRUtW .F]a'UrJawsnvpd 0 0 7 9� APPENDIX "A" ICU Calculations for the TPO Assessment of Entitled Office Uses 0 6-1 91 42. aanmoree a Coast Hwy Existing NBL NOT NOR SOL ( SOT ( SBR I ( ESL ( EST I .EBR ( WOL ( WBT i WBR LANES CAPACITY 1 1600 2 3200 0 0 1 2 f 3 4 0 2 4 f 1600 3200 4800 6400 0 AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V/C 31 .02 55 .03 547 .21* 528 .20* 1I0 ( NBL 119 1600 112 .07* 147 .09* 220 .07 517 .16 584 568 1111 ( NBR 1133 .24* 942. .20* 1613 .25 1709 .27 17 136 19 164 3200 60 .02 173 .O5 6400 1123 .18* 1680 .26* 139 164 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .75 ( Existing + Approved + Newport Village i ( AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( NBL 1 - 1600 31 .02 63 .04 ( NOT 2 3200 584 .22* 568 .22* ( NBR 0 0 113 125 125 ( SBL I ( SBL 1 1600 136 .09* 164 ( .10* ( SBT 2 3200 .238 .07 576 .18 ( SOR f 777 777 1291 1291 ( EBL ( EBL 3 4800 1262 .26* 1115 .23* J EST 4 6400 1883 .30 1956 .33 ( EBR 0 0 25 175 175 ( WSL I ( VOL 2 3200 61 .02 196 ( .06 ( WBT 4 6400 1240 .19* 1974 .31* ( WBR I ' f 139 139 205 205 ( ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .86 n f.J ( Existing + Regional Growth + Approved i I ( AN PK HOUR PM PK I HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I ( NBL 1 1600 31 .02 63 I .04 ( NOT 2 3200 584 .22* 568 .22* ( NOR 0 0 113 125 125 ( SBL ( SBL 1 1600 136 .09* 164 .10* ( SBT 2 3200 23B .07 $76 .18 ( SBR f 777 777 1291 1291 ( EBL ( ( EBL 3 4800 1262 .26* 1115 I .23* ( EST 4 6400 1855 .29 1936 .33 ( EBR 0 0 25 175 175 ( WSL I ( WBL 2 3200 61 .02 196 ( .06 WST 4 5400 1238 .19* 1974. .31" I WBR f 139 139 205 205 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .86 ( Existing + Approved + NV + Project. ( AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .02 63 .04 ( HOT 2 3200 $84 ,22* 568 .22* ( NOR 0 0 113 125 ( SBL 1 1600 136 .09* 164 .10* SBT 2 3200 238 .07 576 .18 ( SBR f 777 1291 ( EBL 3 4800 1262 .26* 1115 .23* ( EST 4 6400 1911 .30 1959 .33 ( EBR 0 0 25 175 ( WSL 2 3200 61 .02 196 .06 ( WST 4 6400 1241 .19* 2004 .31* WBR f 139 205 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .86 r 1 LJ 11 m 47. Newport Center 6 Coast Hwy ( Existing I ( ( AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( I ( NBL 0 0 0 0 ( HeT 0 0 0 0 ( NOR 0 0 0 0 ( I ( SBL 2 3200 28 .01* 193 .06* ( SBT 0 0 0 0 ( SBR f _ 129 730 f ( EBL 2 3200 465 .15* 347 .11* ( EST 3 4800 1503 .31 1343 .28 ESR 0 0 0 0 I � ( N8L 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1186 .25* 1752 .37* ( V8R f 151 134 � I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .54 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved I ( Existing + Approved + Newport Village AM PK HOUR PH PK ( HOUR ( ( LANES CAPACITY AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR 0 ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 0 ( N8L 0 0 0 0 0 I ( NOT 0 0 0 214 0 ( SBT 0 ( NOR 0 0 0 ( SBR 0 141 I ( SBL 2 3200 30 .01* 217 I .07* I .12* ( SBT 0. 0 0 1541 0 EBR 0 ( SBA f 144 142 -. 817 0 0 I ( EBL 2 3200 514 .16* 373 I .L2* .41* ( EST 3 4800 1656 .35 1541 .35 ( ESR 0 0 0 144 1 ( WOL 0, 0 0 0 I ( WST 3 4800 1295 .27* 2000 .42* ( WBR l f 170 147 I ' , TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .61 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved I ( AM PK HOUR PH PK ( HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I ( NBL 0 0 0 0 ( ( NOT 0 0 0 0 ( NOR 0 0 0 0 I SOL 2 3200 30 .01* 214 I .07* ( SBT 0 0 0 0 ( SBR f 141 807 ! ESL 2 3200 494 .15* 373 I .12* ( EST 3 4800 1640 .34 1541 .35 EBR 0 0 0 144 ( WBL 0 0 0 0 I WST 3 4800 1294 .27* 1990 .41* ( WOR � f 169 147 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .60 ( Existing + Approved + NV + Project ( I ( AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I NBL 0 0 0 0 ( NOT 0 0 0 0 ( NOR 0 0 0 0 I SBL 2 3200 30 .O1* 221 .07* SBT 0 0 0 0 ( SBR f 142 832 I I ( EBL 2 3200 534 .17* 376 .12* ( EST 3 4800 1664 .35 154L .35 ( EBR 0 0 0 144 � I ( WBL 0 0 0 0 ( WST 3 4800 1296 .27* 2015 .42* ( NOR f 170 147 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .61 W 48. Avocado & Coast Nry ( Existing ( I AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( NBL 1 1600 99 .06 121 .08 ( NET 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* ( HER 0 0 120 ( SBL 75 0 ( SBL - 0 0 40 (.02)* 262 {.I6)* ( SET 2 3200 56 .03 118 .12 ( SBR f 295 67 ( EEL 224 1600 f ESL 1 1600 173 .11* 69 .04 ( EST 3 4800 1074 .24 1416 .30* ( ESR 0 0 55 ( WBL 36 1600 ( WBL 1 1600 71 .04 69 .04* ( WET 3 4800 1114 .28* 1192 .27 ( WBR 0 0 209 139 101 56 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .59 ( Existing + Approved + Newport Village ( AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( NBL 1 1600 102 .06 122 .08 ( NET 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* ( NOR 0 0 120 0 75 1 ( SBL 0 0 46 {.03)* 286 (.18) *. ( SET 2 3200 56 .03 118 .13 ( SBR f ( SBR 81 295 ( EEL 1 1600 231 .14* 170 .11* ( EST 3 4800 1131 .25 1539 .34 ( EBR 0 0 56 0 98 81 ( WBL 1 1600 71 .04 69 .04 WET 3 4800 1231 .31* 1314 .30* ( WBR 1 0 0 240 0 139 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .68 n LJ ( Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 102 .06 122 .08 ( NOT 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* ( NOR 0 0 120 1 75 102 SBL O 0 46 (•03)* 28l {.18)* ( SET 2 3200 56 .03 116 .12 ( SBR f 80 285 SBL. ( ESL 1 1600 223 .14* 170 .11* ( EST 3 4800 1131 .25 _ 1536 .34 ( EBR 0 0 56 81 98 301 ( WBL 1 1600 71 .04 69 .04 ( WET 3 4800 1230 .30' 2314 : .30* ( WSR 0 0 231 ( EBR 139 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .68 0 rdd j Existing + Approved + NV + Project ( AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY - VOL V/C VOL V/C ( NBL 1 1600 102 .06 122 .08 NOT 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* ( HER 0 0 120 75 SBL. 0 0 46 (,03)° 294 (.18)* ( SOT 2 3200 56 .03 _ 118 .13 ( SBR f 81 301 j EEL 1 1600 239 .15* 170 .11* ( EST 3 4800 1131 .25 1543 .34 ( EBR 0 0 56 98 ( WBL 1 1600 71 .04 69 .04 ( WBT 3 4800 1233 .31* 1316 .30* WBR � 0 0 249 139 I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .68 0 rdd 61. Avocado 6 San Niguel 0 ( Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved i ( AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( ( AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( NBL 1 1600 158 .10 98 .06 ( NOL 1 L600 158 .10 99 .06 NOT 1 1600 122 .15* 36 .31* ( ( NOT 1 1600 123 .16* 36 .31* ( NOR 0 0 125 463 ( NOR 0 0 125 465 SOL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 .08* ( SOL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 .08* ( SST 1 1600 45 .04 134 .09 ( ( SBT 1 1600 45 .04 138 .09 ( SBR 0 0 L4 10 j S8R 0 0 14 10 ( ESL 1 L600 7 .00 3 . .00 ( EBL 1 1600 7 .00 5 .00 ( EST 2 32C0 156 .07* 573 .23* ( ( EST 2 3200 156 .01* 606 .25* ( EBR 0 0 59 155 EBR 0 0 59 188 ( WBL I 1600 483 .30* 269 .17* ( WSL 1 1600 483 .30* 269 .17* ( WOT 2 3200 419 .17 304 .10 ( ( WBT 2 _ 3200 419 .17 329' .11 WBR 0 0 112 28 WBR 0 0 112 28 .79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIONI .57 .81 Ask ( ( Existing + Approved + NV + Project Existing + Approved + Newport Village AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( ( AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( ( LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 159 .10 101 .06 ( NOL 1 1600 161 .10 104 .07 j NOT 1 1600 125 .16* 37 .32* ( NOT 1 1600 127 .16* 39 .32* ( NOR 0 0 125 469 ( ( NOR 0 0 125 475 j SOL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 .08 *. ( ( SOL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 .08* ( SBT 1 1500 48 .04 138 .09 SST 1 1600 51 .04 L41 .09 0 0 14 10 ( ( S8R 0 0 14 10 ( ESL 1 1600 7 .00 5 .00 ( ( EOL 1 L600 7 .00 5 .00 ( EST 2 3200 156 .07* 606 .25* EST 2 3200 156 .07* 606 .25* j EBR 0 0 60 188 ( ( FOR 0 0 81 189 ( WBL 1 1600 494 .31* 269 .17* ( ( WBL 1 1600 505 .32* 269 .17* W8T 2 3200 419 .17 328 it ( WBT 2 3200 419 .17 325 it ( WBR 0 0 112 28 ( WBR 0 0 112 28 .82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 0 X01 APPENDIX `B" ICU Calculations for Assessment of Converting and Transferring Fashion Island Uses to Corporate Plaza 0 0 0 � oa . 47. Nerport Center S Coast FwY AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I ( j SOL 1 30 .01* AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ( ( N8L 0 0 0 0 I ( NOT 0 0 0 0 I ( NOR 0 0 0 0 I Backgramid j AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I ( j SOL 2 3200 30 .01* 214 .07' j SST 0 0 0 102 0 { { Smt f 141 1600 807 { I ( i EBL z 3'000 454 .15* 373 .IZ' j EST 3 4800 1568 .33 1481 .34 { j EBR 0 a 0 I {.18 }* laa { I I j VOL 0 0 0 I18 0 { j WBT 3 4800 1247 .26' 1918 .40' { { WER f 169 223 147 { YOU CAPACITY UTILIZATION .42 4800 .S9 48. Avocado 5 Coast HW 1479 .33 j EBR 0 Backgramid j ' . I em*vround + Prolect AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR j LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I ! i NBL 1 1600 102 .06 I22 I .08 { j HST 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* { j NBR 0 0 120 0 75 { I j SBL 0 0 46 {.03 }* 281 I {.18 }* I SOT 2 3200 56 .03 I18 .12 I { sea r a 00 0 26S I ( ESL 1 1600 223 .14* 170 I .1I* j EBT 3 4800 1088 .24 1479 .33 j EBR 0 0 55 1481 98 I 1 j wm 1 1600 71 .04 69 I .04 j MIT 3 4800 1186 .30* I266 .29* I j WSR I 0 0 Z31 192a 139 WBR ( TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 170 .67 ' . I em*vround + Prolect AN PK HOUR I PH PK HOUR { LANES CAPACITY AH PK HOUR PM PK NOUR I I LANES CAPACITT VOL VIC VOL VIC i { NBL a a 0 • 102 0. I HOT 0 0 0 120 0 { I NOR a 0 0 46 0 j l SOL 2 3200 30 .01* 211 I .07* { del 0 e a 91 0 I SOR f 1 142 231 817 j I EBL 2 3200 514 .10' 373 f .U, { EST 3 4800 1596 .33 1481 .34 { EBR 0 a 0 71 I44 { I ( WBL 0 0 _ 0 1187 0 I. { VST 3 4800 1248 .26* 192a .40+ { WBR ( f .61 170 .67. ta7 { I � J TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 _S9 B.ckgmmd a Project I j AN PK HOUR I PH PK HOUR { LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I NSL 1 1500 102 .U6 122 I' U8 I { NBT 1 1600 102 .14* 63 .09* ( NOR a 0 120 75 (• I ( SOL 0 0 46 {.03 }* 286 I SOT 2 3200 56 .03 118 .13 ( seA f 91 as i EBL 1 1600 231 .14* 170 .IS* I ( EBT 3 4800 1088 .24 1482 ;L2 EBR 0 0 56 98 (. I VOL 1 1600 71 04 69 .04 WBT 3 4800 1187 .30* 1266' .29 +j WBR I 0 0 240 139 I. TOTAL CAPACITY UTIUZATION .61 .67. 163 49. MacArthur L COa^t Hwy B=kgrand ( R8L J MST ( NSR I ( SBL i SOT ( SBR 1 ( EEL J EST EER I J k8L ( YBT I �^ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 - ..75 ( Background +.Project AraradG L San Miguel AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LAWS C.APArTTY Val. V/C VOL V/C 0 0 0 LANES 0 VOL p 0 0 ( NSL 0 0 0 0 0 ( a 0 2 3200 399 .12* 1079 .34* 0 0 8 VOL 0 VOL f 2 283 399 347 1079 2 3200 462 .14' 410 .1e4 3 4800 942 .20 1596 .34 0 0 0 1 ( UL 58 s200 0' 0 0 ( .15 '( a 3 3 4800 1480 .31* 1233 .26* f 0 O14 125 387 465 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 - ..75 ( Background +.Project AraradG L San Miguel 1 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOOK J 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL Y/C ( NSL 0 0 0 .. 0. ( NET 0 0 0 0 AM PK-NOUR ( NBR 0 0 0 VOL 0 VOL 1 ( SBL 2 3200 399 .12* 1079 I .34* (' ( SET 0 0 8 BE 0 99- ( SeR f "I 283 159 347 101 1 ( UL 2 s200 '402 .14' 470 ( .15 '( ( EST 3 4800 94Z .20 1604 .3S J I ER 0 0 0 125 S8 465 I ( YBL 0 0 0 125 0 I YBT 3 4800 1490 .31* 1233 .2V J m f 1 914 62 397 124 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION _57 .75 61. AraradG L San Miguel 1 Background . J ( Background i Project .. AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ( AM PK-NOUR PM PK tMUK r: J LANES CAPACITY VOL Y/C VOL V/C ( I LANES CAPACITY . VOL 'V /C VOL V/C ( ' I ( EEL 1 1600 BE .10 99- I .06 I I ( HBL "I lbuu 159 .10 101 1 � .06 ( MST 1 1600 123 .IV 36 ' .31* ( ( MST 1 I600 12S lr 37 .32* ( NOR 0 0 125 465 ( J NBR 0 0 125 469 ( SBL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 .06* I ( SBL 1 1600 62 .04* 124 or '( SET 1 1600 45 .04 138 .09 ( I SST 1 1600 48 .04 138 .09 ( ' ( SUR 0 0 24 10 ( ( SBR 0 0 14 10 .. I I J EEL 1 1500 7 .00 5 I .00 ( I ( EBL 1 1600 7 .00 5 .00 J ' J EDT 2 3200 156 .07* 606 .W ( ( EST 2 3200 ISB .07* 606 .25* I I EBR 0 0 59 188 ( ( . E8R 0 0 60 188 (, ( YBL 1 1600 AA3 .30* 269 .17* I J YSL 1 1600 494 .31* '259 .17* YET 2 3200 419 .17 328 .11 ( ( YBT 2 3200 419 .17 328 .11 %a 0 0 112 28 J ( YBR 0 .'0 112 ZB ;( TOTAL CAPACITY UTILI7TION .57 .81 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0 NEWPORT CENTER CORPORATE PLAZA TRANSFER PARKING ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach Prepared for The Irvine Company Prepared by Wc=crtScirL,cWl iam `Frost 6&C54ssociatcs 14725 ALTON PARKWAY CONTACT. bEM ERICKSON j P.O. BOX 57057 949- 855 -5744 JRVM CALIFORNIA 92619 -7057 August 18,1999 JN 10- 034970 )t5 r_;r TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................. ..............................I CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS ...... ................................ I EXISTING PARKING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS .............................. 3 PROPOSED BUILDING 22 PARKING REQUIREMENTS ....................... 4 BUILDINGS 4, 5, & 7 PARKING REQUIREMENTS & ANALYSIS ...... ........... 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ..............................6 0 0 �a I 0 INTRODUCTION This study analyzes existing and forecast parking conditions at Corporate Plaza in Newport Center. As shown in Exhibit 1, Corporate Plaza is that portion of Newport Center bounded by Pack Coast Highway, Newport Center Drive, Farallon Drive, and Avocado Avenue. Corporate Plaza consists of eighteen low rise office buildings. As seen in Exhibit 1, one area of Corporate Plaza remains undeveloped northerly of Buildings 3 and 4, identified as proposed Building Site 22. Parking for Corporate Plaza is provided by 1,410 surface parking spaces, plus 38 parking spaces provided under Building 7. Exhibit 2 shows the parking spaces provided in Corporate Plaza. • CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS To determine parking requirements, the City of Newport Beach utilizes ratios of parking spaces to increments of net floor area square footage as shown in Table 1. Table 1 City of Newport Beach General Office Parkin Reauirements Parking Spaces/Net Floor Area General Office Net Floor Area 1 Space / 250 sq ft First 125,000 sq ft 1 Space / 300 sq ft 125,000 sq ft to 425,000 sq ft 1 Space 1350 sq ft Over 425,000 sq ft The net floor area square footage of existing Corporate Plaza is summarized in Table 2. )b1 sr, i 16 �� 17 / 1 2 19 3 Pro 22sed PACIFIC COAST — 2 V S'- O [, o �] o--- r II ea:k?j; I c 61 A01014 j 0 11 IN= MSC.LE Corporate Plaza ROBERT BEEN\ WILLMM FROST & ASSOCL%TSS Exhibit 1 >401f i(IONAL [Nf.IM1(E45. PLA4N(45 A iY4Yf Y1I4Y (IA1499 AM9]0 AUG 20 '9J 15:42 TO- 6443250 iROFI -Riff PLANNiNU 1-$0"0 4 4-0 NOT TO WALE RouruT Ruv. %V......, EMIT & Amocum roos saa.�• ix4�•c Gec. ouvxS V2 • sY pvc�eva A1nflnN JH]aBl0 Existing Corporate Plaza Parking Exhibit 2 Table 2 Corporate Plaza Net Floor Area Square Footaee Building Net Floor Area Building 1 16,503 sq ft Building 2 19,592 sq ft Building 3 18,934 sq ft Building 4 20,682 sq ft Building 5 9,847 sq ft Building 7 22,682 sq ft Building 8 38,251 sq ft Building 9 38,251 sq ft Building 12 15,254 sq ft Building 13 14,456 sq ft Building 14 25,348 sq ft Building 15 15,049 sq ft Building 16 11,995 sq ft Building 17 21,447 sq ft Building 18 16,790 sq ft Building 19 15,698 sq ft Building 20 7,630 sq ft Building 23 80,046 sq ft TOTAL 408,365 sq ft As seen in Table 2, Corporate Plaza currently consists of 408,365 square feet of net floor area. Therefore; according to application of the City parking requirements shown in.Table 1, a total of 1,445 parking spaces are required for existing Corporate Plaza. 2 0 0 �r� Ll Currently, 1,448 parking spaces (1,410 surface parking spaces and 38 parking spaces provided under Building 7) are provided on the Corporate Plaza site. Therefore, according to City parking requirements, the overall Corporate Plaza area is currently over - parked by three parking spaces. EXISTING PARKING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS To determine if an actual parking surplus exists at Corporate Plaza, the current parking utilization of Corporate Plaza was analyzed. Existing surface parking utilization counts were taken on a typical business day, Thursday, March 4,1999 at three periods (11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., and,1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.) during the mid -day peak parking demand period. Table 3 summarizes the results of the surface parking utilization counts by parking area. Table 3 Existing Corporate Plaza Surface Parking Utilization Counts Parking Area Spaces Available Parked Vehicles 11:30 am to 12:00 pm 12J0 pm to 1:00 pm 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm A 136 101 100 115 B 103 89 84 84 C 173 97 87 93 D 165 110 82 109 E 146 99 93 . 92 F 154 115 112 135 G 143 127 83 105 H 194 99 99 102 I 196 35 28 44 TOTAL 1,410 872 768 879 Note:'fhe parking spaces shown in Table 3 do not include the subsurface parkingspaces under Building 7 (38 spaces). Table 4 shows the corresponding percent of occupied surface parking spaces for each parking lot during the three mid -day count periods. 3 Table 4 Existing Cor orate Plaza Parking Space Percent Utilization Parking Area Spaces Available Parking Space Utilization 11:30 am to 12:00 pm 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm A 136 74% 74% 85% B 103 86% 82% 82% C 173 56% 50% 54% D 165 67% 50% 66% E 146 68% 64% 63% F 154 75% 73% 88% G 143 89% 58% 73% H 194 51% 51% 53% I 196 18% 14% 22% Average Parking Space Utilization 62% 54% 62% As seen in Table 4, the actual overall parking utilization at Corporate Plaza ranges from 54 percent to 62 percent, which indicates that the overall Corporate Plaza site is over - parked even more than suggested when applying City General Office parking requirements (a gross actual parking utilization at a rate of 1 space per 460 square feet. PROPOSED BUILDING 22 PARKING REQUIREMENTS As noted earlier, one area of Corporate .Plaza remains undeveloped northerly of Buildings 3 and 4, identified as proposed Building Site 22. Current plans for Building Site 22 envision a low rise office structure consisting of 42,000 square feet of gross floor area. (projected to net at 39,907 square feet for parking purposes), including a new parking area adjacent to the proposed building on the easterly portion of the site. The new parking area will be designed to be at -grade with both the proposed building and the existing parking areas to the east (Area B) and north (Area C) of the Building Site. Addition of the proposed 39,907 net floor area square footage for Building Site 22 would increase the overall Corporate Plaza net floor area square footage from 408,365 square feet to 448,272 square feet. Applying the City parking requirements previously shown in Table 1 to the increased square footage, a total of 1,567 parking spaces would then be required to S 0 11 �2_ . support buildout of Corporate Plaza. Since 1,448 parking spaces are currently provided on the Corporate Plaza site, Building Site 22 should provide 119 parking spaces to satisfy the City parking code requirements for buildout of Corporate Plaza. As proposed, the project will provide an additional 114 parking spaces resulting in a short fall of five spaces when compared to code requirements. However, given the observed usage pattern for the overall project (54 to 64 percent utilization) combined with the readily available parking in Lot C (50 to 56 percent utilization), particularly along its southerly portion and adjacent to the building, the proposed building and 114 space parking lot can be expected to operate acceptably. Another way of considering the proposal would be to compare the observed parking ratio (based on the field observations) to the calculated parking ratio for the proposed building. Since the observed ratio for the project (1 space per 460 SF) is less restrictive than the effective parking ratio for the proposed building (one space per 350 SF), the proposal cross - checks with the observed use pattern and, therefore, should function adequately (particularly since the proposed parking ratio for Building 22 would match the 1 space per 350 SF parking code ratio established for large projects [over 425,000 SF] such as Corporate Plaza). It should be noted that while the specific building proposed for Building Site 22 is 42,000 gross square feet, the companion traffic study for this site analyzes impacts associated with 45,000 gross square feet of office. The additional increment of 3,000 gross square feet is not specifically assigned, instead anticipated to be utilized as a "pool' for any minor remodeling modifications within the entire Corporate Plaza area. Based on the previous findings, the number of additional parking spaces that would be required for this unassigned square footage under strict application of the parking code (at one space per 350 SF) would be an additional nine spaces. However, based on results of the field observations, the need to provide more parking places is not a realistic conclusion. BUILDINGS 4, 51 & 7 PARKING REQUIREMENTS & ANALYSIS Since the location of proposed Building Site 22 is adjacent to Parking Area A, and concerns have been registered regarding operations within this lot, a focused parking analysis was conducted to determine if Parking Area A adequately. parks Buildings 4, 5, and 7. 5 113 Table 5 summarizes the net floor area square footage for Buildings 4, 5, and 7. 0 Table 5 Buildings 4, 5, & 7 Net Floor Area Square Footage Building Net Floor Area Building 4 20,682 sq ft Building 5 9,847 sq ft Building 7 22,682 sq ft TOTAL 53, 211 sq ft As shown in Table 5, the net floor area square footage for Buildings 4, 5, and 7 is 53,211 square feet. It should be noted that the occupancy of Buildings 4, 5, and 7 was verified for this focused analysis, and it was found that all three buildings are currently 100 percent occupied. While, for purposes of the overall analysis, a "pool" approach to the parking requirements was utilized (and found more than acceptable based on results of the field surveys), to be conservative, this area is assessed as a stand -alone project for purposes of the following assessment of code requirements for parking. Therefore, utilizing the City of Newport Beach General Office parking requirements shown in Table 1, Parking Area A should provide 213 parking spaces. However, since 38 parking spaces are provided under Building 7, Parking Area A is only required to provide 175 parking spaces under the assumption of the Code's "stand alone" parking requirements. As previously noted in Table 4, Parking Area A provides 136 spaces. Hence, according to City of Newport Beach General Office parking requirements for a stand alone case, Parking Area A is under - parked by 39 parking spaces. However, as shown Table 4, Parking Area A is not 100 percent utilized, as would be expected if Parking Area A was actually under - parked,. particularly since Buildings 4, 5, and 7 were 100 percent occupied at the time of the surveys. As indicated in Table 4, the greatest utilization of Parking Area A occurs from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at 85 percent. Therefore, Parking Area A provides adequate parking for Buildings 4, 5, and 7, since a 10 to 12 percent parking area vacancy rate adequately accounts for vehicular /parking space turnover. Two operational issues noted during the field review were: 1) the door to the on -site parking for Building 7 was not continuously open as required by code; and, 2) there appeared to be 0 0 (,4 more parking spaces designated for short-term use (across the parking aisle fronting the bank) than required to serve the actual demand. These observations are important in that there were occasions where the non - regulated parking spaces were fully utilized; therefore, it would appear that the operation of Parking Area "A" could be improved by reducing the number of parking spaces designated for short-term use. It is also important to recognize that additional parking spaces could be provided with a restriping of the north easterly area of the lot to reduce the circulation area (the area of enhanced pavement treatment) and lengthen the northernmost double row of parking. Finally, it is also important to recognize that the proposed layout for Building Site 22 provides an enhanced means of walking (via the new lot access) from the upper parking lot (Lot B and the proposed project area) to Lot A, which improves the opportunity for handling any overflow demand that may occur in parking in Lot A. CONCLUSION Utilizing City of Newport Beach General Office parking requirements, the overall Corporate Plaza site would be considered adequately parked prior to the addition of Building 22, while the Building Site itself and Parking Area A would be considered under - parked. Focusing on the addition of the proposed building and its associated 114 parking spaces, based on code requirements, addition of the building would result in a five space deficiency while approval of the 3,000 SF of unassigned square feet would increase the deficiency to 14 spaces. However, based on actual parking utilization counts taken at Corporate Plaza during the mid -day peak parking demand period, Corporate Plaza as a whole, the Building Site and Parking Area Awill be adequately parked with implementation of the proposed project. H1GRPIVPDATAIOFFICMWP WIMWPDOMRJ W 4970prkstdydit.wpd 7 115 I. (' ADDENDUM TO CORPORATE PLAZA PARKING ANALYSIS (July 7, 1999) An additional series of field observations regarding usage of the Corporate Plaza Parking lots was performed on Wednesday, June 30, 1999. These additional observations were performed both as a second source of data to compare against the March findings and to expand the number of observation periods. Generally, the second set of observations confirmed overall finding of the initial analysis with minor variations at two of the parking lots. Overall the differential did not exceed a five percent increase. However, Lots B and F were found to have increased levels of usage during all observation periods and were essentially fully utilized. In each of these cases additional parking was available in adjacent lots so that further demand could have been addressed. The following tables present results of the supplemental observations with the number of vehicles parked in each parking lot presented in Table A -1 and the resulting percentage of occupancy for each lot presented in Table A -2. • TABLE A -1 Corporate Plaza Surface Parking Usage June 30, 1999) Parking Area Spaces Available Percent Utilized 10:30 -11 11 -11:30 1130 -12 2 - 2:30 2:30 - 3 A 136 105 116 112 118 106 B 103 100 102 103 94 91 C 173 104 116 119 97 98 D 165 92 87 97 77 83 E 146 101 104 100 97 97 F 154 154 154 148 141 152 G 143 110 111 122 101 106 H 194 108 121 121 103 107 I 196 48 41 40 65 72 TOTAL 1,410 922 952 962 893 912 11� f-rf- TABLE A -2 Existing Corporate Plaza Surface Parking Utilization (June 30, 1999) Parking Area Spaces Available Percent Utilized 1030 -11 11 -11:30 1130 -12 2 - 2:30 2:30 - 3 A 136 77% 85% 82% 87% 78% B 103 97% 99% 100% 91% 88% C 173 60% 67% 69% 56% 57% D 165 56% 53% 59% 47% 50% E 146 69 9d" 71% 68% 66% 66% F 154 100% 100% 96% 92% 99% G 143 77% 78% 85% 71% 74% H 194 56% 62% 62% 53% 55% I 196 24% 21% 20% 33% 37% TOTAL 1,410 65 % 68% 68% 63% 65% During this supplemental set of observations, the same basic use patterns were observed when . compared to the March observations: • Lot A was well utilized and, while having a slightly higher average occupancy than observed in March, the demand did not exceed the maximum desired ratio of 88 to 90 percent usage. • The designated short-term parking spaces across the aisle from the bank continued to be under utilized. • The door to the parking area under Building 7 continued to be maintained in a closed position. • Lot C consistently had a significant number of spaces empty along what will be the northern edge of proposed Building Site 22. • While slightly higher utilization was observed overall, the observed parking ratio continued to be well over the one space per 350 SF identified in the City's pool parking criteria for its highest level of development (over 425,000 SF). V4MPt•PDATAWOMCE%WPR1M UWRVWECO'"7 MT.EWV+k.�f.Rd I►1 r� C� • 0 <a 6z �U 7 r Yog � sN Fkr:M cea !xd ca. =llF6 -- Na- N �y o�<arc Zv o 0 YHO k,pp_ <a 6z �U 7 az Sg a a �w a 89 O� U 0 r N N Y 6 ^1 J U N I N l L. mr� 7 W N N J a CL CL W U Z 9 a c s aJa tai W C S Z Z% Q O v w U O i s w 0 r Fkr:M cea !xd ca. az Sg a a �w a 89 O� U 0 r N N Y 6 ^1 J U N I N l L. mr� 7 W N N J a CL CL W U Z 9 a c s aJa tai W C S Z Z% Q O v w U O i s w 0